Morality belongs to Science and Reason, not Religion or Individual Opinion

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I nice TED talk here, which you don't need to watch unless you're interested.

The main point is this: we have the idea in our society that values and morals belong to the "religious sphere/personal sphere" and are matters of opinion. But they should be just as subject to reason and scientific evidence as the laws of physics.

We need to get away from the idea that "I think this is wrong/I think this is right" is a position that does not have to be defended. "My religion teaches that this is moral" is not an argument. We have to understand that our ideas about right and wrong, even if strongly held, can be incorrect, and can possible be shown to be incorrect.

If we don't acknowledge this, then the atmosphere is one where morality is dogmatic and subjective. I don't feel like laying out the problems inherent in that, but I'll quote an excerpt on credulity:

If a belief is not realized immediately in open deeds, it is stored up for the guidance of the future. It goes to make a part of that aggregate of beliefs which is the link between sensation and action at every moment of all our lives, and which is so organized and compacted together that no part of it can be isolated from the rest, but every new addition modifies the structure of the whole. No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may some day explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character for ever.

...

It is not only the leader of men, statesmen, philosopher, or poet, that owes this bounden duty to mankind. Every rustic who delivers in the village alehouse his slow, infrequent sentences, may help to kill or keep alive the fatal superstitions which clog his race. Every hard-worked wife of an artisan may transmit to her children beliefs which shall knit society together, or rend it in pieces. No simplicity of mind, no obscurity of station, can escape the universal duty of questioning all that we believe.

...

And, as in other such cases, it is not the risk only which has to be considered; for a bad action is always bad at the time when it is done, no matter what happens afterwards. Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence. We all suffer severely enough from the maintenance and support of false beliefs and the fatally wrong actions which they lead to, and the evil born when one such belief is entertained is great and wide. But a greater and wider evil arises when the credulous character is maintained and supported, when a habit of believing for unworthy reasons is fostered and made permanent. If I steal money from any person, there may be no harm done by the mere transfer of possession; he may not feel the loss, or it may prevent him from using the money badly. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself dishonest. What hurts society is not that it should lose its property, but that it should become a den of thieves; for then it must cease to be society. This is why we ought not to do evil that good may come; for at any rate this great evil has come, that we have done evil and are made wicked thereby. In like manner, if I let myself believe anything on insufficient evidence, there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself credulous. The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery.

The harm which is done by credulity in a man is not confined to the fostering of a credulous character in others, and consequent support of false beliefs. Habitual want of care about what I believe leads to habitual want of care in others about the truth of what is told to me. Men speak the truth to one another when each reveres the truth in his own mind and in the other’s mind; but how shall my friend revere the truth in my mind when I myself am careless about it, when I believe things because I want to believe them, and because they are comforting and pleasant? Will he not learn to cry, “Peace,” to me, when there is no peace? By such a course I shall surround myself with a thick atmosphere of falsehood and fraud, and in that I must live. It may matter little to me, in my cloud-castle of sweet illusions and darling lies; but it matters much to Man that I have made my neighbours ready to deceive. The credulous man is father to the liar and the cheat; he lives in the bosom of this his family, and it is no marvel if he should become even as they are. So closely are our duties knit together, that whoso shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

from The Ethics of Belief

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

From the dogmatic religious zealot to the outraged cultural relativist, this attitude infects much of our politics and has even seeped into the backroom at times :p

It's probably a natural human tendency and certainly a cultural one. No excuse.

We like to take politics and such casually, because the politicians are the ones that decide things and our votes barely count. But places like this are where beliefs are formed and changed. Laws don't usually change until enough of the people's beliefs have changed.

Surely we should promote rigor and debate over opinion stating, here in the backroom and in society at large? This is not to degrade opinion stating or to require advanced knowledge. It is simply a matter of approaching the subject matter with the assumption that some answers are better than others, and that the proposed answers are to be argued for and against, not simply accepted or rejected.

[CountArach]

Morality is simply one or more groups' discourses put into an ethical sphere and labelled as such. The idea that there is one universal morality is deeply flawed (unless of course we add religion into the equation, but seeing as you have discounted that from the outset we do not need to cover it) because morality has changed so much as each society and social group's discourse has been changed. As the discourse changes so too does the morality, which in turn will affect all subsequent discourse and so on. I think you would be hard-pressed to find too many academics who disagree with this general statement, though they would probably frame it differently or along their own discursive lines (or that has been my experience at least).

Now, the entire field of science is based in Modernity, which is itself simply a broader social discourse that is commonly agreed on by most (if not all) of the major powerful discourses that most people ascribe to. As such looking to apply anything even resembling the scientific method to morality will only find what is considered the most moral thing from the point of view of a Modern society. As society continues to develop away from the search for an 'objective' truth (as it already is) and moves towards a Postmodern society or something resembling it, the morality that is discovered by this scientific method would be proven to be more and more vaunted as other, minor, discourses are examined and given voice and the major discourses change in relation to these and each other. Thus discourses would change and, again, so too would morality. This would only pick up pace as discourse pluralises, as it has for much of the last two centuries. So, ultimately, the search for an objective morality would suffer from general human advancement and would find itself quickly outdated and vaunted, a relic of a Modern age.

2 cents.

[Husar]

Good point, CA.

I also don't think that there is some ultimate morality that can be scientifically proven to be right, most likely they would look at what is useful for society or so, as is already the case with many laws.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Science has nothing to do with morality, only the understanding of natural phenomena.

Morality being subject to reason is different.

I'm going to sleep now, though I will return!

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Science and reason have little to do with morality. Without religion and individual philosophy there is no such thing as transcedental morality. "My religion teaches me that this is wrong/right" IS an arguement, just not a scientific arguement. What is wrong with you people? The best people I've ever met are bright, logical and religious. Most of the people I've known who lack the last part I have very little respect for in the long term. This is my personal, life verified position, so suck on it.

[Beskar]

I thnk the speaker is talking more about Secular Humanism is the way forward.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Science and reason have little to do with morality. Without religion and individual philosophy there is no such thing as transcedental morality. "My religion teaches me that this is wrong/right" IS an arguement, just not a scientific arguement. What is wrong with you people?

It isn't a matter of opinion. Morality starts with a few metaphysical claims about the nature of morality, which need to be defended by reason. For example the claim "It's moral because in the bible" would not be a very defensible claim.

Science has nothing to do with morality, only the understanding of natural phenomena.

But science has very much to do with our understanding of how people function. Most moral systems have something to do with the idea of 'wellbeing' or happiness. So what makes a good life? You don't think science has anything to say about what does or does not lead to happiness?

Good point, CA.

I also don't think that there is some ultimate morality that can be scientifically proven to be right, most likely they would look at what is useful for society or so, as is already the case with many laws.

The analogy used in the video is of the rule for chess: "don't let them take your queen". Objectively this is a good rule, even though there are situations where you want your queen to be taken. We don't need "always true" rules.

Morality is simply one or more groups' discourses put into an ethical sphere and labelled as such. The idea that there is one universal morality is deeply flawed (unless of course we add religion into the equation, but seeing as you have discounted that from the outset we do not need to cover it) because morality has changed so much as each society and social group's discourse has been changed. As the discourse changes so too does the morality, which in turn will affect all subsequent discourse and so on. I think you would be hard-pressed to find too many academics who disagree with this general statement, though they would probably frame it differently or along their own discursive lines (or that has been my experience at least).

We don't need one universal morality. We need to be able to say that some moral systems are better than others. Societies can reach a high level individually and in different ways (because culture has a large effect on personality), but they can fail in many more ways.

So, ultimately, the search for an objective morality would suffer from general human advancement and would find itself quickly outdated and vaunted, a relic of a Modern age.

2 cents.

The best moral system for our time might not be the best for a future time. That is not to say that there isn't a best for our time worth striving for. For example, you (CA) might argue that it is wrong for a certain amount of society to be in desperate poverty while a small fraction of a percent are hugely rich. This view may be outdated in a future society that doesn't have poverty problems.

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

What I'm saying applies to many areas, but particularly morality, because that's where people are most likely to say "this is my opinion, not up for argument". It absolutely is up for argument. And to argue you need reasoning and facts (which we get from science).

[The Wizard]

Morality is simply one or more groups' discourses put into an ethical sphere and labelled as such. The idea that there is one universal morality is deeply flawed (unless of course we add religion into the equation, but seeing as you have discounted that from the outset we do not need to cover it) because morality has changed so much as each society and social group's discourse has been changed. As the discourse changes so too does the morality, which in turn will affect all subsequent discourse and so on. I think you would be hard-pressed to find too many academics who disagree with this general statement, though they would probably frame it differently or along their own discursive lines (or that has been my experience at least).

Now, the entire field of science is based in Modernity, which is itself simply a broader social discourse that is commonly agreed on by most (if not all) of the major powerful discourses that most people ascribe to. As such looking to apply anything even resembling the scientific method to morality will only find what is considered the most moral thing from the point of view of a Modern society. As society continues to develop away from the search for an 'objective' truth (as it already is) and moves towards a Postmodern society or something resembling it, the morality that is discovered by this scientific method would be proven to be more and more vaunted as other, minor, discourses are examined and given voice and the major discourses change in relation to these and each other. Thus discourses would change and, again, so too would morality. This would only pick up pace as discourse pluralises, as it has for much of the last two centuries. So, ultimately, the search for an objective morality would suffer from general human advancement and would find itself quickly outdated and vaunted, a relic of a Modern age.

2 cents.

Sounds like a pretty radical form of postmodernism you're adhering to, here. That kind of postmodernism has its limits. Not everything is merely competing discourses, some discourses are worth less than others. Compare "Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon" to "Martians control the White House". Derrida went a little too far to be taken entirely seriously if you ask me.

As for the OP, I don't think it's quite that bad. Surely the Church no longer has a monopoly on morality? Everything it says can, will, and is challenged. Every single day. As we speak, because that's what we're doing in this very thread. Though this is obviously still not the case in many non-Western societies.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

As for the OP, I don't think it's quite that bad. Surely the Church (let alone the mosque) no longer has a monopoly on morality? Everything it says can, will, and is challenged. Every single day. As we speak, because that's what we're doing in this very thread.

It's true that the church doesn't have a monopoly on morality for everyone. But many of the people dispute that in one instance, support something similar another instance. So you get people criticizing the Christian church but still not allowing argument about their personal beliefs.

Religion is the main offender to the extent that it systematically promotes dogmatism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Tuff seems to have tripped over himself, so let me try.

The statement:

"My God is Good, is ruler of the Universe, and has commanded this of Me, so it is Right"

Is a perfectly logical and unanswerable statement.

As far as Dogmatism goes, the worst offenders in Western society currently are probably militant atheists; not theists. whether militant atheists count as "religious" or not is a different debate.

However, while I agree that Reason is a central faculty in the application of morality it cannot create the metaphysical concepts which morality ultimately rests on.

Science, on the other hand, is merely a glorified means of measurement; it is inherrently blind and has no place trying to impinge upon moral philosophy.

[The Stranger]

objectivism vs subjectivism... it preceded science and it will outlive scientific system.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"My God is Good, is ruler of the Universe, and has commanded this of Me, so it is Right"

Is a perfectly logical and unanswerable statement.

Being logically consistent is not impressive. Why do you think we cannot reply to logically consistent claims? In other words, just because a statement can't be attacked internally is no reason to say it can't be attacked externally.

As far as Dogmatism goes, the worst offenders in Western society currently are probably militant atheists; not theists. whether militant atheists count as "religious" or not is a different debate.

Arguable, but not particularly relevent. My argument was against Dogmatists, the existence of dogmatic atheists is not an excuse of any kind for religious dogmatists. It's not particularly important which group is the "worst" since answering that would involve complicated statistics and because it's worse to be dogmatic about some things than others. So why did you say that?

However, while I agree that Reason is a central faculty in the application of morality it cannot create the metaphysical concepts which morality ultimately rests on.

I don't think the metaphysical concepts need to be created. Morality viewed as a whole is driving towards a general direction. That part is already in place, it comes from our nature.

Science, on the other hand, is merely a glorified means of measurement; it is inherrently blind and has no place trying to impinge upon moral philosophy.

There are metaphysical moral concepts that measurement is not useful for, but all moral systems get down to the nitty gritty eventually. Part of morality is concerned with human wellbeing, yes? That is a case where science can shine a light.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is a good idea for a thread.

I agree, we religious folk should try to put forward more reasoned and logical arguments in order to support our position when it comes to morality. Especially when it comes to the more controversial ones.

For example, few atheists would argue when a Christian says you should not steal, or murder, or whatever. The logic behind such morals are based on the idea of consent, and are necessary to live in any decent society.

But for the more controversial ones that can't be explained through consent, we need to offer other explanations. Such is the case with the condemnation of things like homosexuality, or women having short hair, or sex before marriage etc. In these cases its tougher. I guess you could appeal to some sense of natural law. In the first two examples above, you might say people are going against their responsibilities that come with their position on life, and that such behaviours prevent them from fulfilling their duty or role in society. In the case of sex before marriage, maybe you could say that it demeans something that would otherwise have a more important role in relationships.

[Reenk Roink]

Not gonna bother with Sam Harris's talk unless a member here really makes the case that it is important to the discussion (reason being because I skimmed through "The End of Faith" a while back when all the hardcore athiests seemed to be making their cases, and his book was by far the crappiest - Dawkins himself had plenty of poor arguments and flippant rejections of arguments he liked, but there was something about his rhetoric that made his case much better - a kind of self assurance and even cockiness that wasn't angry or hysterical - that's why the man is getting paid and laid despite being an old and dorky British naturalist)

The main point is this: we have the idea in our society that values and morals belong to the "religious sphere/personal sphere" and are matters of opinion. But they should be just as subject to reason and scientific evidence as the laws of physics.

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.

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.

We need to get away from the idea that "I think this is wrong/I think this is right" is a position that does not have to be defended. "My religion teaches that this is moral" is not an argument. We have to understand that our ideas about right and wrong, even if strongly held, can be incorrect, and can possible be shown to be incorrect.

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.

"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.

If we don't acknowledge this, then the atmosphere is one where morality is dogmatic and subjective. I don't feel like laying out the problems inherent in that, but I'll quote an excerpt on credulity:

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?

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.

As for your Clifford quote, I note with great regret that you have quoted him twice in a recent timespan now. The problem with Clifford's argument are threefold:

1) He's just wrong.

Going his argument itself instead of the the substance of it:

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. Billy just used vague but feel good terms along with a type of writing that is just douchebagtistic to make his point. It may be all head nod and feel good for those who want to live the "rational lifestyle" but he really hasn't made clear what the hell he means and how he knows.

3) What is the evidence for the belief: "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence"? Bet the big red dog didn't think of that one.

It's probably a natural human tendency and certainly a cultural one. No excuse.

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?

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

It isn't a matter of opinion. Morality starts with a few metaphysical claims about the nature of morality, which need to be defended by reason. For example the claim "It's moral because in the bible" would not be a very defensible claim.

How is it not a matter of opinion first of all? I agree that there are some metaphysical claims about the nature of morality, now then, WHY do these claims need to be "defended by reason" and HOW is "reason" going to "defend" them and WHAT the **** is "reason"?

Now you give a claim that you say is not defensible. I assume you believe that "reason" has not been able to "defend" it. Please show.

But science has very much to do with our understanding of how people function. Most moral systems have something to do with the idea of 'wellbeing' or happiness. So what makes a good life? You don't think science has anything to say about what does or does not lead to happiness?

This is opening another can of worms. I will say that for "science" to "say" stuff about "what makes a good life" requires a certain interpretation of the scientific results which in themselves are not governed by science but rather a set of more primitive beliefs. You could very easily be a scientist and believe the stuff you do has no bearing on the real world because you adopt a particularly skeptical anti-realist view.

I agree, we religious folk should try to put forward more reasoned and logical arguments in order to support our position when it comes to morality. Especially when it comes to the more controversial ones.

Depends on what the position is and what the purpose is. For the purposes of prostelyzation, it seems that nowadays, appeals with logical arguments and scientific results are very convincing to a subset of people, yes.

Now then Sasaki, I'd like to see your argument in action if you get what I mean. Use your basic principle of morality dealing with leading towards happiness (if this is what it is) and then make a case based on "reason" and "scientific evidence" to purport a moral position.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How is it not a matter of opinion first of all? I agree that there are some metaphysical claims about the nature of morality, now then, WHY do these claims need to be "defended by reason" and HOW is "reason" going to "defend" them and WHAT the **** is "reason"?

Here's a metaphysical claim: morality doesn't exist
Another claim: morality exists

They contradict each other, so how can it be a matter of opinion?

Don't you think there are moral claims that a wrong, and are based off of faulty reasoning?

Now you give a claim that you say is not defensible. I assume you believe that "reason" has not been able to "defend" it. Please show.

I talked about what I meant by defensible in my last post. But I think this is a sidetrack Reenk. We can argue about whether taking moral principles from a book without questioning them is a good thing some other time

This is opening another can of worms. I will say that for "science" to "say" stuff about "what makes a good life" requires a certain interpretation of the scientific results which in themselves are not governed by science but rather a set of more primitive beliefs. You could very easily be a scientist and believe the stuff you do has no bearing on the real world because you adopt a particularly skeptical anti-realist view.

And that is why I specifically paired science and reason. One can reasonably argue against extreme skepticism.

Now then Sasaki, I'd like to see your argument in action if you get what I mean. Use your basic principle of morality dealing with leading towards happiness (if this is what it is) and then make a case based on "reason" and "scientific evidence" to purport a moral position.

I don't quite get what you mean. You want an example where someone uses reason to purport a moral position? And for it to be compared to an example where someone is unreasonable? Why would you care about anecdotes? You could theoretically be a perfect moral being without any reasoning at all to back it up. The bible could theoretically be the ultimate source of morality. I'm talking about how we should try and determine if it is or not. You have to be willing to put yourself through the intellectual meatgrinder, no?

[Reenk Roink]

First off Sasaki, given your clarifications of what you meant in this post, your characterizations against the examples of arguments like "My religion teaches that this is moral" are just wrong, because your own definition of reason is so incredibly broad (despite getting the chance to narrow it down). You said later that "logically consistent is not impressive" but that means nothing, because according to your own idea, it is a reason to believe whatever.

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).

A truly colloquial sense of the word?

So is it fair to say you essentially want an response based on just about anything instead of a simple assertion?

To that I'd argue that both accomplish the same thing in epistemic terms, the simple assertion being more concise. That being said, I'll agree with you that in rhetorical terms giving "reasons" or "evidence" seems to be more convincing. For example, when I stated I would dismiss Harris, I had a little "reason being" thingy, because I didn't want people to just jump on me and go .

Needless to say, I absolutely disagree with your belief that: "a response similar to the one above is better than an automatic answer of the "just because" type" if better is in the context of epistemic virtue. If "better" is in the context of some pragmatic or other virtue then it depends. As I've mentioned, making your belief supported with some logical argument based on premises with scientific stuff sometimes is of rhetorical value in certain cases. Then again, by that same token, a "just because" response is much better if you are in a different context when you aren't bored and willing to argue with someone you see no point in convincing anyway.

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

Damn, I was waiting for you to bring an example of using reason and evidence so that I could bring up the problem with the vaguely defined goals of happiness and well being.

I'll argue that while part of moral systems existence may appear to be to promote some goal (leave exactly what the goal vague for your sake now), it's not their main virtue - rather it is a derived virtue from the actual main virtue. Consider religious moral systems, which seem to be the biggest target of your discussion by your own admission. It would be arguable, that the moral system based on these religions is not primarily to make life happy or easier or whatever for people, rather it is voluntarist divine fiat (Catholics are a notable exception to this theory of morality). The well being of people and the rules designed to that effect may come out of the divine will, but it's hard to say that they are the goal themselves.

What do you think? It seems you believe in a moral theory based on principles of leading to well being. There are alternatives to it, and furthermore, they look to be widely realizable and widely realized?

For a secular look: utilitarian ethics are the only ones which can be said to be based on a goal (of course the problem of defining that goal still exists). Duty free and virtue seem to be unconcerned with goals.

I think you're ignoring much when you say "Most moral systems have a goal." I guess if you were able to show that most people are utilitarian in their approach it would be one thing, but imma bet against that, also, I'm not utilitarian myself so a discussion targeted towards me should take that into account.

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.

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.

Here's the crux of the issue. I'll keep it short for now though I have a lot to say:

How would you choose (defend) on the basis of reason and science, between these axioms?

1) I believe in utilitarian ethics (goal geared)
2) I believe in deontological ethics (not goal geared)

or

1) I believe in the moral authority of so and so's sayings
2) I don't believe in the moral authority of so and so's sayings

It's been a while, but I remember him laying out what conditions he thinks are sufficient. But remember, perfection is not required.

I'm fairly sure he did too (which is why I made point 3 ). But the problem is what if someone doesn't accept those conditions?

Also, perfection in the matter is irrelevant, dunno why you're bringing it up. The idea of your beliefs having to be based on "reason and evidence" or otherwise you are unethical/wrong/worse is.

Our psychological feelings should be influenced by reason and evidence.

What is the reason and evidence for this belief? Also, I believe out psychological feelings should not 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

I'm not trying to strawman you (this isn't Mafia ). But I'll admit I had a hard time grasping what you were talking about until this reply. I don't believe your process is superior at all by the way. In the way I originally envisioned it, I thought it was inferior to the same. In the way of your process working at the level of meta beliefs or beliefs about beliefs (as you seem to be saying now) I say your process is just useless.

Lastly, just because I am indulging you by giving you arguments in a reasoned or evidential manner does not at all show the superiority of your process. I am using the process it for pragmatic reasons, epistemically, it is the same whether I do this or quote your post and say .

Say guy 1 goes to guy 2 and then gives him a logical argument that we should be skeptical of logic. Guy 1 shows that the axiom of the principle of non contradiction is not derived through a valid syntactical form (actually it can, by doing a circular P therefore P form which is a perfectly valid argument, Aristotle and his crappy game be damned, but for the purposes of discussion let's say both guys exclude that avenue).

Guy 2 is a smartass and so he, feeling very good about himself, remarks, "But in your argument you used logic yourself... lololol nub gtfo!"

Guy 1 though just says, "Still doesn't prove that we have any logical reason to believe the principle so NO U!"

Guy 2 says "stupid map u h4xor!" and rage quits.

Here's a metaphysical claim: morality doesn't exist
Another claim: morality exists

They contradict each other, so how can it be a matter of opinion?

Another one: morality exists and doesn't exist (yes I went there ).

Another: it is not possible to know whether morality exists or not.

I'm not understanding you here, why does it matter if they contradict themselves? It's still a matter of opinion.

Don't you think there are moral claims that a wrong, and are based off of faulty reasoning?

Of course I think moral claims are wrong. Faulty reasoning has nothing to do with the truth value of any claim anyway so it's irrelevant.

You have to be willing to put yourself through the intellectual meatgrinder, no?

Why? Why is this such an important virtue to you? I really don't understand the appeal of having beliefs based on reason, don't understand why people think it makes them superior in anyway.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But I'll admit I had a hard time grasping what you were talking about until this reply. I don't believe your process is superior at all by the way. In the way I originally envisioned it, I thought it was inferior to the same. In the way of your process working at the level of meta beliefs or beliefs about beliefs (as you seem to be saying now) I say your process is just useless.

It's not clear what you are really proposing. If we were discussing the morality of drunk driving, you think a conversation of just 's or 's would have as much merit as one of reasoned arguments?

You spend a lot of time pointing out the difficulty inherent in determining things with reason and science. I have suggested that these are the best tools we have, and saying that we should use them rather than not use them. What you'd propose as an alternative isn't clear...some sort of instinct? That would be disengenuous, because when you judge a claim instinctively you are relying on a vast foundation of past reasoning and science. You are using your reading comprehension and understanding of logic right now, these all effect your psychological feelings, even if you think they shouldn't. You don't have a choice.

So is it fair to say you essentially want an response based on just about anything instead of a simple assertion?

What makes you say that? This would imply that I would like gibberish rather than an assertion. I don't mind assertions per se, my complaint is about the assumption that certain types of assertions are just opinion, and don't have to be reasonable and can contradict facts.

Why do you think including reason and evidence with a statement makes it more convincing, but at the same time doesn't give it any more merit? Do we just not process the worth of the reasoning? That's very counter intuitive.

It would be arguable, that the moral system based on these religions is not primarily to make life happy or easier or whatever for people, rather it is voluntarist divine fiat (Catholics are a notable exception to this theory of morality). The well being of people and the rules designed to that effect may come out of the divine will, but it's hard to say that they are the goal themselves.

But why do people base a moral system on a divine fiat? I think this question eventually works out to "what is the best life". I am suggesting human nature as the guideline, not just the current moral systems.

As you say, this ignores much. I don't have a good feel for why people believe in systems with a different goal. Don't really comprehend it.

1) I believe in utilitarian ethics (goal geared)
2) I believe in deontological ethics (not goal geared)

Again not that familiar with the ins and outs, but...

What is the purpose of a system of ethics that doesn't have a goal? What reasons would you provide for why the rules you have are rules? I would bet they come from human nature, that seems like a solid bet? There aren't going to be any rules that nobody would ever consider breaking, most likely.

I think you can argue that if everyone wants, deep down, something like well being, then morality should be focused on that.

1) I believe in the moral authority of so and so's sayings
2) I don't believe in the moral authority of so and so's sayings

History has provided no one who is considered infallible, morality is not constant, and so...

What is the reason and evidence for this belief? Also, I believe out psychological feelings should not be influenced by reason and evidence.

So if you are worried about something, and then provided with evidence that there is nothing to worry about, this shouldn't affect your feelings?

Lastly, just because I am indulging you by giving you arguments in a reasoned or evidential manner does not at all show the superiority of your process. I am using the process it for pragmatic reasons, epistemically, it is the same whether I do this or quote your post and say

Pragmatic reasons?

You can't escape the process Reenk. You use it unconsciously.

I'm not understanding you here, why does it matter if they contradict themselves? It's still a matter of opinion.

This ignores the nuance of what "a matter of opinion" is. That implies an "agree to disagree, see ya" approach.

Of course I think moral claims are wrong. Faulty reasoning has nothing to do with the truth value of any claim anyway so it's irrelevant.

Don't you think people believe in false moral claims because of faulty reasoning?

Why? Why is this such an important virtue to you? I really don't understand the appeal of having beliefs based on reason, don't understand why people think it makes them superior in anyway.

You say you don't have beliefs based on reasoning? But if they were taught to you without reasoning, someone still reasoned them out. You have many beliefs shared by society at large don't you? Those are all based on reasoning.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I don't understand this thread or even half of all those arguments and difficult words people use.

[Myrddraal]

It seems you believe in a moral theory based on principles of leading to well being. There are alternatives to it, and furthermore, they look to be widely realizable and widely realized?

Exactly. Scientific process can be applied to morality once you decide a set of moral rules, but it cannot be used to determined what the 'right' set of moral rules are, because this is entirely subjective.

You could argue that you will determine the 'right' cause of action by examining each alternative and scientifically measuring the benefit or cost to society, but not only is the benefit to society subjective, the whole principle is subjective. Who says you should benefit society? I may be a psycopath and believe the the only 'right' is my own pleasure, and that the only 'wrongs' are things I dislike. This is a moral system of sorts, and who is to say, scientifically, that it is 'wrong'? We can all agree that this moral code is flawed, but what are we basing this opinion on but our own subjective opinions. We may even all agree, but this does not make it any more scientifically correct.

By the way I think your OP is really interesting, and right on many points, but it has it's limits and I fail to see what this has to do with morality. What the article is saying is that we should never be absolutely satisfied with any of our beliefs, that we should always be examining them to ensure that we are not decieving ourselves, and that lies breed lies, self-deception breeds deception. But at the end of the day, some things against which we must test our philosophy will be subjective. Scientific method cannot solve everything. (One could argue that scientific method solves or decides nothing, merely observes and models behaviour)




To change tack slightly: you seem to be particularly trying to get at religious dogma, and whether it is unacceptable to follow a set of moral just because somebody told you that it was right. I find it very interesting that you used predicting the weather as an example of scientific reasoning.

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".

I think the logic is more like: "the forecaster said it was, and he is qualified to make such judgements", in other words deferal to authority. It is based on a reasoned decision by yourself, but it is a deferal nonetheless. It's the same as not crossing a bridge because an Engineer has deemed it unsafe. The Engineer is qualified to make such judgements, therefore you defer to his authority.

The same logic applies to religious organisations. Most religious people have not read any significant part of their respective holy books, however they respect the authority of those in their church, who have dedicated their lives to determining the will of God. I know several clergymen who are as sharp as razor blades. How could I critise their congregation for defering to them on moral matters? After all, if they believe in a benevolant God, and these intelligent, apparently trustworthy people who have dedicated their lives to the study fo this God teach a set of morals based on their studies, why not defer to their authority?

You could argue that deferal to authority is in itself 'bad', but the world is to complex for us to understand it all in infinite detail. We all must defer to authority at some point, and we all do. Just because you don't believe in God does not make deferal to dogma any less valid than your deferal to an Engineer. After all, I could say that I don't believe in the laws of physics, but I couldn't critise you personally, as someone who does believe in the law of physics, for not investigating how those laws relate to this bridge apparently being unstable. After all, an Engineer who has studied physics has advised you that according to these false laws of physics which you believe exist, the bridge is unsafe.

[Myrddraal]

Hmm, re-reading my post above I don't think I'm being entirely clear, but hopefully you get this jist of what I'm trying to express.

EDIT:

You spend a lot of time pointing out the difficulty inherent in determining things with reason and science. I have suggested that these are the best tools we have, and saying that we should use them rather than not use them.

Just to be a little clearer, the first line of my last post is addressing this point. Logical reasoning and science can be used to explore a set of moral rules and apply them to specific cases. logical reasonging and science can also be used to try to determine what the majority 'moral code' is, but they cannot be used to determine what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.

Science observes and models.

[Reenk Roink]

The full response is spoilered below Sasaki, however that discussion is meandering.

This is probably the main point of your thread:

my complaint is about the assumption that certain types of assertions are just opinion, and don't have to be reasonable and can contradict facts.

Further supported with:

We need to get away from the idea that "I think this is wrong/I think this is right" is a position that does not have to be defended.

From the dogmatic religious zealot to the outraged cultural relativist, this attitude infects much of our politics and has even seeped into the backroom at times :p

The problem with your complaint seems to be that because of the exceedingly broad way you previously used the word 'reason', all of these so called assertions that are just opinion and don't have to be reasonable and contradict facts actually have "reasons" for them. So under that use of the word, you should have no complaint. Every individual opinion and point of religious dogma fits your definition of 'reason'.

Under that use of the word, this statement:

"My religion teaches that this is moral" is not an argument.

Is false. It is most likely an argument, as it most likely has reasons for it (implicit they may be).

However, you also seemed to have a nuanced view of reason when you wrote your thread tile of "Morality belongs to Science and Reason, not Religion or Individual Opinion" seemingly excluding religion and individual opinion from "reason". You further showed this view when you responded to someone pointing out the logical consistency of a claim by saying:

Being logically consistent is not impressive. Why do you think we cannot reply to logically consistent claims? In other words, just because a statement can't be attacked internally is no reason to say it can't be attacked externally.

So from all of this, I think it can be gathered that you do not consider logical consistency to be a sufficient criterion for "reason" when discussing morality.

Now then, which one is it? So I can see exactly in which way I disagree with you.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If we were discussing the morality of drunk driving, you think a conversation of just 's or 's would have as much merit as one of reasoned arguments?

Depends but the general answer with respect to epistemic merit is yes, of course. To simplify, assuming the basic rules of logic: (given a certain context) there's a right option a wrong option with the drunk driving scenario. Just because one makes a reasoned argument for the wrong option does not make the incorrect option. Similarly, just because one makes a reasoned argument for the right option does not give it any more merit. Just because we do more than go and in our discussions doesn't mean all the extra crap we do really matters.

You spend a lot of time pointing out the difficulty inherent in determining things with reason and science. I have suggested that these are the best tools we have, and saying that we should use them rather than not use them. What you'd propose as an alternative isn't clear...some sort of instinct? That would be disengenuous, because when you judge a claim instinctively you are relying on a vast foundation of past reasoning and science. You are using your reading comprehension and understanding of logic right now, these all effect your psychological feelings, even if you think they shouldn't. You don't have a choice.

They aren't, mysticism is the best tool for knowledge (there's a difference between say gut feeling and mysticism - your gut is just basically your ideas coming from that vast foundations, blah blah, blah, but mystical intuition is a totally different game, not relying on any of that junk).

As I've mentioned before, does the fact that I don't have a choice validate the tools whatsoever? Just because I'm forced to use them, I want to tell myself they're good? The guy 1/guy 2 example comes up.

Why do you think including reason and evidence with a statement makes it more convincing, but at the same time doesn't give it any more merit? Do we just not process the worth of the reasoning? That's very counter intuitive.

It sometimes makes it more convincing, because many people seem to put a great weight, and so if your bring up reasons to boost your rhetoric, you may convince someone, or manipulate someone, which can be very handy.

Sometimes it doesn't. All depending on the rhetorical context.

But why do people base a moral system on a divine fiat? I think this question eventually works out to "what is the best life". I am suggesting human nature as the guideline, not just the current moral systems.

Well, I don't know. They seem to believe in god and it goes from their in whatever way.

What is the purpose of a system of ethics that doesn't have a goal? What reasons would you provide for why the rules you have are rules? I would bet they come from human nature, that seems like a solid bet? There aren't going to be any rules that nobody would ever consider breaking, most likely.

I think you can argue that if everyone wants, deep down, something like well being, then morality should be focused on that.

Sure, but I think a goals orientated ethics doesn't work.

History has provided no one who is considered infallible, morality is not constant, and so...

There are many people in history considered infallible... The second part of your statement is just a contradicting assertion. Finally! Well done!

So if you are worried about something, and then provided with evidence that there is nothing to worry about, this shouldn't affect your feelings?

"Also, I believe out psychological feelings should not be influenced by reason and evidence."

Pragmatic reasons?

You can't escape the process Reenk. You use it unconsciously.

First, see point about how you've been sloppy in using the world 'reason'. Second, as I've mentioned before, though I may not be able to escape the "process", my using it gives it no merit whatsoever. See guy 1 and guy 2 on logic.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Exactly. Scientific process can be applied to morality once you decide a set of moral rules, but it cannot be used to determined what the 'right' set of moral rules are, because this is entirely subjective.

Well, the strength of that position is that it avoids having to determine some kind of moral system that would have to be defended. The weakness is that it makes it harder to call terrorism wrong--since it's subjective. Except it doesn't leave you unable, because people only believe morality is subjective on an intellectual level.

I think you can argue for objective morality if you assume that morality is goal focused. Let's compare it to medicine. If we start with the assumption that the purpose of medicine is to keep people healthy, then we can objectively compare medical practices. If we don't start with that assumption, then we can't, right? But why on earth would we think that medicine isn't about health?

So if we assume that morality is focused on keeping society "healthy" (<--vague, mind you) then we can objectively compare systems of morality. Although there can be more than one way to keep society "healthy".

You could argue that you will determine the 'right' cause of action by examining each alternative and scientifically measuring the benefit or cost to society, but not only is the benefit to society subjective, the whole principle is subjective. Who says you should benefit society? I may be a psycopath and believe the the only 'right' is my own pleasure, and that the only 'wrongs' are things I dislike. This is a moral system of sorts, and who is to say, scientifically, that it is 'wrong'? We can all agree that this moral code is flawed, but what are we basing this opinion on but our own subjective opinions. We may even all agree, but this does not make it any more scientifically correct.

This is a good argument, and I wouldn't expect to convince a psychopath. But if we define morality as a system for society as a whole, abnormal individuals don't have an effect on it. I think "who says it should benefit society?" is reaching too far into skepticism.

By the way I think your OP is really interesting, and right on many points, but it has it's limits and I fail to see what this has to do with morality. What the article is saying is that we should never be absolutely satisfied with any of our beliefs, that we should always be examining them to ensure that we are not decieving ourselves, and that lies breed lies, self-deception breeds deception. But at the end of the day, some things against which we must test our philosophy will be subjective. Scientific method cannot solve everything. (One could argue that scientific method solves or decides nothing, merely observes and models behaviour)

To change tack slightly: you seem to be particularly trying to get at religious dogma, and whether it is unacceptable to follow a set of moral just because somebody told you that it was right. I find it very interesting that you used predicting the weather as an example of scientific reasoning.

Moral beliefs are one kind of belief, one that people hold particularly strongly. I chose predicting weather very specifically, because it is quite inexact, and I wanted to get away from the assumption that perfection is required.

I think the logic is more like: "the forecaster said it was, and he is qualified to make such judgements", in other words deferal to authority. It is based on a reasoned decision by yourself, but it is a deferal nonetheless. It's the same as not crossing a bridge because an Engineer has deemed it unsafe. The Engineer is qualified to make such judgements, therefore you defer to his authority.

The same logic applies to religious organisations. Most religious people have not read any significant part of their respective holy books, however they respect the authority of those in their church, who have dedicated their lives to determining the will of God.

I did lay out a caveat--he is trusting the weatherman because it doesn't matter much to him if it rains or not. Presumably if it did matter a lot more, he would take extra measures.

Clifford deals with this as well:

The goodness and greatness of a man do not justify us in accepting a belief upon the warrant of his authority, unless there are reasonable grounds for supposing that he knew the truth of what he was saying. And there can be no grounds for supposing that a man knows that which we, without ceasing to be men, could not be supposed to verify.

If a chemist tells me, who am no chemist, that a certain substance can be made by putting together other substances in certain proportions and subjecting them to a known process, I am quite justified in believing this upon his authority, unless I know anything against his character or his judgment. For his professional training is one which tends to encourage veracity and the honest pursuit of truth, and to produce a dislike of hasty conclusions and slovenly investigation. And I have reasonable ground for supposing that he knows the truth of what he is saying, for although I am no chemist, I can be made to understand so much of the methods and processes of the science as makes it conceivable to me that, without ceasing to be man, I might verify the statement.

But if my chemist tells me that an atom of oxygen has existed unaltered in weight and rate of vibration throughout all time I have no right to believe this on his authority, for it is a thing which he cannot know without ceasing to be man.

The case of the weatherman and the engineer is quite similar. We can reasonably defer to their authority.

Can we defer to the authority of clergymen? Unfortunately not, which is part of the point of this thread. The engineer uses science and reasoning in his craft, and is questioned and must defend his decisions. The clergyman uses reasoning to the extent that he decides which part of the teachings he will accept vs what he will take from society. It is not the same rigorous atmosphere. When you are wrong in science and math it is often obvious--with the weather especially. Not so in moral theory, and religion has its biases.

You could argue that deferal to authority is in itself 'bad', but the world is to complex for us to understand it all in infinite detail. We all must defer to authority at some point, and we all do.

No argument from me. When we have no better option we must do so. Very often people do so when it is a bad option however.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So from all of this, I think it can be gathered that you do not consider logical consistency to be a sufficient criterion for "reason" when discussing morality.

Well yeah. Logical consistency is good, but why would it be sufficient? You can argue that all of life is a dream and no mind independent objects exist, and be logically consistent. In fact, people who assume that just because they are logically consistent, they are being reasonable, cause a lot of problems. I heard a talk from someone who used to be in a cult once, and the mindset they had there was "so and so is always right"-->"he said do this"-->"therefore it is right to do this".

The problem with your complaint seems to be that because of the exceedingly broad way you previously used the word 'reason', all of these so called assertions that are just opinion and don't have to be reasonable and contradict facts actually have "reasons" for them. So under that use of the word, you should have no complaint. Every individual opinion and point of religious dogma fits your definition of 'reason'.

I think I am using the words quite normally ...perhaps you are the problem

I probably use it sloppily, but I also use the wrong "their" a lot, and type "the" instead of "they".

They aren't, mysticism is the best tool for knowledge (there's a difference between say gut feeling and mysticism - your gut is just basically your ideas coming from that vast foundations, blah blah, blah, but mystical intuition is a totally different game, not relying on any of that junk).

Second, as I've mentioned before, though I may not be able to escape the "process", my using it gives it no merit whatsoever. See guy 1 and guy 2 on logic.

So what if I say my mystical intuition says that you are wrong? Is that the same as the 1 and 2 logic guys?

[Myrddraal]

The goodness and greatness of a man do not justify us in accepting a belief upon the warrant of his authority, unless there are reasonable grounds for supposing that he knew the truth of what he was saying.

I think this is wrong in a subtle but important way. As you said yourself, absolute truth is not necessary. If an Engineer declares that a bridge must not be used, he could be operating with industry standard margins of error. It may be quite possible that the bridge was carry heavy traffic in a storm, but in his professional judgement it is too risky. We defer to his authority because he has studied the problem, and there is a risk of disaster according to his judgement.

You (and Clifford) are both making very strong and detailed arguments to back up what should be obvious to everyone: saying it is so does not make it so. However I think you are approaching this argument with the thought in the back of you head: "God does not exist, therefore dedicating your life to the study of God gives you no authority". If you start with the opposite assumption, then a clergyman has a great deal of authority, as he has dedicated his life in search of the truth of God's intentions. True, study of God is less rigourous almost by definition, in that it is harder to test empirically, but that does not mean that clergymen (many of which are much more intelligent than myself, and possibly you too) do not approach the problem with the same rigourous attitude. So dare I say it, the implicit attack on organised religion and the clergy boils down to the question of wether God exists or not, which, let's face it, we're probably tired of arguing about in the Backroom. Of course if we take the Christian belief, then Jesus has moral authority beyond that which any man can obtain without ceasing to be man, but that's an aside.

Can we defer to the authority of clergymen? Unfortunately not, which is part of the point of this thread.

I guess that my argument is that your case is strong to the point of undeniable as it builds up the argument that self-deception does not justify deception, but it breaks down here. The fact that an Engineer studies Engineering and a clergyman studies God does not give one more authority than the other in their given field, unless you begin by saying that the study of God is invalid. Saying that religion is less rigorous by its nature isn't enough to make this point imo, you are jumping to a conclusion without filling in the gap (does God exist).

I guess that's what my point about the physics denier is: as a physics denier I cannot deny your authority in matter of physics, even though I don't believe that physics is real. Now get your tongue around that
So as an atheist, you can say that the Bible does not affect your morals, but you cannot use the same argument to denounce dogma and the 'moral authority' of clergy for those who do believe.

At the end of the day, it makes very little practical difference. Most theists believe in a benevolant God who wants the best for humanity. Most people believe that what is 'right' is what is 'best' for 'society'. We (both atheist and theist) can certainly apply scientific methodology in exploring (and modelling/codifying?) what this means.

As for filling in that gap, perhaps another time, and as for the core of your argument, it's very true, almost obvious when you explain it, but also very easy to loose sight of.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You (and Clifford) are both making very strong and detailed arguments to back up what should be obvious to everyone: saying it is so does not make it so. However I think you are approaching this argument with the thought in the back of you head: "God does not exist, therefore dedicating your life to the study of God gives you no authority".

So dare I say it, the implicit attack on organised religion and the clergy boils down to the question of wether God exists or not, which, let's face it, we're probably tired of arguing about in the Backroom.

I know I approach it with the assumption that God doesn't exist. But god is just one of many things that we don't have grounds to believe. If I study engineering for years, I can eventually be in a position to verify whether or not the Engineer is correct in his claim. If I study religion and the bible for years, I will not be in a position to verify whether or not God exists.

The fact that an Engineer studies Engineering and a clergyman studies God does not give one more authority than the other in their given field, unless you begin by saying that the study of God is invalid.

Ah, but I am denying that morality is in the field of religion. So the given field of a clergyman is simply whichever religion he is involved in, and he may certainly be an expert on Christianity. That does not make him a moral expert. You wouldn't go to an Engineer when you needed a physics authority, would you? This is in addition to the verifiability point. It is possible for a clergyman to be a moral expert of course.

At the end of the day, it makes very little practical difference. Most theists believe in a benevolant God who wants the best for humanity. Most people believe that what is 'right' is what is 'best' for 'society'. We (both atheist and theist) can certainly apply scientific methodology in exploring (and modelling/codifying?) what this means.

I agree that they can, but there is a trend of believing that they don't need to.

[jabarto]

As far as Dogmatism goes, the worst offenders in Western society currently are probably militant atheists; not theists.

Er...in what way? I mean, you don't see many atheists bombing abortions clinics, do you?

[Myrddraal]

Hmm, but morality is not really a field of study, it is an abstract concept to describe how we think we 'should' (in the vaguest sense) behave. You are denying that morality is in the field of religion, but if there is a divine, all-powerful, benevolant, personal being then behaving as they would want us to seems like a pretty sensible moral code to me. You can deny that religion has no say in your morals, but you can't say so without denying the existance of this devine being. Likewise, a Christian cannot deny the moral authority of his religion without denying the existance of the Christian God. So again the fundemental question is about the existance of God. Since we are not going to prove the non-existance of God any more than we are going to prove his existance you cannot say (with any universal authority) that religion has no place in discussions of morality. It clearly does, since the question of the existance of God almost dictates the fundemental axioms behind morality.

Of course I'm of the opinion that whatever the axioms we choose to base our decisions of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' most people will reach codified forms of morality which are all rather similar.
If one person says that we must do as a benevolant God would want us to do, and another says we must do what is 'best' for 'society', the argument is pretty academic.

[Myrddraal]

Hmm hmm. You say:

there is a trend of believing that they don't need to.

It's certainly true that some people defer totally to the authority of their religion without giving it much thought. That's not an ideal situation I agree, but at the end of the day, if the person they defer to has honestly dedicated their life to exploring the truth of their religion then is that a major problem? If the person they defer to is maliciously trying to mislead them, that's another matter altogether, regardless of the rights or wrongs of their faith.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Morality is actually a pretty big field of study; being one of the four `all time greats' of Philosophy. It's more commonly known as `ethics'.