Richard Carrier on Morality (part 4 of 6)

Rick explains the foundations of naturalistic morality.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Richard
• Carrier
• morality
• atheism
• Sense
• Goodness
• without
• God

[theomathetes21]

A major flaw in his logic of using to science to find what humans need about morality is that what humans really need is God, the very Being Mr Carrier seeks to disprove. What makes morality and heaven desirable is that we find God at the center of them.

[tkovrtwrld]

@theomathetes21 So...you don't think science could prove that humans need a god? And if science can't do it, how in the world can you?

[theomathetes21]

@tkovrtwrld No, I think science could prove that, but Secular Humanism is based on living morally without God and denying his existence so... kind of shooting yourself in the foot. In Carrier's mind, if science finds we need a God that isn't there, he's in trouble with his own intellect, because he believes there's no God, just science, but science says he needs God.

[tkovrtwrld]

@theomathetes21 But Carrier doesn't start with Secular Humanism. He starts with the evidence. So if there is a scientific consensus that humans need god, then that would become part of his worldview.  He says specifically in this video series and others like it that if science discovered things like that, so be it.

[pumpstations]

This kid is good. He has really done his homework. If only everyone would truly search their (soul) and ask themselves truly deep questions. By Going with popular opinion, you may never truly know who you are.

[secularisrael]

@SuperMerlin100 I think it is reasonable to presume people have several different main drives, that change with experience, satiation, personal growth, maturity, and so on. Assuming that there is only one single Z(s) for each person requires justification.

[3] is a dangerous jump in that Carrier jumps from having a personal Z(s) to having a single social Z. It is more apparent in the talk: until that point he talked about each person advancing Z(s), from this point he talks about advancing Z.

[SuperMerlin100]

@secularisrael If someone lacks a personal Z(s)(including heaven and hell) then there is no reasoning with them. If they are truely that indifferent then they can hardly even be called a person.

How is [3] a non-sequitor, and a dangerous jump? If you want something more then anything it makes sense to find out what method is most likely to allow to obtain it.

As a general rule shit happens. However, if there is a full proof method then that method well statistically work to say the least.

[secularisrael]

Point [1] (on 1:24) implicitly assumes that there is a meaningful Z (except an amorphous "contentment", that has too little content to be meaningful). Point [3] is a non-sequitor, and a dangerous jump. Until that point he talked about what individuals want, each one ought to do what he wants most (Z); from that point, he talks about "statistics", each person suddenly ought to do what statistically works.