[Vision2020] About Evidence

Tue Jul 17 21:50:08 PDT 2012

One disagreement: Beliefs do NOT determine values. "Rape is wrong" (sorry
for the example) is not true because we believe it. There is no consensus
when it comes to most values; there is always disagreement. I don't see how
you can support the view that values are determined by beliefs since both
of these points suggest otherwise.

That said, I don't know what the truthmakers for value judgments are.
Certainly declarative claims have some advantage but there are problems
with truthmaker theories (like the correspondence theory) for empirical
claims as well. And when we add mathematics into the mix, I think you'd be
hard pressed to say that empirical facts are the truthmakers for
everything. The fact is we just don't have a well worked out truthmaker
theory for anything: not empirical facts, not mathematical truths, not
value judgments. You are merely oversimplifying a very complex
philosophical issue.

My own view is that persons have rights and value judgments are true or
false because of those rights. Violate one's rights and what you did was
wrong. I don't want to hang my rights on any set of beliefs, certainly not
the beliefs of the majority. Nor do you. If anything is objective, rights
are objective and not dependent upon subjective beliefs.

Nor do I want to hang them on legal institutions. Slavery was wrong even
when it was legal. The thing about values is that our perception and
understanding and appreciation of them all change over time. Historically
and socially we actually learn and evolve. We -- as a society -- came to
learn that slavery is wrong, for instance. That is social progress and it
is a good thing. But progress of this type makes no sense if value
judgments are merely a function of beliefs. After all, if our favorite
local bigot has his way, he'd be able to convince everyone that slavery was
sometimes morally permissible and (by your view) thereby make it the case.
But it ain't that easy.

It is a complex issue. I'll agree that religion has no upper hand in the
debate -- the divine command theory is a very bad truthmaker theory for
values. But like all philosophical debates, no parties hold the upper hand.
We're still stuck with trying to figure these things out and we don't
benefit ourselves by holding on to easy solutions which are defeated by
still easier criticisms.

Best, Joe

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>wrote:

> The problem is this:  Beliefs determine values and behavior.
>
> Hence it is important that that beliefs be as accurate as possible.  We
> don't successfully send people to the moon based on fantasy, untested,
> and/or untestable theories.  Nor do we inject people with various serums to
> prevent and/or cure disease successfully based on fantasy, untested, or
> untestable theories.  Etc.
>
> How do we find successful values/behaviors to solve problems, including
> social issues?  By considering relevant declarative statements as knowledge
> claims and insisting on evidence that can be tested and retested be
> provided to support those claims.
>
> There are always alternative theories, especially about social issues.
> However cumbersome, and sometimes with many missteps, demanding the testing
> of knowledge claims generally winnows out the ones in error.
>
> There are a multitude of various religions and sects of the same religion
> world.  Each inconsistent with each other in significant ways.  Each has
> some very adamant adherents who believe their view of the world is correct,
> and those work, sometimes violently, to proscribe the behavior of all the
> rest of us.
>
> Currently, the issue of whether to legalize marriage between couples of
> the same gender is an example of a particular set of religious persons
> attempting to proscribe the behavior of all based on their interpretation
> of and their belief in the truth of the ancient writings to which they
> subscribe.
>
> The problem, of course, is that so far there has been no successful method
> to determine which, if any, of the multitude of religious beliefs are
> true.  The inference among others is that if there is a benevolent god, why
> is it keeping the truth so unfathomable and unclear.  Another inference is
> that the untestable is hardly a successful solution to practical behavioral
> issues/problems.
>
> As a nonbeliever, I strive to base my behavioral decisions based on as
> accurate knowledge claims as possible.  I resent being told what I can do,
> and resent what others are told what to do based on what can most
> charitably be called in the starkness of requiring knowledge claims to be
> supported merely religious fantasies and superstitions.
>
> I believe that this position is similar to most nonbelievers.
>
> Why do I harp on it?  Take the above and add:
>
> "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."  --Wendall Phillips
>
> Failing to express the problems of religious belief and the problems of
> such that plague humankind is the same as tacitly approving the
> dictatorship of untestable and harmful fantasies.
>
> w.
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  The God Damned Atheists can be more annoying than Fundys.  I think
>> anyone who tries to push their religion (or lack thereof) on anyone else is
>> a complete phony.  If you really believe in God (or don't) you should be
>> secure in that belief such that you don't need to convince anyone else of
>> this.  If you're an atheist only you know what's in your heart, otherwise
>> only you and God know what's in your heart.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:08:54 -0700
>> From: art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Subject: [Vision2020] About Evidence
>>
>>
>> Atheism and Critical Thinking (Video)
>> http://mysticpolitics.com/atheism-and-critical-thinking-video/<http://www.printfriendly.com/print/v2?url=http://mysticpolitics.com/atheism-and-critical-thinking-video/>
>> July 17, 2012
>> *A series of videos from UK artist and secular humanist QualiaSoup<http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup>discussing critical thinking, science, philosophy and the natural world.
>> *
>> Part 1 – *The burden of proof*; Makers of supernatural claims have an
>> inescapable burden of proof.
>>
>> Part 2 - *Lack of belief in gods*; Explaining the concept, refuting
>> common objections and giving a number of reasons that atheists are
>> sometimes ‘fervent’.
>>
>> Part 3 - *Critical Thinking*; A look at some of the principles of
>> critical thinking.
>>
>> Part 4 - *Putting faith in its place*; Faith has no place demanding
>> agreement or punishing disagreement.
>>
>> Part 5 - *Open-mindedness*; A look at some of the flawed thinking that
>> prompts people who believe in certain non-scientific concepts to advise
>> others who don’t to be more open-minded.
>>
>> Part 6 - *Arguing with ghosts*; A brief look at the pointless exercise
>> of telling people, rather than asking them, what they believe.
>>
>> Part 7 - *It *could* just be coincidence*; This video shows how
>> probability theory is sufficient to explain even seemingly remarkable
>> coincidences.
>>
>> Part 8 - *Skewed views of science*; A look at the pitfalls of arguing
>> against science from incomprehension or emotion.
>>
>> Part 9 - *The faith cake*; This video challenges the claim that a belief
>> in science requires equal faith to the belief in a god.
>>
>> Part 10 - *In the beginning, God created injustice*; The impossible
>> situation of Adam and Eve, and the unjust treatment they suffered from the
>> ‘merciful and loving’ god.
>> Part 11 - *Hell: an excessive punishment*; Some believe atheists deserve
>> an infinitely grislier fate than this, simply for doubting the existence of
>> a being that doesn’t openly present itself. I’ve always been curious about
>> that.
>>
>> ________________________
>>
>> --
>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ======================================================= List services
>> made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the
>> Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120717/896c7279/attachment-0001.html>