The God Vacuum: America and the barbarian hordes

Yes. Having to do with epistemology

<blockquote><b>epis·te·mol·o·gy</b>
Pronunciation: i-"pis-t&-'mä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek epistEmE knowledge, from epistanai to understand, know, from epi- + histanai to cause to stand -- more at STAND
: the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity</blockquote>

What is the substance of your definition of "conventional morality" and, how did you arrive at it? Or don't you really know?

I wasn't really asking you anything. Big words are cool aren't they?
 
Typical morality. Like one which doesn't believe decimating economies with environmental lies, killing babies, using slave labor.

I thought as much. You don't really give much thought to anything. You just take random talking points, out of context, and try to cobble them together into some semblance of of an idea. You don't concern yourself with where they come from or what they actually mean, so long as they strike some emotional chord within you. Don't think, just feel. Such behavior leaves you open to a multitude of emotional, spiritual, moral and intellectual frauds.
 
Bully

It’s a nice surprise to find out you are interested in philosophy!!!

I’ve had a lifelong interest in this subject myself!!!

OK, people... ontological and epistemological are technical terms used in philosophy but behind these big, scary words (like all words derived from Mr. Aristotle’s mother language) lies very simple concepts that lay people can easily understand, provided they come across a good samaritan like José to explain them in simple terms : )

First I’m gonna explain their meaning and point out what they refer to in Christianity and later I’m gonna expose what science has to say about them.
 
What does Bully mean by “the ontological origin of human morality”?

Ontology is the abstract study of all kinds of beings, so “the ontological origin of human morality” simply means, in plain English:

“Which being created human morality?”.

According to the Judeo-Christian thought there are two kinds of morality with different creators:

True morality (the Judeo-Christian one) was created by God.

All other sets of moral norms created by human societies all over the world (that are in conflict with the Judeo-Christian tradition) are either the result of the mental confusion that took over humans after The Fall or the result of satanic influence in the human mind.

So God is the “ontological origin of (true) human morality” according to Christians.

OK, “the ontological origin” is already in our pockets, now let’s see what the hell “the epistemological origin of human morality” means.

I can assure you in advance that Bully was not insulting your mothers : )
 
What does Bully mean by “the epistemological origin of human morality”?

Epistemology is the study of the means by which the human mind aquires knowledge of itself and the external word, so “the epistemological origin of human morality” translated to English means:

“How did humans create or discover morality?”

The Judeo-Christian tradition strongly denies that humans created morality, this religious tradition states that TRUE morality was revealed to man by its creator, in many historical events separated in time: the 10 commandements given to Moses, the teachings of the prophets and of Jesus etc etc.

So direct revelation from God is the “epistemological origin of (true) human morality” according to Christians.

As far as “false” morality is concerned they were aquired by mentally confused humans after the Fall, possibly under the influence of satanic forces.
 
Now let’s see what science has to say about the ontological and epistemological origins of morality.

Science states that the ontological origin of human morality ( = which being created it) is human beings themselves.

Human beings are the creators of their own moral codes.

Human morality is an outgrowth of human rational thought.

The concepts of good and evil, right and wrong are the natural result of the rational mind of our pre historic ancestors evaluating, judging and classifying the myriad of events that surrounded them in the african plains.

For example, when our ancestors witnessed a human being killing another for a futile reason they were overtaken by feelings of sadness, outrage etc because they wouldn’t like to be in the shoes of the dead.

So based on the idea that all humans want to preserve their own existence, they started calling such acts evil, wrong, immoral and slowly started developing moral codes of conduct prohibiting unjustified murders among many other things.

The next logical step would be to state that all these moral codes created by them were in fact transmited to them by the creator of the Universe. This was a fantastic way to assure that most members of the society would feel compeled to follow all the moral codes of a given human society.

What about the epistemological origin of human morality according to science (how humans acquired knowledge of morality)?

This is ridiculously simple: since human morality was first developed through the dynamic interaction of our ancestors’ rational minds and their ancient environment (the world outside human mind) they would obviously be the first ones to hear the news : )
 
So let’s summarise our conclusions so far:

Ontological origin of morality according to Christians (which being created morality): God.

According to science: Humans themselves.

Epistemological origin of morality according to Christians (how humans acquired knowledge of morality): direct revelation from God.

According to science: the interaction of humans’ rational minds with the outside world.

The first striking difference between the two explanations of human morality is that the scientific one explains it through humans interactions only, without appealling to any being whose existence is not proven.

And in my opinion this is why it is a far superior explanation.

The existence of the creators of morality according to science (humans) is a proven fact not open for discussion while the existence of the creator of morality according to religion (its ontological origin, God) is just a metaphysical speculation.
 
People

I tried to simplify the concepts involved as much as possible without completely distorting them.

I hope I achieved some degree of success, at least, I did my best.
 
I thought as much. You don't really give much thought to anything. You just take random talking points, out of context, and try to cobble them together into some semblance of of an idea. You don't concern yourself with where they come from or what they actually mean, so long as they strike some emotional chord within you. Don't think, just feel. Such behavior leaves you open to a multitude of emotional, spiritual, moral and intellectual frauds.


I just don't want to get into parsing words with an idiot.
 
Check out Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age by Alan M. Dershowitz. It gives and interesting perspective on the origin or rights.

Editorial Review: Human rights come from human wrongs, argues famed criminal and civil rights lawyer Dershowitz; only by looking closely at past injustice we can construct a theory and law that attempts a more perfect justice….Dershowitz gets the book started by outlining his own theory of rights, one that tries to steer a course between natural law and legal positivism. The really entertaining parts come later, however, when he discusses such charged topics as euthanasia, the death penalty, and how we pick federal judges.
 
José;506805 said:
So let’s summarise our conclusions so far:

Ontological origin of morality according to Christians (which being created morality): God.

According to science: Humans themselves.

Epistemological origin of morality according to Christians (how humans acquired knowledge of morality): direct revelation from God.

According to science: the interaction of humans’ rational minds with the outside world.

The first striking difference between the two explanations of human morality is that the scientific one explains it through humans interactions only, without appealling to any being whose existence is not proven.

And in my opinion this is why it is a far superior explanation.

The existence of the creators of morality according to science (humans) is a proven fact not open for discussion while the existence of the creator of morality according to religion (its ontological origin, God) is just a metaphysical speculation.

Incorrect. The existence of the creators of morality according to science is a theory, not "proven fact."
 
Originally posted by GunnyL
Incorrect. The existence of the creators of morality according to science is a theory, not "proven fact."

The existence of humans is obviously a proven fact Gunny unlike the existence of God which is not proven.

What science and religion dispute is whether morality was created by humans or by some transcendental being.

As I said, if I have to choose between a theory who attributes the creation of morality to a being whose existence is already proven and another one who attributes the creation to a mere speculation I choose the former.

Both common sense and occam’s razor tell me to do this.

But I always reamain open to the possibility of reassessing my beliefs and will do it in this case as soon as the existence of God is proven : )
 
Originally posted by mattskrammer
Human rights come from human wrongs, argues famed criminal and civil rights lawyer Dershowitz; only by looking closely at past injustice we can construct a theory and law that attempts a more perfect justice….Dershowitz gets the book started by outlining his own theory of rights, one that tries to steer a course between natural law and legal positivism. The really entertaining parts come later, however, when he discusses such charged topics as euthanasia, the death penalty, and how we pick federal judges.

I'm sure it must be an interesting reading matt, but by your quote I cannot know what Mr Dershowitz think about this most fundamental issue regarding human morality:

Who created the notions of good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust?

God or the human mind?

Unfortunately, Mr. Dershowitz is not partipating but we all would be glad if you share your opinion with us.
 
Incorrect. The existence of the creators of morality according to science is a theory, not "proven fact."

Let me refer you <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=505896&postcount=24>HERE</a> Regarding the definition of <i>theory</i>. It would be appropriate for José to assert that the human, rather than divine, origination of morality is a matter of fact since facts are derived from the observation of the relationships between objective events and phenomena over time. Since subjective phenomena, as in divine revelation, are unique to the individual experiencing them and thus unavailable to the outside observer, they cannot be regarded in the same light as empirical facts. They are anecdotal, at best.
 
Conventional morality is logically justified, so it's actually irrelevant who created it. Morality keeps people working together for the mutual benefit of both, instead of turning on each other like animals, to the detriment of both. Freedom and freedom of expression keep entrenched hierarchies from squelching the genius and innovations which may spring from the "low class".

People who seek to violate the above principles and achieve a state of tyranny over fellow men, will not engage the logical foundation of morality; instead they attack god, trying to discredit morality. The truth is that god's rules are basically spot on and beneficial, regardless of his actual existence.
 
José;506855 said:
I'm sure it must be an interesting reading matt, but by your quote I cannot know what Mr Dershowitz think about this most fundamental issue regarding human morality:

Who created the notions of good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust?

God or the human mind?

Unfortunately, Mr. Dershowitz is not partipating but we all would be glad if you share your opinion with us.

I understand what you mean. The book is thick. I think that he thinks that morality is an outgrowth of the human experience. We do something, as a society, based on our notion of right and wrong (whether based on religion or human invention). Then, based on the results over time, we decide if it was right or wrong. It is not necessarily ultimately through human invention or religion but based on experience of the consequences.
 
José;506854 said:
The existence of humans is obviously a proven fact Gunny unlike the existence of God which is not proven.

What science and religion dispute is whether morality was created by humans or by some transcendental being.

As I said, if I have to choose between a theory who attributes the creation of morality to a being whose existence is already proven and another one who attributes the creation to a mere speculation I choose the former.

Both common sense and occam’s razor tell me to do this.

But I always reamain open to the possibility of reassessing my beliefs and will do it in this case as soon as the existence of God is proven : )

I did not question the existence of human beings. I questioned presenting theory as proven fact.
 
Let me refer you <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=505896&postcount=24>HERE</a> Regarding the definition of <i>theory</i>. It would be appropriate for José to assert that the human, rather than divine, origination of morality is a matter of fact since facts are derived from the observation of the relationships between objective events and phenomena over time. Since subjective phenomena, as in divine revelation, are unique to the individual experiencing them and thus unavailable to the outside observer, they cannot be regarded in the same light as empirical facts. They are anecdotal, at best.

I'm well-aware of what the definition of theory is, thanks.

It is not appropriate to conclude that speculation is proven fact.
 

Forum List

Back
Top