So after numerous debates heres over the years, I have figured out the school of thoughts which best characterizes my beliefs.
I am a moral nihilist. I was atheist for many years, before coming to accept Christianity.
And I find the random, arbitrary declaration of Christianity as truth no less irrational than the arbitrary declaration love, hope, honor, and a number of of intangible "values" as real.
For the most part, I have not studied philosophy (hence my only recent discovery as to the school of thought best reflecting my world views without religion)
Id like to invite some counters to the school of Moral Nihilism, either by suggestions in links, or even outright debate as why individuals here may disagree with it.
And I find the random, arbitrary declaration of Christianity as truth no less irrational than the arbitrary declaration love, hope, honor, and a number of of intangible "values" as real.
Well wait.
Yes, random, arbitrary declaration of something as a truth is irrational.
That does not mean that all declarations of truth are random and arbitrary.
Id like to invite some counters to the school of Moral Nihilism, either by suggestions in links, or even outright debate as why individuals here may disagree with it.
Well, first let's establish what you mean by moral nihilism. I take it to mean "nothing is morally wrong (or right)," which, by way of a definition of morality as "those behaviors which lead to the flourishing of conscious creatures," ultimately translates into something like "no behavior is not conducive to flourishing of conscious creatures."
If you agree with that unpacking, then let's start with a rather simplistic argument: I can immediately think of a behavior which fails to be conducive to the flourishing of conscious creatures. Say I undertook an action which resulted in the death of every conscious creature everywhere. Surely that action would qualify. Thus there is in fact a behavior which is not conducive to the flourishing of conscious creatures and therefore moral nihilism is false.
(Why did you make this thread in the Religion forum? Are you anticipating it will necessarily take a religious direction?)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I believe in Christianity, that Christ is the lord, based on faith. there are not arguments which get me there; no logic. From a nihilistic perspective that is irrational and illogical, but so are a great many other things.
Atheists many times (but not always) argue they cannot believe in Christianity because there is no proof, evidence, or because it is outright false.
Here is where my nihilism shows. Where do you get the assumption that truth even has value? Why this worship of this light gooey thing called truth? I mean, it seems to me as America has many Christian adherents in power that one would create burden for themselves by chasing this thing --truth--which they impute value to.
In fact, many will pursue truth so strongly that they would willingly accept other burdens in life because of it. Is that not irrational? To impute value to truth when such value itself must be assumed.
To assume so much value in truth that one would incur more social burdens to me is as irrational as simply assuming value in God. The latter assumption seems like it would produce less social friction in a nation with so many Christian adherents.
Now Christianity to me is fine because it is a system which states to believe it based on arbitrary declaration or "faith" Simply believe. In some sense, i tried it and stuck with it.
Christianity agrees that truth has value. It just thinks there's a different truth than atheism. If your complaint is with truth, you won't find any differentiation between the two.
Christianity certainly agrees that truth has value. But if I choose by faith to abide by Christianity, by extension so too can I choose by faith, to accept as part of its doctrinal framework to assume value to truth as well.
But outside of Christianity, I see atheists imputing great value to truth or the pursuit of it. It violates their personal integrity, they cant sleep at night.
In fact I would claim that to me as an objective observer they worship it. Or at least it looks that way.
Why? Why do they do this?
Any why is the worship or the imputation of value to truth more reasonable than the imputation of value to random object designated God.
You're putting the cart before the horse. If you don't accept that truth has value, why should you care to select a thing to believe is true? In order to bother believing in Christianity, you must already believe that truth has value. Otherwise it would just be an irrelevant side note that you believed Christianity is true - it being true gives it no value over something else which is not true.
I don't need to accept as a preliminary step that truth as value. If Christianity demands from me that I have faith that truth has value, then I can give it value by faith. I can simply assume it into existence.
Jesus says whoever believes in me shall have eternal life. I see nothing which requires as prerequisite the doctrine that requires one to first accept that truth has value.
I'm not going to stick too strongly to my categorization of my belief as moral nihilism, as that was me looking to figure out the right category.
In fact, that categorization may well change by the end of this thread.
My beliefs certainly fall into some categories of nihilism but not all. With that said, a better place to start the debate would be the rest of my opinions which come out as the discussion flourishes, and I do expect it to enter the realm of religion.
But to your statement, I'm sorry I do not see how
"nothing is morally wrong or right" leads to no behavior is not conducive to flourishing of conscious creatures.
I know you base your argument on the defintion of morality based on acts conducive to the flourishing of conscious creatures, but that seems like a texualist argument. I dont see what morality has to do with the flourishing of conscious creatures. In fact from what I understand morality to be, it frequently flies in the face of the flourishing of conscious creatures.
Morality to me, is more like an arbritrary declaration of what is right or wrong.
But outside of Christianity, I see atheists imputing great value to truth or the pursuit of it. It violates their personal integrity, they cant sleep at night.
Your assertions about truth put you close to epistemological nihilism, which is far stronger than mere moral nihilism.
As for the imputation of value to truth, one path to this imputation is by way of the fact that truth (and only truth) can be "cashed out" for something metaphysical, whereas falsehood cannot. A true statement of the form "objects in free-fall move according to equation X" is more useful than any false statement of the same form insofar as it allows you to anticipate metaphysical reality. In fact, the logician Tarski famously defined truth in precisely this way.
In fact I would claim that to me as an objective observer they worship it. Or at least it looks that way.
If you think anything resembling "worship" can be ascribed to atheists as a general category, then you are far from an objective observer.
I'm sorry I do not see how "nothing is morally wrong or right" leads to no behavior is not conducive to flourishing of conscious creatures.
I gave the argument that explains how it leads there. Are you questioning the soundness of the argument, or merely the definition?
I know you base your argument on the defintion of morality based on acts conducive to the flourishing of conscious creatures, but that seems like a texualist argument. I dont see what morality has to do with the flourishing of conscious creatures. In fact from what I understand morality to be, it frequently flies in the face of the flourishing of conscious creatures.
I do believe that my definition is correct, in that it captures what "most people" mean when they use the word "moral" without being too vague or vacuous for analysis. This would be the part where you explain your own viewpoint further, perhaps offering specific definitions if you don't like mine.
The best cure for Moral Nihilism is a swift punch in the face. Seriously. If it isn't right or wrong, you can't be any form of mad about it. Of course you can attack me back and then we can fight, but we're gonna guess i come out on top, since i already got a nice clean shot in. Then, i go to jail for assault. The state claims it's wrong, because you shouldn't have to deal with random punches to the face.
Now, if i decide to stomp you until you die, i'll go to jail for murder. This means the country says it's wrong, because you shouldn't have to worry about being killed by strangers.
If any of that would make you upset, or you feel it would be in any way unfair to you, then there you have it. There is some right and wrong in the world.
If that doesn't make you angry or you don't feel it's unfair, and you honestly don't think that any actions anyone else taken against you isn't right or wrong, then there aren't really any arguments that can go against it. You are set in the belief. But you can't really say that unless in your life, you've never been happy, mad, sad, or judged anyone else for any of their actions. Because an action evoking any of those emotions would imply either goodness or badness in the action, which you claim no belief in.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whats the big deal about black lotus you ask? Well you see, there is no big deal about it. It IS the big deal.
I care by arbitrary declaration that I should care about such things.
Specifically, by arbitrary declaration that you should care about what is true. Note, of course, that that declaration is -also- a statement about something being true. "It is true that I should care..." If one does not care about truth, such a declaration will still carry no weight. Although it is true that you should care about what is true, you have no initial impetus to consider that truth noteworthy or motivating. The only way around it is to begin by caring about what is true. Only then can you move forward.
Of course I can be mad about you punching me in the face. I am human after all. I experience emotions, including pain and pleasure.
But I don't think punching me in the face is objectively wrong. It is neither right nor wrong it simply happened.
And I think if you found it in your best interest to punch me in the face, you most certainly would and I would expect you to punch me in the face for your own benefit.
I see value in pain, pleasure, comfort, and maximizing comfort. But I dont get it when arbitrary declarations of right or wrong factor into it.
If you stomp me until I die, I would most certainly expect you to do this too if you derived benefit from it. The law is such that you will not.
Fairness doesn't play even into it. If you win or lose because you got the shot in first, there is no fairness involved. The law doesn't care about fairness, it cares about maintaining the society. I cant get you to stop punching me or hurting me by shouting its unfair to you. Would you stop if I did?
Value in fairness is made up, and if me assserting it cannot get you to stop punching me, then it really has no value for me in the moment does it?
>Your assertions about truth put you close to epistemological nihilism, which is far stronger than mere moral nihilism.
>As for the imputation of value to truth, one path to this imputation is by way of the fact that truth (and only truth) can be "cashed out" for something metaphysical, whereas falsehood cannot. A true statement of the form "objects in free-fall move according to equation X" is more useful than any false statement of the same form insofar as it allows you to anticipate metaphysical reality. In fact, the logician Tarski famously defined truth in precisely this >>way.
Again, I have not studied philosophy and am open to further characterization to what my set of beliefs appears like. You said my beliefs appear closer to
epistemological nihilism; I am open to more discussion on what that means. As for what you wrote regarding the anticipation of metaphysical reality, obviously I would have to read more to get the full ambit of his school of thought, but for now I inquisitively counter---wouldn't mere suspicion also allow one to anticipate metaphysical reality? I tend to imagine a world based on suspicions of people acting for their own benefit. Truth is unnecessary. In fact seeing as how all of us may be limited in our ability to establish truth, i see this as being closer to reality--people acting on suspicions.
>In fact I would claim that to me as an objective observer they worship it. Or at least it looks that way.
>If you think anything resembling "worship" can be ascribed to atheists as a general category, then you are far from an objective observer.
Sigh...atheists always get so bent out of shape whenever I use the term "worship" anywhere near them. it's like it's some kind of loaded term to them.
Very well, I retract my previous qualification that atheists appear to "worship" truth and instead replace it with the characterization that many appear to impute great value to truth. I have no interest in a semantic war.
>I know you base your argument on the defintion of morality based on acts conducive to the flourishing of conscious creatures, but that seems like a texualist argument. I dont see what morality has to do with the flourishing of conscious creatures. In fact from what I understand morality to be, it frequently flies in the face of the flourishing of conscious creatures.
I do believe that my definition is correct, in that it captures what "most people" mean when they use the word "moral" without being too vague or vacuous for >analysis. This would be the part where you explain your own viewpoint further, perhaps offering specific definitions if you don't like mine.
The most I can do for now is slowly flesh out my views over the course of this thread. It is too big to simply state my views just upfront. But I would like to focus on the discussion for concerning the value of truth. That appears to be the crux of many atheists (understandably not all) in a denial of religion. They deny the truth of religion and hence place great value in truth.
My question is, how do they assume value for truth? America is a nation where Christians hold a good deal of political power and influence. From my observations atheists experience greater social friction (perhaps even borderline persecution). They are willing to maintain that social friction because they place value in truth. (they believe Christianity is untrue and therefore must maintain their stance in spite of the social friction) They do this because there is value in holding to the truth---that christianity is untrue.
Why? What makes them impute so much value to truth that they would accede to social friction?
Any why is the worship or the imputation of value to truth more reasonable than the imputation of value to random object designated God.
I know you have answered some of these inquiries and I appreciate it. What I'm looking for then are rebuttals to epistemological nihilism--if that appears to you to be the more accurate characterization of my views.
Addenda: if you want to suggest links to schools of thought that rebut epistemological nihilism, I am also open to that as well.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. A declaration that I should care about something being true is itself a truth?
Sure why not... I can give things meaning by simply choosing to give things meaning.
In fact in my nihilistic viewpoint that is the only way to give things meaning at all. Simply assume it. Declare it.
Once you have chosen by your arbitrary declaration to impute meaning to something, it has about as much meaning as it can have. I however just dont think that ones arbitrary declaration to give meaning to Christianity is less irrational than giving meaning to truth (especially as atheists who deny Christianity on that grounds would maintain it), and I see the former as producing greater benefits.
How could there be a rebuttal to ambivalence towards truth? Such a rebuttal would surely be a claim that certain things are true, but that has no value.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. A declaration that I should care about something being true is itself a truth?
Yes, it is a statement of fact about what you should care about.
Sure why not... I can give things meaning by simply choosing to give things meaning.
In fact in my nihilistic viewpoint that is the only way to give things meaning at all. Simply assume it. Declare it.
Yes, you have two choices: be ambivalent about the value of truth, and believe nothing else, or hold truth to have value, and go from there.
Once you have chosen by your arbitrary declaration to impute meaning to something, it has about as much meaning as it can have. I however just dont think that ones arbitrary declaration to give meaning to Christianity is less irrational than giving meaning to truth (especially as atheists who deny Christianity on that grounds would maintain it), and I see the former as producing greater benefits.
In order to give value to Christianity, you must first give value to truth. You cannot have Christianity before truth, or Christianity instead of truth. Christianity is fundamentally a set of statements that are claimed to be true. If you do not care about truth, there is nothing in Christianity to offer you. You would simply accept that those statements are true, but that acceptance would have no further interest.
I just dont believe this to be the case. Christian doctrine establishes that one who would believe in Jesus Christ would be saved.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever
believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. --John 3:16
There is no preliminary condition that one must believe in the value of truth prior to accepting Christian doctrine.
Do you have any textualist support in the bible that one must first as a preliminary matter accept value in truth or does it simply sit uneasy with you? Do you simply feel that it ought to be the case that one should accept value in truth as a prerequisite?
So, let's consider a conversation between Ned the Nihilist and Chris the Christian. Ned doesn't believe truth has value.
Chris: Those who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved.
Ned: Yes, that is true.
Chris: Isn't that nice?
Ned: I couldn't care less. What's so important about it being true? It is of no more interest to me than the false statement that those who believe in Jesus Christ will not be saved.
This is the problem. If you don't care about truth, you don't care about Christianity. A nihilist that thinks Christianity is true is exactly the same as a nihilist that thinks Christianity is false. There's nothing that makes the true case more interesting or important to meaningful than the false case, because truth has no value.
Chris: Those who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved.
Ned: Yes, so goes the doctrine.
Chris: Isn't that nice?
Ned: Well, it no more/no less irrational than everything in life. Very well, then I will believe this.
Chris: Does that work?
Ned: Why not? Things in life have no inherent value but that which we give it. Some give it to truth but not to Christ. Why can I not give it to both truth and Christ?
Chris: But your value in truth isn't real!
Ned: It's about as real as other people's value in truth. An arbitrary assignment of conviction that truth has value. The masses believe that truth has value and they believe it to be so without adequate logical justification. Why then can't I?
Chris: I dont like where you're going with this.
Ned: Things have value only because we give them value. I'm giving value to Christ and truth.
I believe in Christianity, that Christ is the lord, based on faith. there are not arguments which get me there; no logic. From a nihilistic perspective that is irrational and illogical, but so are a great many other things.
No, dude, that's illogical by definition. If you have no reason whatsoever to believe something, then yeah, believing it is illogical.
But... Seriously? If I asked you right now why you're Christian, you'd have no response? Nothing at all? You'd just say, "Eh, no reason?"
Here is where my nihilism shows. Where do you get the assumption that truth even has value?
Chris: Those who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved.
Ned: Yes, so goes the doctrine.
Chris: Isn't that nice?
Ned: Well, it no more/no less irrational than everything in life. Very well, then I will believe this.
Chris: Does that work?
Ned: Why not? Things in life have no inherent value but that which we give it. Some give it to truth but not to Christ. Why can I not give it to both truth and Christ?
Chris: But your value in truth isn't real!
Ned: It's about as real as other people's value in truth. An arbitrary assignment of conviction that truth has value. The masses believe that truth has value and they believe it to be so without adequate logical justification. Why then can't I?
Chris: I dont like where you're going with this.
Ned: Things have value only because we give them value. I'm giving value to Christ and truth.
I'm confused. Are you agreeing with me here? You have Ned accepting the value of truth, which is exactly my point - that you must accept that truth has value in order to care about Christianity. You argued the opposite.
If you were confused, then we missed each others point. I have nothing wrong with accepting the value of truth. I'm just calling the accepting of value of truth to be arbitrary. It must be assumed to be believed. Some believe in the value of truth based on faith. I'm fine with that. But I also see no difference between taking it on faith/fiat/declaration that truth is valuable and taking it on faith that God is valuable and should be believed in.
To believe in the value of truth is an act of faith. For reasons unbeknownst to me, many many many people seem to simply have that faith without any rational or logical justification. They simply take it at face value. Truth is good.
As highroller writes, truth is a starting point, it has inherent value. Fine.
As a Christian, I can say the same thing. God is truth. Christ is truth. Christ has inherent value. Christ is lord.
Every single one of those is an assertion without logical basis, no different from each other. I am fine with that being the state of affairs, but I do not see why one can call out another one's inherent starting assumptions to be illogical, while affirming another's starting assumptions.
To bring back another thread, its every bit as assinine or honorable to die for honor as it is to die for religion. Both are intangible concepts we arbitrarily assign value to.
The arbritary assignment of value is neither bad nor good, it simply is what we do.
I am a moral nihilist. I was atheist for many years, before coming to accept Christianity.
And I find the random, arbitrary declaration of Christianity as truth no less irrational than the arbitrary declaration love, hope, honor, and a number of of intangible "values" as real.
For the most part, I have not studied philosophy (hence my only recent discovery as to the school of thought best reflecting my world views without religion)
Id like to invite some counters to the school of Moral Nihilism, either by suggestions in links, or even outright debate as why individuals here may disagree with it.
Yes, random, arbitrary declaration of something as a truth is irrational.
That does not mean that all declarations of truth are random and arbitrary.
Well, first let's establish what you mean by moral nihilism. I take it to mean "nothing is morally wrong (or right)," which, by way of a definition of morality as "those behaviors which lead to the flourishing of conscious creatures," ultimately translates into something like "no behavior is not conducive to flourishing of conscious creatures."
If you agree with that unpacking, then let's start with a rather simplistic argument: I can immediately think of a behavior which fails to be conducive to the flourishing of conscious creatures. Say I undertook an action which resulted in the death of every conscious creature everywhere. Surely that action would qualify. Thus there is in fact a behavior which is not conducive to the flourishing of conscious creatures and therefore moral nihilism is false.
(Why did you make this thread in the Religion forum? Are you anticipating it will necessarily take a religious direction?)
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I believe in Christianity, that Christ is the lord, based on faith. there are not arguments which get me there; no logic. From a nihilistic perspective that is irrational and illogical, but so are a great many other things.
Atheists many times (but not always) argue they cannot believe in Christianity because there is no proof, evidence, or because it is outright false.
Here is where my nihilism shows. Where do you get the assumption that truth even has value? Why this worship of this light gooey thing called truth? I mean, it seems to me as America has many Christian adherents in power that one would create burden for themselves by chasing this thing --truth--which they impute value to.
In fact, many will pursue truth so strongly that they would willingly accept other burdens in life because of it. Is that not irrational? To impute value to truth when such value itself must be assumed.
To assume so much value in truth that one would incur more social burdens to me is as irrational as simply assuming value in God. The latter assumption seems like it would produce less social friction in a nation with so many Christian adherents.
Now Christianity to me is fine because it is a system which states to believe it based on arbitrary declaration or "faith" Simply believe. In some sense, i tried it and stuck with it.
But outside of Christianity, I see atheists imputing great value to truth or the pursuit of it. It violates their personal integrity, they cant sleep at night.
In fact I would claim that to me as an objective observer they worship it. Or at least it looks that way.
Why? Why do they do this?
Any why is the worship or the imputation of value to truth more reasonable than the imputation of value to random object designated God.
Jesus says whoever believes in me shall have eternal life. I see nothing which requires as prerequisite the doctrine that requires one to first accept that truth has value.
In fact, that categorization may well change by the end of this thread.
My beliefs certainly fall into some categories of nihilism but not all. With that said, a better place to start the debate would be the rest of my opinions which come out as the discussion flourishes, and I do expect it to enter the realm of religion.
But to your statement, I'm sorry I do not see how
"nothing is morally wrong or right" leads to no behavior is not conducive to flourishing of conscious creatures.
I know you base your argument on the defintion of morality based on acts conducive to the flourishing of conscious creatures, but that seems like a texualist argument. I dont see what morality has to do with the flourishing of conscious creatures. In fact from what I understand morality to be, it frequently flies in the face of the flourishing of conscious creatures.
Morality to me, is more like an arbritrary declaration of what is right or wrong.
Your assertions about truth put you close to epistemological nihilism, which is far stronger than mere moral nihilism.
As for the imputation of value to truth, one path to this imputation is by way of the fact that truth (and only truth) can be "cashed out" for something metaphysical, whereas falsehood cannot. A true statement of the form "objects in free-fall move according to equation X" is more useful than any false statement of the same form insofar as it allows you to anticipate metaphysical reality. In fact, the logician Tarski famously defined truth in precisely this way.
If you think anything resembling "worship" can be ascribed to atheists as a general category, then you are far from an objective observer.
I gave the argument that explains how it leads there. Are you questioning the soundness of the argument, or merely the definition?
I do believe that my definition is correct, in that it captures what "most people" mean when they use the word "moral" without being too vague or vacuous for analysis. This would be the part where you explain your own viewpoint further, perhaps offering specific definitions if you don't like mine.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Now, if i decide to stomp you until you die, i'll go to jail for murder. This means the country says it's wrong, because you shouldn't have to worry about being killed by strangers.
If any of that would make you upset, or you feel it would be in any way unfair to you, then there you have it. There is some right and wrong in the world.
If that doesn't make you angry or you don't feel it's unfair, and you honestly don't think that any actions anyone else taken against you isn't right or wrong, then there aren't really any arguments that can go against it. You are set in the belief. But you can't really say that unless in your life, you've never been happy, mad, sad, or judged anyone else for any of their actions. Because an action evoking any of those emotions would imply either goodness or badness in the action, which you claim no belief in.
Specifically, by arbitrary declaration that you should care about what is true. Note, of course, that that declaration is -also- a statement about something being true. "It is true that I should care..." If one does not care about truth, such a declaration will still carry no weight. Although it is true that you should care about what is true, you have no initial impetus to consider that truth noteworthy or motivating. The only way around it is to begin by caring about what is true. Only then can you move forward.
But I don't think punching me in the face is objectively wrong. It is neither right nor wrong it simply happened.
And I think if you found it in your best interest to punch me in the face, you most certainly would and I would expect you to punch me in the face for your own benefit.
I see value in pain, pleasure, comfort, and maximizing comfort. But I dont get it when arbitrary declarations of right or wrong factor into it.
If you stomp me until I die, I would most certainly expect you to do this too if you derived benefit from it. The law is such that you will not.
Fairness doesn't play even into it. If you win or lose because you got the shot in first, there is no fairness involved. The law doesn't care about fairness, it cares about maintaining the society. I cant get you to stop punching me or hurting me by shouting its unfair to you. Would you stop if I did?
Value in fairness is made up, and if me assserting it cannot get you to stop punching me, then it really has no value for me in the moment does it?
>As for the imputation of value to truth, one path to this imputation is by way of the fact that truth (and only truth) can be "cashed out" for something metaphysical, whereas falsehood cannot. A true statement of the form "objects in free-fall move according to equation X" is more useful than any false statement of the same form insofar as it allows you to anticipate metaphysical reality. In fact, the logician Tarski famously defined truth in precisely this >>way.
Again, I have not studied philosophy and am open to further characterization to what my set of beliefs appears like. You said my beliefs appear closer to
epistemological nihilism; I am open to more discussion on what that means. As for what you wrote regarding the anticipation of metaphysical reality, obviously I would have to read more to get the full ambit of his school of thought, but for now I inquisitively counter---wouldn't mere suspicion also allow one to anticipate metaphysical reality? I tend to imagine a world based on suspicions of people acting for their own benefit. Truth is unnecessary. In fact seeing as how all of us may be limited in our ability to establish truth, i see this as being closer to reality--people acting on suspicions.
>In fact I would claim that to me as an objective observer they worship it. Or at least it looks that way.
>If you think anything resembling "worship" can be ascribed to atheists as a general category, then you are far from an objective observer.
Sigh...atheists always get so bent out of shape whenever I use the term "worship" anywhere near them. it's like it's some kind of loaded term to them.
Very well, I retract my previous qualification that atheists appear to "worship" truth and instead replace it with the characterization that many appear to impute great value to truth. I have no interest in a semantic war.
>I know you base your argument on the defintion of morality based on acts conducive to the flourishing of conscious creatures, but that seems like a texualist argument. I dont see what morality has to do with the flourishing of conscious creatures. In fact from what I understand morality to be, it frequently flies in the face of the flourishing of conscious creatures.
I do believe that my definition is correct, in that it captures what "most people" mean when they use the word "moral" without being too vague or vacuous for >analysis. This would be the part where you explain your own viewpoint further, perhaps offering specific definitions if you don't like mine.
The most I can do for now is slowly flesh out my views over the course of this thread. It is too big to simply state my views just upfront. But I would like to focus on the discussion for concerning the value of truth. That appears to be the crux of many atheists (understandably not all) in a denial of religion. They deny the truth of religion and hence place great value in truth.
My question is, how do they assume value for truth? America is a nation where Christians hold a good deal of political power and influence. From my observations atheists experience greater social friction (perhaps even borderline persecution). They are willing to maintain that social friction because they place value in truth. (they believe Christianity is untrue and therefore must maintain their stance in spite of the social friction) They do this because there is value in holding to the truth---that christianity is untrue.
Why? What makes them impute so much value to truth that they would accede to social friction?
Any why is the worship or the imputation of value to truth more reasonable than the imputation of value to random object designated God.
I know you have answered some of these inquiries and I appreciate it. What I'm looking for then are rebuttals to epistemological nihilism--if that appears to you to be the more accurate characterization of my views.
Addenda: if you want to suggest links to schools of thought that rebut epistemological nihilism, I am also open to that as well.
Sure why not... I can give things meaning by simply choosing to give things meaning.
In fact in my nihilistic viewpoint that is the only way to give things meaning at all. Simply assume it. Declare it.
Once you have chosen by your arbitrary declaration to impute meaning to something, it has about as much meaning as it can have. I however just dont think that ones arbitrary declaration to give meaning to Christianity is less irrational than giving meaning to truth (especially as atheists who deny Christianity on that grounds would maintain it), and I see the former as producing greater benefits.
Yes, it is a statement of fact about what you should care about.
Yes, you have two choices: be ambivalent about the value of truth, and believe nothing else, or hold truth to have value, and go from there.
In order to give value to Christianity, you must first give value to truth. You cannot have Christianity before truth, or Christianity instead of truth. Christianity is fundamentally a set of statements that are claimed to be true. If you do not care about truth, there is nothing in Christianity to offer you. You would simply accept that those statements are true, but that acceptance would have no further interest.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever
believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. --John 3:16
There is no preliminary condition that one must believe in the value of truth prior to accepting Christian doctrine.
Do you have any textualist support in the bible that one must first as a preliminary matter accept value in truth or does it simply sit uneasy with you? Do you simply feel that it ought to be the case that one should accept value in truth as a prerequisite?
Chris: Those who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved.
Ned: Yes, that is true.
Chris: Isn't that nice?
Ned: I couldn't care less. What's so important about it being true? It is of no more interest to me than the false statement that those who believe in Jesus Christ will not be saved.
This is the problem. If you don't care about truth, you don't care about Christianity. A nihilist that thinks Christianity is true is exactly the same as a nihilist that thinks Christianity is false. There's nothing that makes the true case more interesting or important to meaningful than the false case, because truth has no value.
Ned: Yes, so goes the doctrine.
Chris: Isn't that nice?
Ned: Well, it no more/no less irrational than everything in life. Very well, then I will believe this.
Chris: Does that work?
Ned: Why not? Things in life have no inherent value but that which we give it. Some give it to truth but not to Christ. Why can I not give it to both truth and Christ?
Chris: But your value in truth isn't real!
Ned: It's about as real as other people's value in truth. An arbitrary assignment of conviction that truth has value. The masses believe that truth has value and they believe it to be so without adequate logical justification. Why then can't I?
Chris: I dont like where you're going with this.
Ned: Things have value only because we give them value. I'm giving value to Christ and truth.
But... Seriously? If I asked you right now why you're Christian, you'd have no response? Nothing at all? You'd just say, "Eh, no reason?"
Truth has value inherent in that it is true.
Very well Highroller. Christ has value because he is the Christ, the savior of the world.
Why is your assumption of inherency better than mine? Convince the nihilist. Use classical rebuttals to nihilism as that is what I am hoping for.
I'm confused. Are you agreeing with me here? You have Ned accepting the value of truth, which is exactly my point - that you must accept that truth has value in order to care about Christianity. You argued the opposite.
To believe in the value of truth is an act of faith. For reasons unbeknownst to me, many many many people seem to simply have that faith without any rational or logical justification. They simply take it at face value. Truth is good.
As highroller writes, truth is a starting point, it has inherent value. Fine.
As a Christian, I can say the same thing. God is truth. Christ is truth. Christ has inherent value. Christ is lord.
Every single one of those is an assertion without logical basis, no different from each other. I am fine with that being the state of affairs, but I do not see why one can call out another one's inherent starting assumptions to be illogical, while affirming another's starting assumptions.
To bring back another thread, its every bit as assinine or honorable to die for honor as it is to die for religion. Both are intangible concepts we arbitrarily assign value to.
The arbritary assignment of value is neither bad nor good, it simply is what we do.