brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2017 12:15 am
You do not love science. You love the feelings you get from things you think are "sciencey". You do not understand science, and you show complete contempt for it.Your attitude is identical to the likes of Deepak Chopra, who would also say he "loves science". He loves exploiting it and misrepresenting it to his deceptive ends; the same with you.
Well, this is an unfortunate (if not wholly unexpected) turn. Has it come to lashing out already? You're not going to like this, but thrashing against the unavoidably true, perfectly logical, paradigm-smashing argument that I have made is very common, and is rooted in fear. All antagonism is rooted in fear. How long before you simply remove me from the site to avoid having to address the immovable object that has been placed before you? You've already flirted with the idea by implying that what I'm saying "has no place here", hiding behind justifications which are not accurate, as I will address momentarily. If nothing else I've said convinces you that my position is essentially Socratic, your desire to issue me the metaphorical hemlock in order to shut me up should serve well enough.
Please believe me when I say that I'm not interested in stirring up trouble just to be a pain in the ass; and nothing could be more contrary to my nature than to undermine truth or our ability to know it. My arguments have been made logically, but I honestly believe that what I've said has only been 90% understood, and the other 10% has been filled-in by what you think "people like me" are trying to accomplish with this type of argument. What I've said must be addressed before claims of objective morality can even be considered.
And, relative to the above quote, everything that everyone does is done for one reason only -- because they "love the feelings" they get. You are a vegan because it makes you feel good to be what you perceive as "ethical", "good" and possibly "healthy." You love science because it makes you feel knowledgeable, intelligent, logical, secure, and whatever else (just guessing; don't say I'm making assertions... I admit I cannot know your specific feelings, but you can, if you're willing to look at yourself honestly). I submit to you that every human action is inspired by the desire to feel better; to move in the direction of an improved emotional state. Don't believe me? Examine your motives honestly for a single day, and you will be wholly convinced. But this is a matter for another discussion. Yes, science fills me with wonder and awe, and I like that feeling; this is why I love it. I am permitted to love things for my own reasons, am I not?
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2017 12:15 am
Your arrogance in asserting your faith that objective reality does not exist is astounding.
Hold yourself to the standards of skepticism you claim for once; admit you just don't know if reality is objective or not instead of claiming on faith that is it not.
Ok, I admit it. I don't know if reality is objective or not. I have never claimed otherwise. What I've said is that there isn't the slightest shred of evidence to even suggest that it is. Does the atheist say God
does not exist, or simply that there is no proof that it does? Prove objectivity to me now, and I will concede and be grateful. Show me any example, or logical argument that proves something exists outside of our own experience. We are powerless to do so. What could be more skeptical than what I've presented? Who here is actually making the faith claims? You have made the extraordinary claim of an objective reality, and have nowhere demonstrated why it should be accepted beyond raw, unabashed assumption.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2017 12:15 am
The Socratic method is innately logical, and asks questions to break down arguments. You make assertions and faith based claims about reality not existing; you're doing quite the opposite of engaging in Socratic discourse.
My first post to you did just this! Faith-based claims? Where? Quote me. When did I claim that reality does not exist? I have been very clear about not asserting what "exists" and what does not. I have only stated what we know with certainty, and what we do not. I don't want to be accusatory, but it is what it is -- your replies smack of agenda, as they do not directly correspond with what I've said. You are trying to turn me into your preferred target in an effort to dismiss what I've said with your preferred reply, but it is misplaced.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2017 12:15 am
You claim they're fabricated, but you won't actually address the arguments. You dance around complaining about logic and science instead, saying they're all subjective.
What argument have I not addressed? You have asserted that morality is proved objective via logic, but have not demonstrated the logic. Yes, I have said that logic and science are ultimately subjective, and have given concise arguments to support the claim, which have yet to be refuted. Your essential position is merely an assumption -- that reality "must be" objective. This is the extraordinary claim. You are charged with demonstrating how it is so. My only claim is that it has not been proven, not that reality definitively
is not objective.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2017 12:15 am
Science exists not to give us certainty, but to give us some glimpse at what's around us from a view as unbiased as possible. It exists to give us a sense of probability and provisional knowledge.
A level of certainty comparable to that science demonstrates is reasonable; only a level of certainty less than or greater than is what's based on faith. It's the
difference in certainty actually held compared to the degree that is reasonable that amounts to faith.
Yikes. When you start talking about what's "reasonable", the conversation has gone off the rails. What happened to all this logic I've been hearing so much about? Define "reasonable" objectively. Clearly, this is a subjective term, though I do not disagree. It is reasonable to hold scientific findings within your personal belief system, but this has nothing to do with objectivity. To claim objectivity, there must be certainty; and as you've stated, science does not grant certainty. Thus, it is faith-based; though surely requiring a lesser degree of faith than believing the story of Noah's ark, for whatever that's worth.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2017 12:15 am
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 11:22 pm
and leads us to a more peaceful and respectful relationship with those who have differing views.
Another arrogantly certain claim about objective reality from somebody who rejects objective reality.
Really? Evidence? Proof?
A relationship goes both ways; if you only believe in your own experiences, then this is nothing more than your subjective delusion.
I'm amazed that you seriously just appealed to some quasi-ethical claim about our influence on others' experiences to justify your anti-ethical anti-real dogma.
So you deny that humility leads us toward relating more peaceably with others in these discussions? My position is one of humility -- I acknowledge what I don't know. Yours is one of arrogance -- that you are supported by objective reality. Who has been more aggressive, more derogatory, more "on the attack"? All I'm saying here is that when we recognize the subjective nature of our beliefs, we are less likely to feel superior and justified in tearing down another person for their equally-subjective beliefs. I apologize for stating this in the absolute; I merely meant to state my intentions, my hopes, and to submit them for consideration.
All you have to do is prove objective reality logically, and we can move on to the objectively-derived ethics that you've suggested. Despite what you seem to think, I have no desire to linger on abstractions any longer than necessary.
Enjoy your weekend!