Quote Originally Posted by Reenk Roink View Post
Before we get any further here, you need to define 'reason' and 'scientific evidence' (basically just 'evidence') very clearly. Otherwise the discussion will just meander into semantics. I personally think you're just using reason and evidence as buzzwords, as these words have positive connotations, never mind that nobody knows exactly how the hell they're being used. Given that you started this thread, and seem to have a strong opinion on the matter, the privilege should be yours, and your interlocutors can then use those definitions as a baseline to continue.
If you say: It's going to rain tomorrow
And I say: How do you know that?

Reason and evidence are what you might offer me in answer to my question. You might say "the forecaster said that it was, and he is usually right, this is good enough grounds for me to believe it will rain tomorrow because it is not very important to me either way".

If you were to make a moral statement, and I responded in that way, a response similar to the one above is better than an automatic answer of the "just because" type. That would bypass our mental faculty of reason, and ignore the factual knowledge that can be brought to bear (the importance of factual knowledge is not often clear until we have dug down into the reasons for the reasons why we think something btw).

Beyond that you'll have to start a semantics argument if you want

You also have to show how reason and evidence can be applied to values and morals so as to create and/or extract them. This is gonna be a toughy.
It is tough. But I don't think values need to be created or extracted. They can be observed, which science and reason do a decent job at. Most moral systems have a goal. A reason for existence, even if it isn't explicitly stated. When you examine it, you see a general theme of promoting things like security and well being. Sometimes our beliefs about what will lead to those things are wrong, which is why basing them on more than faith and tradition is important. You can call happiness and well being buzzwords too if you want, but that's missing the point
I don't believe people in general have this idea of holding moral positions that aren't defending. In the Backroom itself, you see examples of people making arguments and getting into discussions about certain positions (say abortion) and always defending their positions, even co-opting scientific evidence for example.
Yes, defense is vaguely used here. People often defend their positions with the intent of protecting their beliefs (for example, by co-opting scientific evidence). I was thinking of defend as "provide a foundation for" rather than "assume it is true and work from there". The backroom does pretty well in this regard actually.

"My religion teaches that this is moral" may not be an argument as stated if interpreted in a literal sense, but it is not hard to see that various implicit arguments are present in this statement. As we converse in natural language and not in a formal calculus, one must be aware of such nuances, because if not, an extra step may be needed to lay out the argument in formal terms or strawmen can be constructed.
PVC offered the full argument. But as I said to him, more than logical consistency is required. Speaking of nuances, "argument" has a few :)
Dogma is exceptionally important. How could create our systems of mathematics without sets of axioms to start with? How could we make sense of scientific data without the theories through which we interpret them and the necessary metaphysical ideas behind them. And most importantly, how could we work out systems of theology without a basic set of principles of dogma?
I am talking about what you do when you have axioms that differ. To be dogmatic in that case would be to reject the axiom that you didn't agree. I think you are going off track here Reenk.

As for subjectivity, I can already see you seem to hold some idea of objectivity. Perhaps reachable by "reason" or "evidence".

I don't feel like laying out the problems inherent in that, but I won't quote anything that actually does attempt to lay out the problems with my view because then it makes my previous assertion somewhat contradicted by my action.
I'm not suggesting that perfection is required.

I would say he can be summed up as stating: "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence"

2) One problem that arises is exactly what the hell he means as evidence, how he determines the necessary and sufficient conditions for this evidence.
It's been a while, but I remember him laying out what conditions he thinks are sufficient. But remember, perfection is not required.


Why is the fact that it may be natural tendency and a cultural one not an excuse for this purported behavior? I'm guessing that you place "reason" and "evidence" above psychological feelings and believe that the should guide our morals and values, am I correct? If so, then why do you do this? Why are these the criteria?
Not an excuse, because some people are wrong and believe in doing things that are immoral, based on false beliefs they have. Our psychological feelings should be influenced by reason and evidence.

************************

Don't strawman me

I am arguing for a superior process. I don't have an axe to grind, so remember, any minor points in favor of faith you bring up (in a reasoned or evidential manner) are supporting my argument, because then the process is working