The logic is airtight. It's i) ~P --> ~Q ii) Q iii) .'. P. And if you view morality as not objective and binding, then you are a moral nihilist. Moral nihilists assert that there are no objectively binding moral values. Liebniz's principle of Indiscernability of Identitcals requires you to be one.
As for them being illusory, I have no good reason for thinking atheism is true so I'm not compelled that they're illusory. I agree though that on atheism, that'd be a poor illusion.
@adamXcore Ok it's valid logically, but this issue of an illusion is important. If it's illusory, you can't just say 'I know it's not an illusion', because you might be under it. He hasn't even considered that he could be under an illusion.
Also, nihilism is an incoherent idea. I'm not a nihilist, I just think objective is the wrong word. I don't think anything can make morality 'objective and true', not even God. A better word would be something like universal. Objective seems to much.
@CheekyVimto08 Elsewhere in podcasts he actually does "consider" this. His response a skeptical one. He says something along the lines of, "Is the mere possibility that my moral experience may be an illusion enough to discredit my belief that it is real? It certainly doesn't seem so. Any argument you could give me about the subjectivity of my moral experience I could likewise construct a similar argument to discredit your experience of the external world. So it seems rational to me that, in
the absence of a defeater of my belief that my moral experience is trustworthy, I am rational in holding to it. Unless and until evidence is presented that calls into question what I rightfully immediately experience as a dimension of moral values, I am perfectly reasonable and within my epistemic rights to accept this experience as being just as accurate an experience as that of my experience of the external world. " And I think he raises a good point here. The mere possibility isn't enough.
@adamXcore It's starting to sound circular. You believe in God because of objective morality, which can't possibly be illusory because...? Also, the external reality is factual, the objectivity of morality is a value judgment.
And this absence of a defeater thing...well I suppose I don't think objective morality is ever possible. I think it's an illusion caused by evolution and social conditioning. A gene which says 'be nice to everyone you meet' helps a group survive.
@CheekyVimto08 I never said I believe in God because of Craig's moral argument about objective moral values and duties. I'm saying his argument is coherent because of the existence of objective moral values & duties. And saying, "...the external world is factual, the objectivity of morality is a value judgment..." is just an assertion on your part. You have no proof that the external world is real. Any proof you have would come from the external world. Nevertheless, your belief that the external
world is real is not an irrational belief. You can justify your belief as rational because you have no evidence to call into question your perception of it (the external world). This is what philosophers have called a Properly Basic belief. Even though you may not have evidence for this kind of belief, you are not irrational in holding it because the belief is based off of an immediate experience that has no defeaters (you can't prove you're not just a body in The Matrix). So the analogy stands.
As for objective morality being an illusion caused by evolution, I'm going to continue to press you on the issue: so objective moral values and duties are illusory? Fine. Then admit nothing was really, truly wrong with the Crusades, Holocaust, Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, etc. Sure, those in charge of those events caused harm to others, but what they didn't wasn't really "wrong", per se. They were just acting on influences from social conditioning. At best, they were acting unfashionably.
@adamXcore Well it's not either 'objective and binding' or moral nihilism. I've said moral nihilism is incoherent and morality which is 'objective and binding' is logically impossible.
I think it's crude to have one or the other. I think the 'objectiveness' of morality is illusory. I don't think that means all of those acts are just fine, or 'merely unfashionably'.
I think WLC fears crude moral relativism so much that he wants to plug the god of the bible in there, to bridge the is ought
@CheekyVimto08 ...gap. But you can just bridge the is/ought gap by using a powerful being. There's no way that morality is any more objective with than without god. There's nothing about god's existence that makes morality objective, any more than god's existence makes red the objectively best color.
The is/ought gap means that morality can't be imposed from without, it has to come from within.
@CheekyVimto08 summarize this incredibly complex issue in a YouTube comment. If you do not yet have a ReasonableFaithDOTorg account, I'd highly recommend you create one and use it as I do (to have free access to his academic articles and debates). As much as I'd love to expound on this issue, I simply do not have the drive or time to do so, especially when someone who can do it better than I ever could has already has.
@adamXcore Yes, I think it's logically impossible for a value to be objective in the sense WLC is after. The married bachelor is really a good example because it's a question of language, and i just think objective is the wrong word.
That doesn't make me a crude moral relativist however. I think the whole paradigm of 'is it subjective or objective' is crude. Because morals are values, they can't be objective, but that doesn't mean they are whimsical and unimportant.
@CheekyVimto08 The is/ought gap is actually a good thing, because it means no way the world is can impose on our morality. Morality comes from within, but this is its strength. It isn't dependent on the existence of a deity. If it was, that would be bad, i think.
Well I don't think i'd be welcome on that website, but I'll let you wrap it up because I'm finding it hard to follow on this page. It's been interesting. Cheers. :)
@CheekyVimto08 Saying it's a question of language doesn't bring it to a logical impossibility, though. Things which are logically impossible tend to have an appearance of impossibility that is apparent. Square circles; married bachelors; a box that both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, etc. This appearance of impossibility seems absent in the case for objective moral values and duties. In fact, the concept isn't even logically incoherent! So I guess I'd just need to hear more about why
@CheekyVimto08 feel it's logically impossible. Also, you'd be surprised- the people on ReasonableFaithDOTorg are actually very friendly. You don't need to communicate with anyone when you go on there, though. I rarely do. I just log in to view to new videos and read more articles.
@CheekyVimto08 You're using terms that I think are misnomers here and it's making it difficult for me to follow along with some of your points. For example, you say "...morality which is 'objective and binding' is logically impossible." Now do you mean logically impossible in the way philosophers use the term, or are you just being excessive and saying it's unlikely? Because keep in mind, the logically impossible is both incoherent and unable to ever be actualized. Logically impossible things
would be things like married bachelors, four-angled triangles, a man who is taller than himself, etc. These things contain intrinsic contradictories and thus can never be actualized. A morality which is objective and binding doesn't seem at all logically impossible in this way. So what is it, exactly, that you find impossible about objective moral values? Also, this part: "I think the 'objectiveness' of morality is illusory. I don't think that means all of those acts are just fine..." is
inconsistent. If no moral action is objectively right or wrong, then all is relative. Moral behavior becomes completely neutered and it is impossible to meaningfully condemn or praise any moral action. All we have is our relative impression of the action. We are left with "I approve of P. I disapprove of Q." Also, it's not God's existence that makes morality objective, it's God's nature. This is an incredibly nuanced issue here and I'd refer you to Craig's written work on it rather than try to
@CheekyVimto08 Morality can't be assessed objectively then? Curious. So the statement, "Genocide is morally permissible." is neither objectively true, nor objectively false? It's just a statement reflecting taste? That seems hard to accept given our moral experience. Our immediate experience of moral values, I think Craig would argue, serves as evidence of an objective moral standard. In the absence of any defeater for my belief that a moral dimension exists, why should I believe you?
@adamXcore My comment is really focused on the logic of this argument. I'm not a moral nihilist, but I don't think morality is 'objective and binding' in some cosmic sense.
But our immediate experience of moral values, according to this argument, is illusory, on atheism. Of course you won't think that, but it won't be a very good illusion if someone could be under it and not believe it.
The logic is airtight. It's i) ~P --> ~Q ii) Q iii) .'. P. And if you view morality as not objective and binding, then you are a moral nihilist. Moral nihilists assert that there are no objectively binding moral values. Liebniz's principle of Indiscernability of Identitcals requires you to be one.
As for them being illusory, I have no good reason for thinking atheism is true so I'm not compelled that they're illusory. I agree though that on atheism, that'd be a poor illusion.
adamXcore 5 months ago
@adamXcore Ok it's valid logically, but this issue of an illusion is important. If it's illusory, you can't just say 'I know it's not an illusion', because you might be under it. He hasn't even considered that he could be under an illusion.
Also, nihilism is an incoherent idea. I'm not a nihilist, I just think objective is the wrong word. I don't think anything can make morality 'objective and true', not even God. A better word would be something like universal. Objective seems to much.
CheekyVimto08 5 months ago
@CheekyVimto08 Elsewhere in podcasts he actually does "consider" this. His response a skeptical one. He says something along the lines of, "Is the mere possibility that my moral experience may be an illusion enough to discredit my belief that it is real? It certainly doesn't seem so. Any argument you could give me about the subjectivity of my moral experience I could likewise construct a similar argument to discredit your experience of the external world. So it seems rational to me that, in
adamXcore 5 months ago
the absence of a defeater of my belief that my moral experience is trustworthy, I am rational in holding to it. Unless and until evidence is presented that calls into question what I rightfully immediately experience as a dimension of moral values, I am perfectly reasonable and within my epistemic rights to accept this experience as being just as accurate an experience as that of my experience of the external world. " And I think he raises a good point here. The mere possibility isn't enough.
adamXcore 5 months ago
@adamXcore It's starting to sound circular. You believe in God because of objective morality, which can't possibly be illusory because...? Also, the external reality is factual, the objectivity of morality is a value judgment.
And this absence of a defeater thing...well I suppose I don't think objective morality is ever possible. I think it's an illusion caused by evolution and social conditioning. A gene which says 'be nice to everyone you meet' helps a group survive.
CheekyVimto08 5 months ago
@CheekyVimto08 I never said I believe in God because of Craig's moral argument about objective moral values and duties. I'm saying his argument is coherent because of the existence of objective moral values & duties. And saying, "...the external world is factual, the objectivity of morality is a value judgment..." is just an assertion on your part. You have no proof that the external world is real. Any proof you have would come from the external world. Nevertheless, your belief that the external
adamXcore 5 months ago
world is real is not an irrational belief. You can justify your belief as rational because you have no evidence to call into question your perception of it (the external world). This is what philosophers have called a Properly Basic belief. Even though you may not have evidence for this kind of belief, you are not irrational in holding it because the belief is based off of an immediate experience that has no defeaters (you can't prove you're not just a body in The Matrix). So the analogy stands.
adamXcore 5 months ago
As for objective morality being an illusion caused by evolution, I'm going to continue to press you on the issue: so objective moral values and duties are illusory? Fine. Then admit nothing was really, truly wrong with the Crusades, Holocaust, Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, etc. Sure, those in charge of those events caused harm to others, but what they didn't wasn't really "wrong", per se. They were just acting on influences from social conditioning. At best, they were acting unfashionably.
adamXcore 5 months ago
@adamXcore Well it's not either 'objective and binding' or moral nihilism. I've said moral nihilism is incoherent and morality which is 'objective and binding' is logically impossible.
I think it's crude to have one or the other. I think the 'objectiveness' of morality is illusory. I don't think that means all of those acts are just fine, or 'merely unfashionably'.
I think WLC fears crude moral relativism so much that he wants to plug the god of the bible in there, to bridge the is ought
CheekyVimto08 5 months ago
@CheekyVimto08 ...gap. But you can just bridge the is/ought gap by using a powerful being. There's no way that morality is any more objective with than without god. There's nothing about god's existence that makes morality objective, any more than god's existence makes red the objectively best color.
The is/ought gap means that morality can't be imposed from without, it has to come from within.
CheekyVimto08 5 months ago
@CheekyVimto08 summarize this incredibly complex issue in a YouTube comment. If you do not yet have a ReasonableFaithDOTorg account, I'd highly recommend you create one and use it as I do (to have free access to his academic articles and debates). As much as I'd love to expound on this issue, I simply do not have the drive or time to do so, especially when someone who can do it better than I ever could has already has.
adamXcore 5 months ago
@adamXcore Yes, I think it's logically impossible for a value to be objective in the sense WLC is after. The married bachelor is really a good example because it's a question of language, and i just think objective is the wrong word.
That doesn't make me a crude moral relativist however. I think the whole paradigm of 'is it subjective or objective' is crude. Because morals are values, they can't be objective, but that doesn't mean they are whimsical and unimportant.
CheekyVimto08 5 months ago
@CheekyVimto08 The is/ought gap is actually a good thing, because it means no way the world is can impose on our morality. Morality comes from within, but this is its strength. It isn't dependent on the existence of a deity. If it was, that would be bad, i think.
Well I don't think i'd be welcome on that website, but I'll let you wrap it up because I'm finding it hard to follow on this page. It's been interesting. Cheers. :)
CheekyVimto08 5 months ago
@CheekyVimto08 Saying it's a question of language doesn't bring it to a logical impossibility, though. Things which are logically impossible tend to have an appearance of impossibility that is apparent. Square circles; married bachelors; a box that both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, etc. This appearance of impossibility seems absent in the case for objective moral values and duties. In fact, the concept isn't even logically incoherent! So I guess I'd just need to hear more about why
adamXcore 5 months ago
@CheekyVimto08 feel it's logically impossible. Also, you'd be surprised- the people on ReasonableFaithDOTorg are actually very friendly. You don't need to communicate with anyone when you go on there, though. I rarely do. I just log in to view to new videos and read more articles.
adamXcore 5 months ago
@CheekyVimto08 You're using terms that I think are misnomers here and it's making it difficult for me to follow along with some of your points. For example, you say "...morality which is 'objective and binding' is logically impossible." Now do you mean logically impossible in the way philosophers use the term, or are you just being excessive and saying it's unlikely? Because keep in mind, the logically impossible is both incoherent and unable to ever be actualized. Logically impossible things
adamXcore 5 months ago
would be things like married bachelors, four-angled triangles, a man who is taller than himself, etc. These things contain intrinsic contradictories and thus can never be actualized. A morality which is objective and binding doesn't seem at all logically impossible in this way. So what is it, exactly, that you find impossible about objective moral values? Also, this part: "I think the 'objectiveness' of morality is illusory. I don't think that means all of those acts are just fine..." is
adamXcore 5 months ago
inconsistent. If no moral action is objectively right or wrong, then all is relative. Moral behavior becomes completely neutered and it is impossible to meaningfully condemn or praise any moral action. All we have is our relative impression of the action. We are left with "I approve of P. I disapprove of Q." Also, it's not God's existence that makes morality objective, it's God's nature. This is an incredibly nuanced issue here and I'd refer you to Craig's written work on it rather than try to
adamXcore 5 months ago
Just because he thinks morality is objective, doesn't mean it is. That's the nature of an illusion.
CheekyVimto08 5 months ago
@CheekyVimto08 Morality can't be assessed objectively then? Curious. So the statement, "Genocide is morally permissible." is neither objectively true, nor objectively false? It's just a statement reflecting taste? That seems hard to accept given our moral experience. Our immediate experience of moral values, I think Craig would argue, serves as evidence of an objective moral standard. In the absence of any defeater for my belief that a moral dimension exists, why should I believe you?
adamXcore 5 months ago
@adamXcore My comment is really focused on the logic of this argument. I'm not a moral nihilist, but I don't think morality is 'objective and binding' in some cosmic sense.
But our immediate experience of moral values, according to this argument, is illusory, on atheism. Of course you won't think that, but it won't be a very good illusion if someone could be under it and not believe it.
CheekyVimto08 5 months ago