Wednesday, March 19, 2014

An Analysis: Jason Thibodeau On Nontheism

What started out as note-taking for a conversation with Jason Thibodeau regarding his 2012 article, “Do Atheists Need a Moral Theory to be Moral Realists?”, turned into a serious look at the logic behind his propostion. So the first part of this will be note-like, morphing later on into an analysis (which doesn't develop until half way through, because that's where he actually starts his justification; seems there's always got to be theism-bashing first, even though the purported thrust of this article is a justification of metaphysical principles WITHOUT theism.)

He starts by assuming that moral theory has an ontological status. That’s where my notes start; also I assigned my own reference numbers to the paragraphs or concepts he put in place, so that I could differentiate them more easily.

1. Ontological Status for Moral Theory.

Assigning the status of ontology to moral theory is based on what evidence? Is it so assigned based only on the assumption of materialism/physicalism? If so, what is the evidence for those? Are there lumps of mass/energy called moral theories?

2. Moral Facts in Physicalist Theory.

How does a “moral fact” exist in a purely physical context? If there are “facts” that exist physically, then what do they weigh? What mass/energy do the contain? Or are facts merely phantoms, not physical things in themselves, perhaps a belief about some physical thing which is, in truth, mass/energy?

3. Tu Quoque for religion.

The argument will be made against religion, rather than for, Atheist moral facts?
“ these worldviews stand on equal footing; neither has any more right than the other to claim the ability to answer perplexing questions about the foundations of morality.”
4. Euthyphro.

“We have two choices:

a. Wrong actions (like murder) are wrong just because God commands[2]that we not engage in them. Right actions are right just because God commands that we perform them.

b. God commands that we not engage in wrong actions (such as murder) because these actions are wrong. And he commands that we perform right actions because they are right.”
That is not a correct statement of Euthyphro's actual reach.

Euthyphro leads to four, not two, possibilities.

1. God is subordinate to moral principles. (God is contingent)
2. Moral principles are subordinate to God. (God is capricious)
3. God is moral principle. (tautology)
4. God and moral principles are totally independent. (mutually exclusive)

Euthyphro is not a logical dichotomy; it is a False Dichotomy, a logical error of omission where the actual necessary proposition is omitted from the argument.

4. Euthyphro is dispensed with:

” My contention is that theism has no more secure metaphysical basis that accounts for objective morality than atheism. If I am right, then despite the philosophical value of Socrates' argument, atheism can be defended against the moral argument quite independently of the concerns that arise from the Euthyphro dilemma.”

“Even if it impossible to prove in some scientific/positivistic fashion that moral values exist, we probably find ourselves far more certain of the wrongness of such actions [as an adulterer's abandoning one's wife and children] than we may be of the truth of Einstein's relativity theories or of the universe's expansion. (Copan, 2003, p. 151)”
This is a purely western view of morality, not a general human consideration. So its value as a general universal principle is questionable, and it is without evidentiary support.

Side note of no particular assigned value: Buddha left his wife and children and took off on the road.

5. Intuitions as Moral Theory:
“there is no reason why an atheist cannot appeal to such intuitions as his basis for maintaining that morality is objective”.
Except that most Atheist philosophers give intuitions no credibility whatsoever; in fact, they are considered to be just more subjective delusions to be discredited by their lack of objective content for universal evaluation.
“Atheists no more need a godless moral theory to rely on these powerful moral intuitions than theists need a divine one to do the same.”
Non sequitur: theists do require a god source; that's why they are theists. Second half of the assertion is false.
“Unless there is a demonstrable, deep incoherence in atheistic moral realism, the atheist's commitment to objective morality can be as strong as that of the theist.”
And there IS a deep incoherence in Atheistic moral realism. Let’s take a look:
IF Atheism rejects all external sources of moral authority
THEN moral authority is internal to the Atheist.

IF moral authority is internal to the Atheist,
THEN moral authority is subjective within each Atheist.

IF moral authority is subjective within each Atheist,
THEN moral authority is subjective, not objective; morals so derived are not objective; morals so derived are personal proclivities; morals so derived are without force for any other individual; morals so derived are relative to the individual and thus are relativistic, relieving them of any objective values.

Further,

IF there is no such “thing” as moral authority,
THEN there are no authorized morals.
Here is the claim for universal applicability of any and all principles, save one:
“Similarly, in order to maintain that objective mathematics and logic are compatible with atheism, atheists need not develop a secular foundation for math and logic.”
In other words: There is no reason to prove something is true, if it can be demonstrated that "there is no reason to prove something is true". Circular.

Moreover, Atheism is either merely a rejection, in which case it has no actual principles, or it is a declaration of knowledge of non-existence, in which case it has one actual principle (an unprovable principle).

If Atheism has no principles attached to it, then it is trivial to assert compatability with it.

If Atheism has just one negative principle, then it is also trivial to assert compatibility with it. Under this theory, killing and eating children is also compatible with either theory of Atheism, as is any other practice X as well as its negation, practice !X. Atheism is a void into which everything fits without bending or filing.
“The demand that, if they are to be moral realists, atheists must offer a well-developed theory of the foundation of morality assumes that theists are already in possession of such an account”.
False. The demand is on each separately and independently, and is for (a) moral authority (source), and (b) moral theory grounded in the source. What theism says has no bearing on the validity or falsity of what Atheists claim. Atheist claims must withstand scrutiny on their own, without reference to theism.
“If there were no assumption that morality is easier to account for in a theistic framework, then it could not possibly count as a strike against atheism that it lacks an explanation of the basis of morality”.
This is an attempt to Poison The Well with claims that Atheism depends on theism, when in actuality if Atheism is the case, then it has no need of demeaning theism in advance of making its case.
“ I will show that (1) there is no reason to suppose that morality is more easily explained on the assumption that God exists and (2) there is no argument that succeeds in demonstrating that moral realism is the least bit in tension with the position that there is no God. Simply put, positing God makes it neither easier nor harder to explain the basis of morality. Contra Martin, then, atheists need not develop a secular foundation for morality in order to be moral realists.”
If this is the argument, then it is without value in declaring actual value for Atheist moral theories, which are easily demonstrated to be internal, subjective rather than objective, and without moral authority. We’ll see as we move along.

6. Still More Euthyphro:

“Though I will not pursue the argument here, I think that the Euthyphro dilemma is fatal to any theory that grounds morality in the will or character of God.[5] The responses to this dilemma[6] are unconvincing, and the autonomy of ethics seems to require that God plays no role in the grounding of moral facts.[7] However, focusing on the Euthyphro dilemma can result in our neglecting very significant weaknesses in theistic moral theories.”
This was already established, above.
“When we move beyond Euthyphro-type concerns, we find that theistic accounts of morality fail to answer many pressing foundational issues (which, in turn, leaves ample room for moral skepticism even under the assumption that God exists). Thus, when it comes to explaining objective morality, disbelief in a Supreme Being does not make the task more difficult. The task is difficult, period. Theistic "explanations" are little more than attempts to allay our curiosity while simultaneously maintaining the appropriate level of reverence for the profundity of the question; they blindly gesture toward an answer without actually removing any of the mystery.”
So far, this presents no case.
“Typically, responses to the moral argument for theism involve three lines of criticism: First and foremost, critics will appeal to the Euthyphro dilemma to show that theistic voluntarism[8] about morality has very counterintuitive consequences.[9] Second, the nontheistic moral realist will point to various deficiencies in the explanatory apparatus of the theistic theory.[10] Third, the defender of the thesis that morality is independent of God may sketch, develop, and/or defend some nontheistic moral theory.[11]”
The first and second issues have no bearing on the validity of an atheist theory, which is to be developed as the third part of the argument apparently. So I will skip to #3.

Well, scanning down, it is difficult to pull #3 out; I will skip, then, to the numbered, bolded statements.

7. Consideration 1: Naturalism/Materialism is Incompatible with Moral Realism

Because Atheism is compatible with everything and nothing, I will grant the Atheism part. However, Naturalism/Materialism have a hard row to hoe, because under the theory that only physical existence exists, then moral realism must be shown to be physical/material, existing in fixed lumps of mass, or indestructible waves of energy.

Let’s continue.
“…this concern is misdirected when used as a criticism of atheism.”
Good. Let’s see why that is:
“The primary mistake is to assume that atheism is equivalent to a kind of reductive materialism, according to which real properties are all and only those that are invoked in materialist or physicalist explanations. But this assumption is problematic in at least two ways. First, we are not aware of every physical law, and thus cannot claim to know the boundaries the physical. Second, and more to the point, most atheists do not actually hold such a view because there are real properties other than those that figure in physical laws. ”
I doubt seriously that it can be shown that “most atheists” do not hold such a view; my experience is otherwise. However, the real problem here is the assertion of “real properties other than those which figure in physical laws”. Are they physical or not?
“… but on the above criteria, it seems that it is not; logical validity figures in no physical law of which I am aware. But almost every atheist who has ever written is committed to the existence of validity as a genuine property. If atheists can legitimately be realists about validity and other logical properties, then why can they not also legitimately be realists about moral properties?”
This is problematic on two levels; first, physicalist; second, on the comprehension of first principles. If the intent is to destroy physicalism as a reliable theory of what exists – such as logical validity – then the argument is on the mark. On the other hand, given that logical validity is dependent upon first principles which are observable characteristics of the physical universe, then it fails. First Principles, of course, are observations which are deemed self-evident and incorrigible, and that process of assessment is outside of the realm of physical existence, being a conscious decision. (Apparently it all always comes back to whether the conscious mind is either an agent or a physical “thing”).

8. Next is an excellent argument to discuss:

“Nontheism: to the extent that they are explainable, all properties/events/objects are explainable without reference to God/gods; there are no properties that require a metaphysical grounding and/or explanation in terms of God/gods.”
First, why are we even discussing this, when the argument directly for the Atheist grounding is what we want to see and discuss? Second, after having made the case for nonphysical things existing (just above), how is the rejection of metaphysical grounding even possible without serious contradiction/incoherence? But moving on:
“As the bare claim that God is not necessary to explain the existence of anything, nontheism (as I have defined it) is much more relevant than reductive materialism to an evaluation of the implications of a worldview that lacks belief in God.”
Now I get it; it is possible to have a metaphysical, but not metaphysical, argument, one which is not restricted by the necessity of having mass/energy under the theories of physicalism/materialism. This also appears to be internally incoherent. But let’s move on again:
“Nontheism does not imply that there are no nonreducible properties, nor does it imply that there are no nonnatural or nonphysical properties. It only denies that there are properties whose metaphysical ground/explanation involves the existence or activities of God(s).”
Then we have moved directly into New Ageism, where physical proof is no longer necessary or possible, but where it can be invoked as true and valid without the usual standards of validation.
“The explanatory apparatus available to the nontheist is not limited to naturalistic explanations; it would be proper to characterize the metaphysics of nontheism as open, with the one caveat that gods are not allowed.”
This statement confirms the suspicion just above.

This sort of intellectual environment allows neither discrimination nor differentiation, because it has no principles with which to do so. It has removed both physical restrictions and has summarily decreed that there is no superior being allowed. This construction allows the Atheist to be the declared supreme intellect within the environment he creates, and to eliminate even physical restrictions (which necessarily removes the First Principles, and eliminates logic by excising it from its grounding). If this is the basis for the rest of the paper, it should be understood that the environment itself proposes that anything and nothing are provable within it.
“So it is an important consequence of the metaphysical openness of nontheism that nontheism can grant the existence of any feature of the universe for which there is either ample evidence or sufficient argument.”
This is an incomplete statement of the full impact of the “nontheist” environment. In fact, this statement is indiscernible from physicalist arguments. Any argument or evidence is sufficient in this environment of non-discrimination; so it can be either true or false depending only upon opinion. It’s rather like Baysianism in that regard.

9. Full-On Assertion Of The Validity of Myths, Just So Stories and Fables:
“A nontheist can follow the reasonable general principle that we ought to believe in whatever there is ample evidence to believe in. And this rule holds whether or not we have a theory that explains the metaphysical basis of that in which we believe. It is false that for everything in which we believe, we need an elaborate worldview that explains how such things are possible. For example, our scientifically naïve ancestors did not require a theory about what stars are and what makes them possible in order to believe that they exist.”
10. First Argument From No Restrictions:

“So it is an important consequence of the metaphysical openness of nontheism that nontheism can grant the existence of any feature of the universe for which there is either ample evidence or sufficient argument. Thus every consideration in favor of moral realism (that does not reference God as an explanatory power) can be used by the nontheist to justify his moral realism. In particular, every argument that Copan offers to justify the belief that morality is objective in his "The Moral Argument" can be appealed to by the nontheist. Nothing that is metaphysically odd or unusual is closed off to the nontheist just in virtue of its apparent irreducibility to physical properties.[16]”
This is blatant use of theism by merely denying that it is theism. It is intellectual theft by denying any restrictions due to materialism or logic. It is not justified by the author other than that with no restrictions, anything can be done, anything can be proven, and there being no discrimination or differentiation on the basis of validity or truth value, then truth is whatever is declared, no more and no less.

11. Consideration 2: On an Atheistic Worldview Moral Properties are Queer or Difficult to Account For This argument is granted. The environment now can accept either way with equanimity.

"But I see no reason to suppose that it is impossible to understand the foundations of morality without thereby knowing how to answer questions about moral motivation."
Of course not. Those questions would get in the way.

“Assuming that mortal persons cannot accomplish the task, whatever capacities God possesses in virtue of being a person cannot explain how he is able to create objective value while mortals lack that capability.”
But of course, no explanations are needed any more, right? Right? Or is it only theist propositions that require explanation? Blatant Special Pleading.

12. Consideration 3: Atheism has no Account of How Morality is Grounded or Explained And that is the entire thrust of this long article: to prove that Atheism doesn’t need to have an account of how morality is grounded or explained. (!)

So what the author does here is to go off on theism, rather than to support his own lack of account or lack of need for an account; he can just believe. There is serial Tu Quoquing going on here.

13. Consideration 4: You cannot Derive Value from Valuelessness

“For any move that the theist might make in response to this fact (assuming that it is a fact), there is a parallel, nontheistic move. For example, if the theist insists (with Copan below) that God has inherent moral value, the atheist can assert that the universe (or at least certain parts/aspects of it) does as well.”
This descends into absurdity. The Atheist, having established that he can make any assertion under the new “nontheist”, open environment where no discrimination against falseness can exist, goes ahead and makes an absurd assertion which has no possible proof. The “universe” does not predict or in any manner assure the existence of a metaphysical moral code; such is not deducible from mass/energy, so the nontheist just makes it so by declaring it to be so. There is zero proof that moral value is created by the universe. By confusing the issue with theism, the Atheist once again is playing word games with theism rather than providing any cogent reason for believing his statements.

Moving ahead, theism becomes the main topic, in a category supposed to be involving “deriving value from valuelessness”. Where is the Atheist positive position which proves that the opposite is actually true? Not here.

14. Finally; the End:

“Both Craig and Copan have chastised atheists for the perceived failure to offer an adequate explanation for how objective moral value can be grounded in a nontheistic universe. But before atheists feel obliged to offer such an account, they should demand the corresponding theistic one. This God-based account must do more than simply point to the Almighty (and his words, deeds, character, commands, etc.) as the source of moral facts; it must answer precisely the sorts of questions that Craig and Copan claim atheistic theories have not answered.”
This is an outrageously obvious Special Pleading. There is willful blindness to the nontheist demand to have no restrictions of physical or logical nature placed on himself, enabling the most egregiously unprovable and irrational statements to be declared as truth – while demanding that theists not be so liberated from proofs or logic.

I’m aghast.

49 comments:

Jason Thibodeau said...

Stan,
Thank you for your thoughts.

I think that much of what you say consists of misreadings of my argument. For example, you claim that non-theism has no restrictions of a logical nature. But that is not true. Indeed it is impossible to escape logical restrictions.

Non-theism is as subject to logical, rational, evidential principles as any other wordlview. Thus, I do not understand your complaint.

Now, to direct our conversation, I suggest the following: In the paper I argue that theism does not have an account of objective morality (or at least it has no better account than non-theism has). You obviously believe that it does. So, why don't we start there: You can explain what the theistic account of morality is. Perhaps you will convince me that I am wrong.

This is just a suggestion. We can take the conversation in other directions if you wish.

Stan said...

Jason,
I'm glad and surprised that you did not take offense at my analysis. I'm not sure that you internalized what I wrote, because I demonstrated a number of logic errors in nontheism, and you didn't address those.

Also, as far as the truth of nontheism, if there is such, there is no need to even bring theism into the mix in order to demonstrate how and why your theory is valid and true. That was one of my comments, too. Your theory needs to stand on its own, with no reference to theism if theism is a false and empty proposition.

But your paper does not justify the belief as standing on its own; rather it continually refers to theism as if nontheism actually depends on theism for its existence.

Perhaps you can clarify how it is that your theory stands up independently of theism, because it is valid and true for some specific independent reasons which you can provide.

Steven Satak said...

Perhaps it is because non-theism DOES depend on theism to exist as an option? However in error it might be, its name, 'Non-theism', would not be very descriptive if we removed the word 'theism'.

"Whatever you believe in, I don't" is not going to get very far by claiming to 'stand on its own'.

Indeed, I do believe I detect the sound of a branch being sawn off. Mmm... isn't that the activity I've associated with such thinking in the past?

Never mind, Stan and Jason can work this out. I hope.

Jason Thibodeau said...

Stan,
You are wrong to think that you demonstrated any error in my paper. Hence there is nothing for me to take offense at. I believe that if you take up my offer, then, in the course of the ensuing discussion, I will be able to demonstrate the many ways in which your analysis is flawed.

I will repeat my offer: I claim in the paper that theism has no better account of morality than non-theism.You disagree. I would ask that you demonstrate that you are correct.

Robert Coble said...

Without addressing the topic of this post, I will say that Jason was very civil and gracious in his response to my posts concerning a specific response in the ongoing debate between Dr. Keith Parsons and Dr. Edward Feser over on The Secular Outpost, even to the extent of extending the "final say" to me. For that, I am very grateful to him for NOT engaging in any ad hominem attack. We still disagreed on that topic at the end, but it was a gentlemanly disagreement. Thank you again, Jason.

Stan said...

Jason,
It is not sufficient to merely say that I am wrong about the logic errors. What is required is a point by point refutation, which demonstrates why each charge of error is itself an error. I am open to correction if the charges are in error. But I can't accept a blanket charge of being wrong.

Your paper seems to purport that by changing the restrictions on the rational process for your new theory such that they no longer apply, then you can accept without either evidence or logic; but then you declare that evidence and logic are, in fact required, although you do not describe what those entail. The accumulation of these two contradictory statements seems to mean that what evidence and logic you accept under your new theory would not be the same as under previous theories, or the theories would be the same. In fact the entire thrust of your new theory is to eliminate the need for any proofs whatsoever, such that you can then claim the same grounds as theism, while rejecting theism.

As evidence for this, from my ref #8, you say this:

“Nontheism does not imply that there are no nonreducible properties, nor does it imply that there are no nonnatural or nonphysical properties. It only denies that there are properties whose metaphysical ground/explanation involves the existence or activities of God(s).”

This is a blatant co-opting of metaphysical "grounding/explanation" which are theological in nature, while rejecting the deity involved for no logical reason. It is metaphysical and is therefore outside any "evidence" which is usually called for by physicalist atheists, so evidence is out. And any metaphysical deductions which might be made involving causation cannot be resolved physically, so logic is out.

The next comment comes from that realization:

“The explanatory apparatus available to the nontheist is not limited to naturalistic explanations; it would be proper to characterize the metaphysics of nontheism as open, with the one caveat that gods are not allowed.”

Logic of course is not open; it is bounded by principles and grounded by first principles. Logic is not open thought, nor is it free thought. If one uses logic, then the premises come first, and the conclusion is bound by the premises, under specific rules defining grounding, validity of form and premise, and truth value. The use of logic requires the user to be humble in the face of whatever the conclusion is, based on the truth of the premises.

In an open system which rejects the necessity of logic, rejects the necessity of material evidence, pre-defines the outcome as being void of a certain element but open to all other elements, then literally any imaginable fantasy can be argued to be true and valid, since there are no controls in place to test validity or truth.

So to argue "truth" from inside a fantasy environment is itself a fantasy.

This is the cumulative thrust of the logic errors in the theory. I suspect that your denial of error is based on the openness (lack of logical controls) inherent in the system, and that you have adopted the open system for your own worldview. That is fine for yourself, of course, but to argue against theism, which does accept and use logical constraints (theodicies abound, of course, such as Thomism), the entire conversation would be skewed due to the two differing ballfields being played upon simultaneously: fantasy vs. logic. No possible resolution would be expected.

So what is your take on this?

Stan said...

Another point: I saw no reasoning in your paper which provided a defining principle for grounding what you describe as "moral realism" in any specific source. If I missed that, please show me where to look, thanks.

Anonymous said...

Jason

So far so good.You have responded to Stan in a civil manner.Unlike most Atheist visitors to this site,who rather respond emotionally and then disappear.
There's just 2 things for you to do now:
a) Explain where Atheists (or non-theists as you call them) derive their moral principles from.
b)Be specific about Stan's "errors" regarding your article.Where exactly did he err?

Good luck,with your discussion with Stan.You are doing what few Atheists dare to do.You are truly one of a kind.

Steven Satak said...

Hmmm.

My experience so far is that atheists, for a variety of reasons, want what they want - no God - and proceed to eliminate Him through various 'proofs' relying on 'logic'.

However, the logic doesn't follow the rules of logic, as outlined on Stan's site. They follow whatever is required to support an ideology. IE; "I want what I want." If logical proof and reason do not cooperate with this effort, so much the worse for logic and reason.

Thus the constant shifting of ground under the atheist as they re-define *everything* around them to suit... what they want.

This reminds me of the current cultural trend of gay rights, etc. Rather than admit they are an aberration and be held accountable for their behavior and its effects on others around them, many (not all) in the LGBT fold are trying their damndest to tear down anyone and anything that could possible display disapproval.

I hope Jason is not attempting this with logic and reason - that is, re-defining them (as Hawking did with numbers) to the point where they accomadate a predetermined conclusion - that God does not exist, or rather, than disbelieving his existence is an exercise in rational thought.

It may be an opinion, certainly. But to claim Truth for it based on an artificially constricted 'logic' or lack thereof is no proof. Stan, am I correct in reading this as another attempt at a proof that there are no such things as proof?

The brilliant Hawking tried it and yet, curiously, outside his fellow mathematical-inclined amateur metaphysicians, he has convinced very few people that something can come from nothing.

Stan said...

Steven said,
"Stan, am I correct in reading this as another attempt at a proof that there are no such things as proof?"

I'll wait for Jason's response; perhaps he can clear this up.

Robert Coble said...

I may be missing the point (probably) of Jason's article, but the subject (at least according to the article title) is:

"Do Atheists Need a Moral Theory to be Moral Realists? (2012)"

Jason's definition of "moral realism" is given in the second paragraph: "the view that there are some moral facts." I don't think I am off-base to assume that the implication is that there are some {objective} moral facts.

I think the simple response to the question posed in the article title is: "No." I am certain that an atheist can hold the view that there are in fact some objective moral facts, and to act in accordance with (or contrary to) those objective moral facts. In short, the atheist can act in a morally good (or immorally bad) way, without reference to or elaboration of a moral theory per se.

The same can be said of theists. Theists can also hold the view that there are in fact some objective moral facts, and to act in accordance with (or contrary to) those objective moral facts. In short, the theist can act in a morally good (or immorally bad) way, without reference to or elaboration of a moral theory per se.

Consequently, IMHO, the question is NOT whether the theist or the atheist can hold the view that "there are some objective moral facts" and then act in a moral way that conforms to those (perhaps common) objective moral facts.

The question that seems to be the thrust of Jason's article (please correct me, if I have misconstrued it) is whether the grounds of objective moral facts can be coherently derived without reference to God/gods, since this is the only restriction stipulated.

The theist grounds for the existence of God (singular) are elaborated in the Aristotellian-Thomist Scholastic tradition, arriving at a logically necessary being who is necessary for the existence of ANYTHING, here and now, not just at some arbitrarily established point in past time (the Big Bang, for instance). It would be rather fantastic to imagine Aquinas arguing for a beginning to the universe predicated on the Big Bang, given that science had not arrived at that conception during his lifetime. The elaboration of "natural law" derives from the nature of the logically necessary being.

I would think that if it is logically coherent to assert the theory that there are objective moral facts that do not require God, then it should be possible (at least in principle) to elaborate the material or metaphysical grounds for that theory without reference to either God (a priori defined NOT to exist and therefore unavailable as the grounds for that theory) or to theist argumentation.

From what I've read in Jason's article, I have not seen this independent argumentation.

I remain open to satori.

For the record, "Buddhism is not what you think." (That's the title of a very provocative book.)

Anyone care to tackle the most common of all Zen koans?

"What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

Jason Thibodeau said...

Robert Coble (and all),
Thank you very much for your kind words. Of course the point of engaging with others on forums such as this is to communicate, the ultimate purpose of which is to reach mutual understanding. Obviously that is not always possible, but offensive behavior etc. is hardly conducive to that end. That is a guiding principle for me in all of my endeavors.

Stan,
You are correct that I have not shown that your various criticisms of my paper are flawed. I merely asserted it. I do not feel that an exhaustive account of the errors that I see in your analysis will be much use to us at this point.

I did point out that I am confused by your claim that non-theism is not subject to rational principles. I do not understand why you think that. Every assertion, every argument, every position is subject to rational and logical constraints. My views are no exception, nor did I say anything that suggests otherwise. So, I remain confused about your concern here. Non-theism is not an anything goes system of thought. As I indicated in the paper a non-theist will believe in anything that there is ample evidence to believe in. So, in addition to rational and logical constraints, non-theists are constrained by evidence.

My thought here is that a person should be able to reject belief in God (because of the Problem of Suffering, for example) without having to give up belief in any other feature of reality such that there is ample evidence to believe it. There, of course, is one caveat to that: If there are features of reality that can only exist if God exists, then a non-theist cannot believe in those. Thus, we arrive at what I take to be the crux of the argument: Are there features of reality such that they can only exist if God exists? Or, more to the point of the article: If morality only possible if God exists?

I maintain that it is not the case that morality requires God. You believe otherwise. My request is that you show me that it is true that morality requires God.

atheistcrimes,
Since I maintain that there is no theistic foundation of morality that is superior to a non-theistic foundation, I believe that the onus is on the person who believes that morality requires God to show that it does. So, I will put the same request to you that I put to Stan: What is the theistic account of morality?

Stan said...

Your position of requiring both logic and evidence is in direct contradiction to your statement of perfect openness save for the existence of God, the statment which I quoted for you above. If you require evidence and you are humble before logical findings, then your system is restricted, not open. So one of your claims, I don't know which, is incorrect. Please tell me which is incorrect so I can understand your position.

And you still must take some sort of position on how your moral principles are grounded, independent of theism. Here's why, as was stated previously: Your defense of non-theism should be a self-contained theory, totally independent of theism and standing on its own merits, isolated from all other theories; when it is clear how non-theism is grounded and complete without god or theism, only then can it be compared to theistic grounding, which is already understood.

If your theory cannot stand alone and independently, then it cannot have merit in an environment without deity. So how does it stand independently, without deity? That is the first issue to be resolved.

This is an issue because your paper merely asserts a "new open" evidentiary process, not hampered by any evidentiary restriction, in order to co-opt theist premises for your own use; yet you also claim to be evidence based (physical restriction) and logic based (first principles are physically based restrictions).

Put succinctly, you claim both (a) no restrictions and (b)restrictions, simultaneously.

If you claim restrictions as before when used under materialist/Atheism, then you cannot also claim to have "open" unrestricted access to metaphysical principles due to having those restrictions.

Since you seem to deny that this represents a serious contradiction without explaining why it is not, there seems to be no place to start this conversation. At least until this is cleared up.

Robert Coble said...

Repeating Jason's thought above:

"As I indicated in the paper a non-theist will believe in anything that there is ample evidence to believe in. So, in addition to rational and logical constraints, non-theists are constrained by evidence."

Perhaps one of the continuing sources of confusion as to meaning arises because of one word: "evidence."

Metaphysical argumentation (derived from a material beginning) reaches the conclusion that a single logically necessary being exists.

Does that metaphysical argumentation constitute "evidence" in the relevant (required) sense that would be accepted by a non-theist?

If not, does the usage of the term "evidence" imply or assume that the only acceptable "evidence" is physical (material; mass-energy, space/time) evidence?

In short, can one make a metaphysical argument that would constitute sufficient evidence for reasonable and responsible belief in the existence of a logically necessary being, or would that be "insufficient evidence" (in the materialist physical sense) for a non-theist?

If by "evidence" one implicitly (or explicitly) limits it to the materialist physical evidence, then (of course) there can be no metaphysical evidence or argumentation that would be acceptable for "proving" the existence of a logically necessary being. It would be equivalent to asking for "physical evidence" of a "nonphysical being" which (as has often been pointed out here by Stan) is a category error.

This confusing issue of definition of commonly used terms is often at the root of the fundamental inability of the theist or atheist to see the other's point(s).

As someone once quipped:

"They use our vocabulary, but they don't use our dictionary."

Hence, the requirement to define terms must always be the starting point, even though we often assume we know what the terminology means a priori (at least to our own satisfaction).

Stan said...

Robert, Good point.

Jason, how do you define evidence? What sort of evidence would be adequate to ground morality in a secular environment (no deity)? Which theist evidence do you take for use in non-theist moral theory?

Jason Thibodeau said...

Stan,
You say, "your statement of perfect openness save for the existence of God,"

I never said that non-theism is open, full stop. I said that non-theism is metaphysically open. Metaphysical openness does not entail epistemic openness or logical openness or rational openness. My claim is very straightforward.

I do not see that I need a theory for what grounds morality in order to be an atheist who is also a moral realist. Now, if it could be shown that morality requires the existence of God, then I would either have to believe in God, give up moral realism, or show that, on the contrary, morality can be accounted for in a non-theistic universe.

But so far, I have not heard an argument that shows that morality requires the existence of God.

Jason Thibodeau said...

Robert,
My conception of evidence is very broad. I would regard good argumentation as evidence (in addition, of course, to empirical data).

Robert Coble said...

Jason:

I realize that there are far too many resources available to be able to research them all, due to lack of time if not lack of resources. However, I will recommend that same book that I referenced over on The Secular Outpost:

New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy
Dr. Robert J. Spitzer
ISBN-10: 0802863833

If you are open to good argumentation for the existence of God (and the subsequent grounding of morality in the nature of God), I don't think there is anything I have found so far that is better. The arguments are laid out very carefully, with careful definition of terms and logical assumptions prior to usage so that there is no possibility of misunderstanding the arguments. I have found no better argumentation.

Dr. Spitzer acknowledges that there is NO metaphysical "proof" that will convince everyone. However, his goal is to establish that belief in a Creator God is both reasonable and responsible. He does not use any polemics against atheists nor ad hominem attacks, even though he does address some of the New Atheists positions.

Since I prefer reasoned discourse to polemics, I found the book both rigorous and a delight to read, even though the first two arguments based on current physics is (in places) WAY over my head. I also was impressed by the fact that Dr. Spitzer did not make an appeal to authority of any specific "Holy Book", even though (as a Jesuit) he is a Christian. That is my own personally preferred method of argumentation, even though I also am a professing Christian. I see no gain from appealing to an authority source rather than using rigorous logic when discussing God with those who do not share my own beliefs.

Highly recommended to both theists and atheists, if you want sound, carefully reasoned arguments for theism!

Stan said...

Jason says,
"Metaphysical openness does not entail epistemic openness or logical openness or rational openness. My claim is very straightforward."

My word! What, then does metaphysical openness entail?

And then,
"I do not see that I need a theory for what grounds morality in order to be an atheist who is also a moral realist."

Then there is nothing to discuss, is there? You can choose something to believe, anything really, because it need not be grounded in anything real, and yet you can call that belief "moral realism".

There is nothing there. Nothing to discuss. Anything whatsoever falls into your category, because you need no theory for grounding any proposition which is made. I'm afraid that you are unable to see what you are doing by asserting two contraries as fact. That falls into the category of logical failure, whether you accept it or not.

If you cannot produce any reasoning which shows your nontheist theory (you do have a theory, btw, you just want to deny it when it comes time to support it with something real, as it would seem that "moral realism" would demand, but apparently doesn't).

To recap: you have a theory which you claim boundaries for, yet you claim no need for any such theory with boundaries.

You choose not to reveal the boundaries using specifics which would validate the robustness of your theory, by claiming you don't need that theory.

But you claim it is superior to theism, even while not disclosing what the theory actually consists of... again ostensibly because you don't need such a theory in order for it to be superior to theist theories.

This is irrational and because it is irrational there is no point in addressing it further, unless you choose to disclose what your theory or nontheory consists of, so that it can be determined if it is robust on its own, or if it is merely an argument against theism which you devised disguised as moral (non)theory, whatever that amounts to.

If you want to argue only against theism and not in support of your (non)theory, why not just go ahead and demonstrate how your (non)theory disproves the existence of god? That seems to be the undercurrent of your refusals.

Stan said...

The more I think about this, I believe that this entire set up by Jason is a prank. This sentence from his most recent statement finally tumbled for me:

"I do not see that I need a theory for what grounds morality in order to be an atheist who is also a moral realist."

He presented a paper on his theory of "nontheism" which he claims to be a new theoretical approach to moral theory. But the theory presented, despite all the words in the presentation, has no content. And here he claims not to need it anyway, in order to be "an atheist who is a moral realist". So his statement still has no content. Yet he wants to use this content-free (non)-theory and justify its superiority to theist theories in a sort of contest of theories.

Further he continuously refuses to address any logical failures, because in his opinion, they cannot exist. His argument is perfect because it has no content?

This is obviously bogus; it is so rationally impossible that it must be just a joke, a prank.

Haha, Jason, you pranked us.

Now we'll move along to something else.

Jason Thibodeau said...

"He presented a paper on his theory of "nontheism" which he claims to be a new theoretical approach to moral theory."

I never said it was a theoretical approach to moral theory. That you read me in this way is indicative of your failure to understand my argument. Non-theism is a bare bones worldview. That is it. It is not an attempt to explain anything.

But, in any event, your last comments make it appear that you are not really interested in a conversation. It appears that you are only interested in expressing outrage at atheist arguments. That is facile. I hope I am wrong.

It would be nice if you would express a willingness to understand what I am saying. And I have many times indicated that you are misunderstanding. But what I see from you is merely a desire to ridicule atheism in any way that you can.

Jason Thibodeau said...

Robert,
Thank you very much for the recommendation. If I can get ahold of the book and find the time to read it, I will blog about it at my website.

I hope that we encounter each other again in the blogosphere. You are a very reasonable and interesting interlocutor.

Robert Coble said...

Stan:

I could be totally wrong (since I do not know Jason personally), but from what I've read of Jason's posts (here and on The Secular Outpost), none of his responses are intended as a prank.

Mi dos centavos... FWIW

Robert Coble said...

Addendum:

I did a little backtracking in the forward direction (yeah, I know: totally confusing) regarding Jason.

My apology in advance, Jason, if you would have preferred to remain relatively anonymous.

(Link: http://infidels.org/library/modern/jason_thibodeau/bio.html)

Jason B. Thibodeau
Curriculum Vitae

Position: Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Georgia Perimeter College

Education:

Ph.D., Philosophy, University of California, San Diego, 2006
M.A., Philosophy, University of California, San Diego, 2002
B.A., Philosophy, University of California, Berkeley, 1997

Teaching Positions:

Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Georgia Perimeter College, Fall 2010 - Present
Instructor, Imperial Valley College, Spring - Winter 2008
Adjunct Instructor, Cuyamaca College, Spring 2008 - Fall 2009
Visiting Assistant Professor, Auburn University, Department of Philosophy Fall 2005 - Fall 2006
Teaching Assistant, University of California, San Diego, Fall 1998 - Spring 2005

Homepage: http://notnotaphilosopher.wordpress.com/

As previously indicated, I do NOT believe Jason was attempting to prank anyone. Nothing he has written (that I have read) nor his background would indicate anything like a Jerry Coyne in operation here.

Stan said...

OK, let’s try this one last time. I’ll admit that my patience is running thin, because you make assertions which you do not support, and you do not answer questions. Further you declare that there can be no error in your proposition. But you do not discuss the errors alleged. And you do not admit that the robustness of your “theory” (or whatever you wish to call it), must be determined in the absence of theism, because it is premised to exist without theism, and to be on its own superior to theist theories.

There can be no reasonable expectation of a cogent discussion when you do not provide any information and do not answer issues which are raised. I’ll list here the necessary information regarding your paper that you must provide for my understanding before we can even begin to discuss whether your approach to discerning moral principles (if that is what you are proposing to do) is or is not robust.

Because you seem to speak in non-standard terms, definitions are necessary.

1. Define “moral theory” in terms of what is necessary and sufficient to determine the actuality of moral principles.

2. Define “moral realism” in terms of what is necessary and sufficient to be a moral realist.

3. List the specific moral principles which are discovered under your theory or process or (however you would choose to describe the discovery process).

4. Given that theist theoretical propositions are grounded in incorrigible first principles which are self-evident and pass Reductio Ad Absurdum testing, then how, exactly and in detail, are non-theist propositions superior?

5. In logic, ungrounded propositions are considered either to be false or just opinion; this is especially true in metaphysics. Then, given that understanding, what is the truth value of the moral principles discovered using your theory/process/method?

6. Given: physical evidence has no place in metaphysics, because if there is physical evidence, then the issue becomes physics, not metaphysics;
AND,
Given: logic, if ungrounded, is not logic, it is opinion;
Then: for metaphysical, ungrounded propositions, what standard of truth validation is used? What standard is used to validate the nontheistic moral principles discovered using your method? What actual truth value can be assigned to those principles?

7. Practical consideration: moral principles require grounding in moral authority, or they are just opinions. Moral authority is a necessary and sufficient condition for giving truth value to moral principles, because along with authority to declare universally proper behaviors, also endowed is the power to provide universal consequences for improper behaviors. Ungrounded moral principles are without any sort of moral authority. Then the question is obvious: how is moral authority obtained for non-theistic, ungrounded moral principles, however those principles are derived?

8. Regarding #7, how are ungrounded moral principles via nontheistic theory/method/process superior to grounded theist moral principles?

When your methodology details and specific moral principles are understood, then we will be able to discuss their merits in terms of truth value and logical robustness.

If you disagree, and choose not to provide this information, then there is no way to proceed that I can see.

Stan said...

I feel obliged to respond to Jason's comment, reproduced here:
"It would be nice if you would express a willingness to understand what I am saying. And I have many times indicated that you are misunderstanding. But what I see from you is merely a desire to ridicule atheism in any way that you can."

It would be nice if you would answer questions directly rather than write me off as "misunderstanding" with no explanation. That diffidence actually reeks of the atheist arrogance which seems endemic to atheism, regardless of how polite they might be. Your disregard for the comments which have been made, coupled with no information whatsoever, appears to me to be a "tell", that you will continue not to be forthcoming in the defense of your position - whatever it might be in your eyes.

I find this highly annoying. However, I have given you some issues, enumerated above, which, if answered, could serve as a basis for future conversation. If I misunderstand, then kindly educate me, don't just flip me off.

Steven Satak said...

@Jason: please, just answer the questions Stan has put to you. They were polite, well-phrased and he is obviously willing to work with you on defining terms, etc.

Your responses up to this point (as far as I can tell) have been self-contradictory, dismissive or circular in nature. And you have NOT addressed any of the questions Stan asked.

Are you avoiding this? Why? No one here is attacking you, no one has dismissed your statements but in fact, Stan has put quite a bit of work into parsing your comments and trying to determine where you stand. He is not the only one.

Are you serious about this?



Anonymous said...

Jason

You keep telling us what you did NOT say and what your morality does NOT entail.How about making an actual positive claim about your (non-theism) morality that we can examine?
Watch...I will make a simple positive claim about theistic morality without the need for evasive tactics by continuously shifting the onus on my opponent

You said:Since I maintain that there is no theistic foundation of morality that is superior to a non-theistic foundation, I believe that the onus is on the person who believes that morality requires God to show that it does. So, I will put the same request to you that I put to Stan: What is the theistic account of morality?.

Theist morality with the exception of Islam is based on the Golden Rule.
It's axiomatic ,relying on our intuition and first principles of logic for its validity and cannot be proven to be true using the scientific method.Thus it falls outside of the Atheist paradigm for discovering truth and morality.
So,yes,theistic morality is superior to that of non-theism.Unless of course you can show us why the golden rule is false,absurd or obsolete.Also be sure to outline your "superior" non-theism moral principles.

Jason Thibodeau said...

atheistcrimes,

Thank you. That is a thoughtful answer.

However, I am not shifting the burden without cause. I don't think it is at all obvious that morality requires God. So, I think that this needs to be shown before the atheist needs to offer a theory of morality to maintain his moral realism.

I don't understand why we should think that the Golden Rule entails the existence of God. Schopenhauer's atheistic moral theory arrives at the Golden Rule without postulating God.

You claim that we cannot arrive at the GR using the scientific method. That may be true, I don't know. But it is irrelevant since atheists can appeal to more than the scientific method to prove things.

You said that we arrive at the GR using intuition and logic, I suppose that is roughly right. But then you make the odd claim it falls outside the atheist paradigm. I don't see that at all. Why can't atheists use intuition and logic? (Indeed, they must be subject to logic since all use of language is.)

Jason Thibodeau said...

Steve Satak,

I don't agree that Stan's questions are well-phrased. Some of them are fine, but many appear to be a series of unwarranted assertions that are not argued for.

In any event, Stan thinks that I am perpetrating a hoax. I see no reason to engage with such a person. Communication requires a shared belief in basic facts, it is a fact that I am not perpetrating a hoax. Stan thinks otherwise. We cannot communicate.

Do you want to tell me what has been self-contradictory, dismissive, or circular about my responses?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...



Nowhere did I mention god.I purposefully avoid mentioning god because Atheism/Materialism can easily be refuted without invoking any deity.I suspect your continuous mentioning of a god is that you hope I'll refer to the bible and from there you can start launching your attacks,or better yet...tu quoques.
Besides,Atheists need to update their concepts of what god is.Many theist and dualist scientists and philosophers have long abondanoned outdated religious concepts.

You said:But then you make the odd claim it falls outside the atheist paradigm. I don't see that at all. Why can't atheists use intuition and logic? (Indeed, they must be subject to logic since all use of language is)

It's not that odd and here's why.Atheists insist that all knowledge can only be acquired via empiricism.Only the material exists (hence the term Materialists);it is quantifiable and can be subjected to experimental,replicable and falsifiable tests under laboratory conditions.
Unless you can prove to me that intuition can pass empirical tests,only then will it be considered to be material and therefore within the Atheists paradigm.Show me such a peer reviewed study.

I cannot stress the following enough times:
Atheists demand only material evidence from all theist claims.This is the their unrelenting standards of evidence.So,keeping in tune with that standard...on this blog we only demand material evidence from Atheists.
The problem with logic as evidence is that a logical possibility only requires that the statement should follow a specific format and be coherent or contain no contradictions.A logical possibility may contain a false premise but an empirical possibility must be logical with accompanying material evidence.Therefore intuition and logic is unacceptable as evidence when dealing with Atheists.Remember,we are only following their own criterion,which no Atheist to date has ever satisfied.

Stan said...

Jason,
Your refusal to engage says this about your theory/position/claim or whatever you wish to call it: there is likely nothing there to defend. In other words, it is proper to assume that your theory/position/claim is an empty claim, because you make only empty retorts, without meaning attached to them.

This is a standard of skepticism which is used even by atheists and philosophical analysts. If a theory/position/claim is not defended, it is presumably an indefensible claim.

For example, you did not address the issue of euthypro's dilemma being a false dilemma. Nor do you address the issue of your use of the terminology "nontheist moral theory", if there is no such thing. Nor do you address your position of using "intution" as an "objective" source - an internal contradiction. And theism is a worldview; there are moral theories called "theist moral theories" which support the theist worldview which are part of the worldview; yet you seem to claim a boundary between "nontheism" and "nontheist moral theory": why?

The list goes on, but you blew it off, summarily, and you refuse to explain your, shall we call them: logical deviations, since you assert that your position is error free, therefore errors need not be discussed. You will not even explain the meaning or content of your moral theory.

Refusal to explain is an error of rhetoric, where a concept is declared unassailable for no reason whatsoever.

Refusal to engage directly, but insisting on a different path is a Red Herring.

Will you respond? Apparently you have decided to refuse to do so. My skepticism is so far unabated.

Stan said...


Ok folks, since Jason is not responsive with explanations of his position, let’s try to list what we think we do know about it. Here are some things that seem to be the case; please help me out with more, or corrections to this list:

1. Nontheism is an exclusionary environment; it is not a moral theory. It is "open" but first summarily rejects deity. It is declared "metaphysically open" (except no deity) but subject to logic and evidence. It is not known what "metaphysically open" entails. Nor is it known what logic and evidence is being referenced.

2. Metaphysical concepts are fair game in the nontheism environment.

3. Intuition is a source of objective knowledge.

4. Euthyphro’s dilemma is thought to be conclusive but not necessary. But he won’t address the issue of its status as a false dilemma.

5. Moral theory in the nontheist environment is superior to theist moral theory, presumably because god is defined as non-existent, but possibly also because of denialism by coopting the premises and denying the conclusion. We cannot know this for certain, because he so far hasn’t told us.

6. Refusal to engage limits what we can know about nontheism’s nontheory of morality, except that it is superior to theism’s theory of morality. This leads to the suspicion that it is merely denialism cloaked in a long paper which doesn’t actually define it. However, we cannot know that for certain until/unless he reveals the details of his path and process for discernment of moral principle which he considers “objective” in nature, and the objective principles which were discerned by his path and process.

7. It is possible that he has actually discerned no objective principles without the help of theist moral principles. We cannot know that under these circumstances; however, his denialism in his response to atheistcrimes can be considered a precursor, and his use of intuition as objective knowledge bolsters that suspicion.

Feel free to add to, or correct this list. Maybe we can put together an idea of what his concept contains.

Robert Coble said...

Jason:

"However, I am not shifting the burden without cause. I don't think it is at all obvious that morality requires God. So, I think that this needs to be shown before the atheist needs to offer a theory of morality to maintain his moral realism."

Let's agree (merely for the sake of discussion, if not for argument) on two assumptions:

1. There is NO God/gods/Fod/Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other supernatural being to which an appeal can be made to as the source of objective morality.

This was the one restrictive stipulation in your article "Do Atheists Need a Moral Theory to be Moral Realists? (2012)". All other metaphysical and physical options appear to be available.

2. Moral realism is the view that there are objective moral facts.

I infer from this statement (and the rest of your article regarding your self-identification as a moral realist) that you believe there are objective moral facts. In other words, there are "oughts" and "ought nots" which exist independently of any person or persons subjective opinions.

My question to you is rather simple:

What is the basis (the objective grounding; the moral theory underlying and sustaining, if you will) of those objective moral facts?

I do not see any way to avoid a requirement for proposing such a moral theory IFF the two conditions stipulated above are reasonable and acceptable AND one seeks to understand WHY objective morality exists.

I also see no reason why someone who does not accept both of those two conditions has any burden whatsoever to relieve that requirement for proposing an objective moral theory establishing the objective grounds for objective moral facts.

Inquiring (objectively moral) minds want to know...

Robert Coble said...

On a totally unrelated note:

Since I "outted" Jason as a professional philosopher (or a professional teacher of philosophers; I'm not sure there is a big distinction there), I feel it only fair to publish my own C.V.:

AA Data Processing Merced Junior College 1977

Yep, folks, that's the entire C.V. for me. Now you can safely ignore anything that I write here.

Jason Thibodeau said...

atheistcrimes,
"Atheists demand only material evidence from all theist claims."

That just isn't so. You might want to read more atheist books and articles. JL Mackie's The Miracle of Theism is a good place to start. I have other suggestions if you are interested.

Many atheists believe (and I am one of them) that empirical science is not the only means to acquire knowledge. Many also believe that there are facts that are not reducible to material facts. Mathematical facts and moral facts are two obvious candidates. Nor is mathematics an empirical enterprise.

You are laboring under Stan's misunderstanding and false presentation of Atheism. If you would like to discuss this further, can I humbly suggest that you check out the Secular Outpost blog (There are two new posts about Stan and his arguments. Please contribute to the discussion), or my own blog (which Robert Coble helpfully provided above.

I don't really see the point of carrying on a conversation with Stan given that he believes that I am a hoaxer. However, I would be happy to continue this conversation with you at either of two websites I mentioned.

Jason Thibodeau said...

Robert,
For two reasons I suggest that we move our discussion either to the Secular Outpost (Jeff Lowder has two new posts directed at Stan's arguments; I don't think he'd mind if we used the comments section to share this conversation) or else at my blog (I have an old entry on my article, "Do Atheists Need a Moral Theory to be Moral Realists?" that would be well-suited for this conversation).

The two reasons are (1) I don't like blogger's commenting system. It is annoying to have to prove that I am not a robot with every comment. Plus it is not possible to edit comments. (2) I don't think Stan really wants to engage in rational discourse, as I indicated earlier. (I could be wrong, but his comments claiming that I am a fraud really are beyond the pale.) I don't want to give readers of his blog the false impression that he facilitates it.

Stan said...

Yes, Jason,
You are now running away without answering a single question. I asked you direct questions, which you disparaged without answering.

What others say about me on their cloistered blogs is of no consequence. What is of rational consequence is your hasty retreat without presenting any case in defense of your position, and your refusal to answer questions which apparently are destructive to your position. It can certainly be presumed that if your position were robust, that you would explain and defend it. You have made no attempt at that.

So, adios.

Steven Satak said...

@Jason: Stan considered your approach to be an attempt at a hoax because, despite repeated attempts to get you to answer direct questions with direct answers, you evaded the questions or ignored them completely, continuing to write as though your point had already been made.

It has not.

Now you are refusing to answer the questions because, in a word, you are offended. Yes, you now refuse to address any of Stan's questions or points - beyond rote unsubstantiated denial - because he has insulted you.

That is not so. I think you know it, but it permits you a fig leaf so that you can continue to non-answer our questions.

"...but many appear to be a series of unwarranted assertions that are not argued for."

Please explain why those assertions are unwarranted and why Stan should argue them when you patently refuse to address any of the questions asked of you?

Fair is fair, after all.

Oh - and the reason the Captcha is in effect is because we get a lot of trolls in here. We don't need viagra-pimping robots added to the mix. Is that really a burden for you?

Anonymous said...

Jason

I've just visited Secular Outpost
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/03/20/stan-on-materialism-and-morality/

I see the same problem over there that happened over here.You guys claim Stan's arguments are too vague and undefined and so you can't evaluate his arguments.
If his definitions are incorrect,then...gee I don't know...correct him? Why is that so hard?

Jeffrey Lowder had this to say:The claim that “Philosophical Materialism” is incoherent is a pretty major claim. I do not find any arguments or reasons in support anywhere in his comments.In my opinion, materialism is coherent. I just see no reason to think that it’s true.

That's not a refutation,it's unsubstantiated opinion in the form of denial.At least Stan had the decency to lay down his definitions.You could have attacked that with counter evidence.
Look,it's pretty obvious,Stan has done what many seem to think is the impossible.He has exposed Atheism and defeated it.

Stan said...

I doubt that Jason will be back here. He didn't like the sign in process. I am engaging him over here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/03/20/stan-on-materialism-and-morality/

Robert Coble said...

FWIW, I reposted my question above to Jason on his blog site. My question was:

What is the basis (the objective grounding; the moral theory underlying and sustaining, if you will) of those objective moral facts?

I am copying his last response into this post. I'm just letting everyone here know that he is responding; I am NOT looking for counterarguments or comments here. If you want to counter his post, I suggest going to his blog to do it directly. I won't be cross-posting this entire dialog, and, hopefully, I am not violating any "rules" against copying things from one blog to another. Jason's last post was:

Why do objective moral facts exist?

This is a very big and important question that some of the greatest minds in history have attempted to answer. I am particularly impressed with the work of Immanuel Kant and Arthur Schopenhauer with respect to this issue. But, with Kant at least, we are dealing with perhaps the greatest philosophical mind the world has ever known (not to disparage Schopenhauer in any way, who is certainly no slouch). So, I think we do not ere when we express humility in the face of such questions.

Nonetheless, I am going to suggest that the question might have a relatively simple and straightforward answer. The answer this: Sentient creatures exist.

Moral facts concern actions and attitudes that we take toward sentient creatures. In virtue of being sentient, there are things that it is wrong to do to them and things that it is obligatory to do.

Simple answer, but obviously it needs to be worked out quite a bit more. For one thing, we need an argument. I am working on a larger blog post that will develop this idea.


I look forward to seeing Jason's theory. I also would put Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas into the same category of the greatest minds in history, but then, I'm a theist and amateur armchair philosopher, so what would I know?

I'm not interested in steering anyone away from this blog. However, if interested in his answer, here is Jason's blog site again:

http://notnotaphilosopher.wordpress.com/

I also strongly suggest following Stan's "debate" (if it can be called that) over on The Secular Post, at the link he gave above.

Robert Coble said...

Correction to my last post: That should be The Secular Outpost, not The Secular Post. Mea culpa; too fast on the "Publish" button....

Stan said...

Robert,
If you're up for it, please contact me by email, thanks.

ascent.from.materialism@gmail.co,

Robert Coble said...

Stan:

I sent an email to you. I hope all is well with you!

yonose said...

Hello Everyone,

I've lapsed from this blog for a while. And I have some stuff to talk with Stan, and is unfinished. It's nothing wrong or offensive and is in relation with is issue at hand. I'll have to finish this semester first so I have more time to discuss this all along, I promise (I have to deal with my job, too).

Don't take my sayings as truthful words, but I see some pattern here, very, very common in my own humble experience. Please just take this as an opinion of a humble layman regarding philosophy.

Talking in a very reductionist fashion, I believe the reason Jason behaves this way, is partly a matter of "exposure".

I humbly believe this actually is the problem that storms philosophers that agree with the use and tenets of the school of Analytic Philosophy. And this school of thought is what is being taught as mainstream in an undergrad philosophy course, and of course, students decide if they want to keep up with it.

To understand the basics of this school of thought, it is good to browse this source:

plato.stanford.edu concept of analysis within Analytic Philosophy

I also believe Jason is polite and serious, even if it is the very first time in my life I know about him.

Maybe Jason does not consider to "extend" of "shift the burden" even if it may be necessary.

I humbly believe the "quirks" regarding Analytic Philosophy, when defining what/when/where the use of logical analysis should be, is part of the miscommunication happening here.

I personally blame some other factors when philosophers are dismissive of other philosophical traditions or schools of thought.

Kind Regards.

Stan said...

yonose,
Good to see you here. You are one busy guy; working your way through university is not easy - I know because I did it too, although the education expense back then was nothing like it is now!

Good luck, we'll see you when you get back.