The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The emptiness of the idea of values > Comments

The emptiness of the idea of values : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 24/4/2017

I always get nervous when people talk of Christian values because, being a Christian for many years I do not know what they are.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All
grateful,

You have just committed all three fallacies all over again. What did you not understand about them before?

<<… my understanding is that the notion of multiverse is being proposed by scientists in response to the (effective) zero odds of this universe arising randomly …not because they have any evidence.>>

No, you’re wrong on both counts. This is the type of nonsense passed around in church pamphlets. Apparently Mosque pamphlets, too.

Firstly, there is evidence for a multiverse (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2454.pdf%3Forigin%3Dpublication_detail), but I’m happy to say that there isn’t, because it doesn’t matter.

Secondly, we don’t know what the chances of the universe arising “randomly” were, because we only have a sample size of 1. This is the Fine-Tuning argument again. We went through this at length in our last discussion. It is not scientific. It is nonsense passed around in theological circles.

Finally, and most importantly, it wouldn’t matter even if you were right because a lack of knowledge with regards to the origins of our universe is not evidence for a god, and it is a false dichotomy and an argument from ignorance to suggest that is.

So, yes, you have fallaciously shifted the burden of proof, science did not do it legitimately.

<<If I walk into a room and find a coin standing on its edge surely it is far more rational to assume the coin has been placed on its edge deliberately than to assume, without any evidence, that its position is the result of a random experiment repeated a large number of times.>>

The is a type of Argument from Design fallacy (a form of the False Analogy fallacy). There are multiple problems with your analogy.

Firstly, you can conclude with a high degree of certainty that a person put the coin on its side because we can know that the chances of a coin landing that way are small. We can even test this. We can’t know what the chances were of the universe coming into existence because, again, we have a sample size of 1. Secondly, ‘small chance’ doesn’t mean ‘no chance’.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 1 May 2017 9:25:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

<<In regard to the Euthyphro dilemma … your point can be addressed in the following way.>>

For over 2000 years, the greatest theological and philosophical minds have failed to resolve the Euthyphro dilemma. I hardly think you’re going to do it now. But let’s see what you’ve got…

<<Assume there is a god and the Quran is the word of god. According to the Qur’an, … Therefore, god will not change the rules if the Qur’an is indeed the word of god.>>

You are side-stepping the issue in the same way that all Euthypho-dilemma newbies do.

Whether your god would change the rules or not is irrelevant. The fact that he could change the rules is all that is needed for the Euthyphro dilemma to be a problem, because it means that your god’s rules are arbitrary. Indeed, even more arbitrary than what many theists would claim morality is without a god.

Furthermore, having clearly chosen 2, your god could say that rape is fine tomorrow, and that would mean you would have to agree that it was (it doesn’t matter that he never would, I am simply following the logic behind blindly following the arbitrary rules of a god). That’s not moral, nor is that how morality works.

<<The burden of proof then falls back on the Qur'an being the word of god (which I'm happy to discuss with someone with an open mind).>>

Correct, and we went through this the last time. It didn’t go so well for you. I have an open mind, but I’m not gullible. There is a difference.

<<Your argument is with a straw man of your own creation, not with me.>>

No, it wasn’t a straw man. A straw man is an irrelevant argument used in place of legitimate argument to avoid addressing the issue hand. I had already addressed the issue at hand and was in the process pre-empting where I knew you were going.

I’ve been through it all many times before.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 1 May 2017 9:25:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

Thank you for your consideration of me.

First, I would like to re-acknowledge my agreement that everyone has values. I do however reject the idea of "national values" - that's cheap propaganda. Also, you omitted that one's values can change over their lifetime.

«it would be 'natural' [sorry, Yuyutsu] for the best minds in those societies to leap to the conclusion that the entire world is magic, under the control of some Great Wizard»

Nothing to be sorry for - this would indeed be natural. This is how minds in general work, they are curious, they want explanations and eventually they find some. Whether one's explanations are correct/accurate or otherwise is not really important: what's important is the values which drove them towards their findings.

With a broad brush, it boils down to some personal proportion, to what extent does one value nature and to what extent one's values are beyond.

If one is only looking to satisfy their minds with a plausible explanation to natural phenomena, then it's really no big deal whether they come up with gods/wizards or with science. They might as well come up with the latter because those who come up with gods and wizards are not one iota more religious than those who come with scientific explanations. Calling such people "religious" is just a bad habit. Those using 'God' to explain natural phenomena are like toddlers mistaking a crown for a potty.

«They guide all our lives, from those of the most contemptible drug-dealer to those of Mother Teresa.»

It is difficult to discern someone else's inner heart, but on the balance of probabilities, the drug-dealer is more likely to value nature much more that what is beyond while Mother Teresa is more likely to value the beyond more than nature.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 1 May 2017 10:36:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is one point of clarification I need to make, with regards to the Euthyphro dilemma, to avoid being accused of moving the goalposts later. I said:

“The fact that he could change the rules is all that is needed for the Euthyphro dilemma to be a problem, because it means that your god’s rules are arbitrary.”

In fact, not even that is needed. The idea of a god changing their rules is simply one way of demonstrating the arbitrary nature of the rules.

One could claim that their god somehow cannot change the rules they originally made, but, without some extrinsic reasoning as to why they were made in the first place, they would still be arbitrary. The only way around this is to switch to option 1 and claim that there is indeed some extrinsic reasoning as to why the rules were made to be what they are, which then renders the god a useless middleman.

So there you have it, grateful. Another reason as to why your argument, that your god would never change the rules, is irrelevant.

The dilemma is unresolvable and a problem for any theist who wants to claim that their god is required for objective morality. The only way to avoid the dilemma is to not claim that a god is necessary.

--

Yuyutsu,

You are not the arbiter of who is religious and who is not. You have no right to dictate to anyone what constitutes religiosity. While you certainly have the right to an opinion on the matter, it is dishonest of you to present that opinion as fact without providing evidence for that opinion.

We've been through all this before. Remember?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579&page=0
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 1 May 2017 11:31:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu,

To the extent that every country has borders and a roughly similar history within those borders (give or take), and that distinctive cultures arise in different countries upon which different value systems are built, then yes, like it or not, I would suggest that there are indeed, very broadly speaking, national values'.

And of course, one's values change over time, often very quickly: compare the attitudes of the American people towards with Japan and Germany in the weeks before and after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I suppose I'm using the word 'values' in a broader sense than just in reference to nature: most importantly, it seems to me, values refer to how people interact with each other, how they 'value' each other, how they would treat each other.

So concepts such as fairness, mateship, observance of the law, reasonable freedoms, deference to the power of the state - although these are obviously not unique to Australia - may be distinctively recognisable to most Australians as 'Australian values'. Whether or not, as Peter Sellick asserts, drinking beer is an important value, is a bit of a straw man.

As well, each of us has distinct, experience and experience-derived values, particular relationships with others, goals and preferences which someone else may describe as our particular values. Good or bad, like it or not, we all have them.

So I suspect Peter's article is a bit of a beat-up, to somehow 'show' how superior his own values are to other peoples', as a really-truly caring person, and how Australian values should be down-played out of respect and compassion for migrants. But he does trivialise his own topic: no government would force anybody to like football or beer or even the beach: A.J. would suggest that this is an Argumentum Ad Absurdum. Good try, Peter :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 1 May 2017 11:52:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

There is a difference between values and attitudes: although both can change, values are somewhat deeper and more persistent. Attitudes are derived from values plus circumstances. Attitudes can change due to circumstances while values change due to profound inner convictions.

A continent like Australia has drug-dealers and Mother-Teresa's and so many in between, how could they all possibly share the same values?

Is the behaviour of drug-dealers fair? OTOH, I find fairness to be highly valued all over the world (with individual exceptions and whether people succeed in following this value of theirs can again be a different story).
Are drug-dealers your mates or only mates of their own ilk?
Do they value observing the law, or they only observe it when they think that they might be caught by police? Myself, I do not value man-made laws at all.
"reasonable freedoms" can mean anything for different people, but as an exercise, look at this forum and see which freedoms are considered "reasonable" and by whom.
Deference to the power of the state is probably because police here is very effective and not corrupt as in other countries: that's due to necessity rather than to values.

Drinking beer is more of a stereotype, I actually think that it is more common in Germany. Again, that is more likely to be an addiction rather than a value, just because beer happened to be historically more available here than other spirits.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 1 May 2017 1:24:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy