Atheism ends today

[Enki]

That equates Empiricism with atheism, Empiricism excludes a lot of things e.g. a sixth sense for instance. Of course the notion that the universe only comprises of things that can be empirically demonstrated cannot itself be empirically demonstrated and that is why it is so unreasonable.....that's just philosophy 101.

Not in my case. I simply use empiricism to help explain my atheistic viewpoint because, apart from a rational approach, I know of no other way which is as reliable. I also use empiricism to explain a myriad of other things(e.g. why I drive more carefully on an icy road, why I take an umbrella sometimes when I take the dog for a walk). I have had plenty of 'sixth sense' moments, most of which have resulted in nothing at all, so I don't set much store by their reliability.

Of course, one may employ personal feelings to "know" the truth about something but that is of little use to me, because I could just as easily "know" something entirely different using the same personal backup. Where does that lead us? In my opinion precisely nowhere because, in the absence of any objective(or at least intersubjective) approach, one is left with something which to all intents and purposes is simply pure assertion on both sides. So, if you consider that an empiricist approach to be unreasonable, then I would consider your alternative approach to be far more unreasonable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not in my case. I simply use empiricism to help explain my atheistic viewpoint because, apart from a rational approach, I know of no other way which is as reliable. I also use empiricism to explain a myriad of other things(e.g. why I drive more carefully on an icy road, why I take an umbrella sometimes when I take the dog for a walk). I have had plenty of 'sixth sense' moments, most of which have resulted in nothing at all, so I don't set much store by their reliability.

Of course, one may employ personal feelings to "know" the truth about something but that is of little use to me, because I could just as easily "know" something entirely different using the same personal backup. Where does that lead us? In my opinion precisely nowhere because, in the absence of any objective(or at least intersubjective) approach, one is left with something which to all intents and purposes is simply pure assertion on both sides. So, if you consider that an empiricist approach to be unreasonable, then I would consider your alternative approach to be far more unreasonable.

I think people use methodological empiricism where appropriate and not use it where it is likely to be unreliable vis making moral decisions, relationships etc, when considering the necessary rather than the contingent.

I don’t see anything special in your approach and certainly I don’t see how methodological empiricism is warrant for atheism.

[Gordon]

I think people use methodological empiricism where appropriate and not use it where it is likely to be unreliable vis making moral decisions, relationships etc, when considering the necessary rather than the contingent.

So, Vlad, are you saying that this "necessary" isn't amenable to empirical investigation?

[Enki]

I think people use methodological empiricism where appropriate and not use it where it is likely to be unreliable vis making moral decisions, relationships etc, when considering the necessary rather than the contingent.

As I haven't laid any claim to methodological empiricism, I see no reason to comment. As regards my moral decisions, relationships etc. I don't see them as objective truths but rather related to feelings which are the result of such things as nature, environment, experience, upbringing, and a rational approach

I don’t see anything special in your approach

No, I don't see it as anything special either. To me it seems quite natural.

 

and certainly I don’t see how methodological empiricism is warrant for atheism.

Nor do I, as I certainly am not an advocate for methodological empiricism. However, as there is no empirical evidence that a God entity exists as an objective truth, that alone gives me justification  not to believe in such an entity.

[ProfessorDavey]

As regards my moral decisions, relationships etc. I don't see them as objective truths but rather related to feelings which are the result of such things as nature, environment, experience, upbringing, and a rational approach

Couldn't agree more.

The problem for Vlad is he seems constantly to want to blur the distinction between objective truths (true for everyone and therefore subject to objective evidence to be considered valid) and subjective truths (true for me), which require nothing further than a subjective opinion to be valid. But this is the hallmark of many theists who consider a subjective truth (god feels real to me) to equate to an objective truth (god actually exists for everyone), which is no more valid that claiming that I feel that Mozart is the greatest composer (a subjective truth) means that Mozart is objectively the greatest composer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I haven't laid any claim to methodological empiricism, I see no reason to comment. As regards my moral decisions, relationships etc. I don't see them as objective truths but rather related to feelings which are the result of such things as nature, environment, experience, upbringing, and a rational approach

No, I don't see it as anything special either. To me it seems quite natural.

 
Nor do I, as I certainly am not an advocate for methodological empiricism. However, as there is no empirical evidence that a God entity exists as an objective truth, that alone gives me justification  not to believe in such an entity.

I'm afraid you have laid claim to it by your description of your use of, support and faith in empiricism.

How you come to moral decisions is not by empiricism which was exactly the point I was making but you have responded by making agreement look like disagreement, a common fault on this board.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, Vlad, are you saying that this "necessary" isn't amenable to empirical investigation?

That may well be since the necessity of a universe that just is has not so far been amenable to empiricism which so far has just yielded more knowledge of things which are contingent.........and that's just without even considering God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Couldn't agree more.

The problem for Vlad is he seems constantly to want to blur the distinction between objective truths (true for everyone and therefore subject to objective evidence to be considered valid) and subjective truths (true for me), which require nothing further than a subjective opinion to be valid. But this is the hallmark of many theists who consider a subjective truth (god feels real to me) to equate to an objective truth (god actually exists for everyone), which is no more valid that claiming that I feel that Mozart is the greatest composer (a subjective truth) means that Mozart is objectively the greatest composer.

If you think morality is just a question of taste I find the idea of you being your institute's ''go to man'' on ethics rather alarming.

I don't suppose the idea of God both existing and feeling real to a person does your blood pressure any good.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you think morality is just a question of taste I find the idea of you being your institute's ''go to man'' on ethics rather alarming.

Firstly I have never said I am the ''go to man'' on ethics, rather I am one of the ''go to people'' on ethics, as I've been involved in research ethics for nigh on 25 years now, currently as chair of one of our ethics panels. I also have a masters qualification in the topic and teach medical ethics at undergraduate and postgraduate level. So yes I am a ''go to person'' amongst others and my expertise and experience in these matters is, I believe, highly valued by my institution.

I have also never said that ethics (or morality) is a matter of taste, but I would argue very strongly that ethics is not a matter of objective reality, rather it is a subjective matter and what is considered right and wrong in an ethical sense fluctuates over time (which wouldn't be the case if right and wrong were objective matters).

So a good example is the shift in the primacy of principles in medical ethics from 'doing good' on the part of the medical professional (beneficence), which would have been considered the key plank of medical ethics in the early 20thC, to patient decision-making (autonomy) as being the primary ethical consideration which trumps others in most cases. That reflects a subjective shift in thinking over the past 80 or so years - there is no fundamental objectivity in arguing in favour of one or the other. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly I have never said I am the ''go to man'' on ethics, rather I am one of the ''go to people'' on ethics, as I've been involved in research ethics for nigh on 25 years now, currently as chair of one of our ethics panels. I also have a masters qualification in the topic and teach medical ethics at undergraduate and postgraduate level. So yes I am a ''go to person'' amongst others and my expertise and experience in these matters is, I believe, highly valued by my institution.

I have also never said that ethics (or morality) is a matter of taste, but I would argue very strongly that ethics is not a matter of objective reality, rather it is a subjective matter and what is considered right and wrong in an ethical sense fluctuates over time (which wouldn't be the case if right and wrong were objective matters).

So a good example is the shift in the primacy of principles in medical ethics from 'doing good' on the part of the medical professional (beneficence), which would have been considered the key plank of medical ethics in the early 20thC, to patient decision-making (autonomy) as being the primary ethical consideration which trumps others in most cases. That reflects a subjective shift in thinking over the past 80 or so years - there is no fundamental objectivity in arguing in favour of one or the other.

I would love to discuss the shift in focus you mention although I perfectly understand if you argue that I, as a patient am therefore not up to discuss patient decision making as opposed to the skill and motivation of the practitioner(although I'm beginning to sniff the seeds of the current theory's demise). That morality is subjective rather than real is not settled philosophically. Why are you pretending therefore that it is?

[Enki]

I'm afraid you have laid claim to it by your description of your use of, support and faith in empiricism.

Why should I be surprised that you give a total distortion of my position?   Methodological empiricism encompasses the doctrine that all ideas and categories are derived from sense experience and that knowledge cannot extend beyond experience, including observation, experiment, and induction. This position is one which I do not hold.  As the statement that God exists is assumed to be an objective fact then I simply choose to use empiricism and rationality as the most reliable approaches to the subject. For me, therefore, I find the statement that God exists to be not proved. Hence I have no reason to believe that God exists. If you can suggest more reliable methods or approaches then please tell me and if I find them worthwhile then I will happily consider them. Unfortunately your 'sixth sense' idea falls at the first hurdle. Any other ideas?

How you come to moral decisions is not by empiricism which was exactly the point I was making but you have responded by making agreement look like disagreement, a common fault on this board.

And it's exactly my point that morality is not something objective but rather a subjective experience dependent on people's attitudes. If there were no human beings I suggest there would be no such thing as morality(leaving aside the proto morality of certain animals). All you would have is the evolutionary potential for morality which can certainly be explored using empirical methods but is an entirely different scenario to the idea of God being some sort of objective entity.

[ProfessorDavey]

I would love to discuss the shift in focus you mention although I perfectly understand if you argue that I, as a patient am therefore not up to discuss patient decision making as opposed to the skill and motivation of the practitioner(although I'm beginning to sniff the seeds of the current theory's demise).

Love to discuss this further. And it appears you able buy into the current view that autonomy typically trumps other ethical principles (as I do too). Had you been around in the 1920s I suspect you'd have bought into the previous ethical approach which was that decision making lay primarily with the medical practitioners 'doing good', as they were the experts. Ethics opinion shifts, it is subjective not objective. And whether or not it shifts is dependent on the subjective arguments put forward by advocates of a particular approach on the basis of their rational and logical consistency of that ethical position and its acceptability to societal opinion. Subjectivity on steroids.

That morality is subjective rather than real is not settled philosophically. Why are you pretending therefore that it is?

Then demonstrate that any element of ethics is objectively true Vlad. People have been trying, and failing to do that for millennia - and the reason they fail is that they cannot provide the objective evidence-base necessary to support a claim for something ethical to be objectively true. Even Kant (one of the people pushing furthest for rule based objective ethical principles) recognised that the furthest you could go was a 'universal rule' - still subjective but accepted in all cases, not an objective 'truth'. Of course Kant could never prove this theory in a manner consistent with an objective truth and, while an interesting read, Kantian ethics is full of holes and can actually be used to argue toward two diametrically opposed conclusion (e.g. in abortion) - hardly a feature of an objective truth, eh Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why should I be surprised that you give a total distortion of my position?   Methodological empiricism encompasses the doctrine that all ideas and categories are derived from sense experience and that knowledge cannot extend beyond experience, including observation, experiment, and induction.

That is philosophical empiricism not Methodological empiricism. Methodological empiricism may not be applicable for the detection of God and there are philosophical reasons for why that might likely be the case and it has certainly failed to establish philosophical empiricism

And it's exactly my point that morality is not something objective but rather a subjective experience dependent on people's attitudes.

the wonder then is how people have the audacity to change, prevent ,question or punish those with different attitudes. No one on the subjective side of the argument has managed why, say, a murderer should be incarcerated or at least stopped but the Scandinavians should be allowed to enjoy eating rotting fish, in anything near a satisfactory way.

So we are left with the alternatives of a science of morality as espoused by the likes of Harris or a morality grounded in the will of an existent and independent entity, God if you like. Both approaches I would move are objective.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Love to discuss this further. And it appears you able buy into the current view that autonomy typically trumps other ethical principles (as I do too).

Autonomy saves money, It sits well with a free market ethic and a market based health service, it certainly weakens the idea of a national health service based on wartime observation of National and mutual interest. It potentially wastes resources and favours those who are well off. It relies on patient's medical expertise gleaned from programmes like ER and Casualty. It renders patient's as the consumers. I will leave the resume of it's good points to you since we have ended up in tandem.

Had you been around in the 1920s I suspect you'd have bought into the previous ethical approach which was that decision making lay primarily with the medical practitioners 'doing good', as they were the experts.

Since the NHS didn't exist in the 1920's I expect the situation with patient as autonomous consumer was very much like today unhindered by any National health sensibilities.

  Ethics opinion shifts,

Yes sometimes back to what it was

it is subjective not objective.

It seems to me ethical shift is homeostatic, deflected this way and that by unchanging, opposing schools of thought.

And whether or not it shifts is dependent on the subjective arguments put forward by advocates of a particular approach on the basis of their rational and logical consistency of that ethical position and its acceptability to societal opinion. Subjectivity on steroids.

It is all based around a kit of parts, ultimately the terms of an equation which it possible not to balance, evidence of a moral realism similar to mathematical realism. In other words a moral problem.  You seem to be making a great case that any system is as good as any other......In which case how does ethics come into it? Your job, it seems is to explain ethics away.

[Enki]

That is philosophical empiricism not Methodological empiricism. Methodological empiricism may not be applicable for the detection of God and there are philosophical reasons for why that might likely be the case and it has certainly failed to establish philosophical empiricism

As I have already said, I only use empiricism as a tool because it is one of the approaches I find most reliable. If you are suggesting that it may not be applicable for the detection of God then you suggest something more reliable to put in its place. Meanwhile, until that moment arrives, I'll stick with such approaches as the empirical and rational.

 

the wonder then is how people have the audacity to change, prevent ,question or punish those with different attitudes. No one on the subjective side of the argument has managed why, say, a murderer should be incarcerated or at least stopped but the Scandinavians should be allowed to enjoy eating rotting fish, in anything near a satisfactory way.

There are plenty of examples of punishments being changed accordingly as people's moral values and attitudes change. A murderer being punished by being incarcerated reduces him/her being a danger to society whilst incarcerating a person choosing to eat rotting fish has no such effect as they are not considered a danger to society in the first place.

So we are left with the alternatives of a science of morality as espoused by the likes of Harris or a morality grounded in the will of an existent and independent entity, God if you like. Both approaches I would move are objective.

You already know my approach as I don't see morality as an objective thing at all but rather a human construct.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 
There are plenty of examples of punishments being changed accordingly as people's moral values and attitudes change. A murderer being punished by being incarcerated reduces him/her being a danger to society whilst incarcerating a person choosing to eat rotting fish has no such effect as they are not considered a danger to society in the first place.

In terms of punishment I did also mention just asking murderers to stop. Why did you sidestep that point?
I would suggest that eating rotting fish or hoping one doesn't have the lethal bit of the fish has potentially a similar effect to murder. What we seem to have retreated into here is the term ''effect''. Both are effects, By retreating into discussing effects we or you are sidestepping something crititcal to our discussion .i.e what we want to know is why one is morally bad or morally not good and the other is a morally neutral act.

[Enki]

In terms of punishment I did also mention just asking murderers to stop. Why did you sidestep that point?

No you didn't. here are your exact words: " why, say, a murderer should be incarcerated or at least stopped", no mentioned of them being asked at all. So I didn't sidestep it as being incarcerated is one way of stopping a murderer, another way might be(as in the case of a terrorist) to shoot them.

I would suggest that eating rotting fish or hoping one doesn't have the lethal bit of the fish has potentially a similar effect to murder

.

The effect might well be that the person dies, but it would surely be rather a case of ignorance or risk taking rather than murder.

What we seem to have retreated into here is the term ''effect''. Both are effects, By retreating into discussing effects we or you are sidestepping something crititcal to our discussion .i.e what we want to know is why one is morally bad or morally not good and the other is a morally neutral act.

Effects are important whether they are practical effects resulting from decisions made or emotional effects relating to some antisocial action. In reply to your question I can only respond in the most general terms as I suggest morality is affected greatly by such things as culture, environment, experience, upbringing, and therefore is always subject to change because these influences are subject to change. However, underlying these, I suggest, there are deep seated and natural emotions as well as general human evolutionary characteristics such as empathy and natural feelings of co-operation and responsibility towards others.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Effects are important whether they are practical effects resulting from decisions made or emotional effects relating to some antisocial action. In reply to your question I can only respond in the most general terms as I suggest morality is affected greatly by such things as culture, environment, experience, upbringing, and therefore is always subject to change because these influences are subject to change.

  But I think we are in agreement  with  morality changing...even I said it is homeostatic.  What is it though that makes your moral decision ''righter'' or ''more moral'' than mine or visa versa? And if you say neither, that effectively cancels out morality

However, underlying these, I suggest, there are deep seated and natural emotions as well as general human evolutionary characteristics such as empathy and natural feelings of co-operation and responsibility towards others.

So you do accept there is an objective biological component to morality ?

[Enki]

  But I think we are in agreement  with  morality changing...even I said it is homeostatic.  What is it though that makes your moral decision ''righter'' or ''more moral'' than mine or visa versa? And if you say neither, that effectively cancels out morality.

I generally think and feel that I am correct in my moral thoughts and decisions, because that is the way in which I have evolved to think and feel. That is not to say that I can't make immoral decisions, but it would be odd, indeed, if I went around thinking that my moral thoughts and decisions were inherently wrong.  However If it was demonstrated to me that some particular moral thought or action of mine was wrong, then I would try to analyse why it might be wrong, and if then I was convinced of this wrongness, I would try to adjust accordingly.

So you do accept there is an objective biological component to morality ?

I suggest the origin of our morality, as with all emotions and ideas, lies in the workings of the brain, which of course is a biological entity.  That's why I say it is a human construct.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I generally think and feel that I am correct in my moral thoughts and decisions,

To be correct you will have had to have solved a moral problem hence my argument for a moral realism which works like, but isn't, mathematical realism.

because that is the way in which I have evolved to think and feel.

But is that feeling morally right or wrong? I have evolved a feeling that an ingrowing toe is giving me gip. There is definitely something wrong going on in my socks

That is not to say that I can't make immoral decisions, but it would be odd, indeed, if I went around thinking that my moral thoughts and decisions were inherently wrong.

Your thoughts might not be inherently right either. 

I suggest the origin of our morality, as with all emotions and ideas, lies in the workings of the brain, which of course is a biological entity.

I'm sorry but by talking about your correctness you have allowed for a moral reality independent of the brain......as mathematical reality is independent from the brain

  That's why I say it is a human construct.

How can your brain be a human construct? I grant that the brain computes mathematical and moral problems but statements like these do not even begin to tell us what is right and what is wrong morally.

[ProfessorDavey]

Autonomy saves money, It sits well with a free market ethic and a market based health service, it certainly weakens the idea of a national health service based on wartime observation of National and mutual interest. It potentially wastes resources and favours those who are well off. It relies on patient's medical expertise gleaned from programmes like ER and Casualty. It renders patient's as the consumers. I will leave the resume of it's good points to you since we have ended up in tandem. Since the NHS didn't exist in the 1920's I expect the situation with patient as autonomous consumer was very much like today unhindered by any National health sensibilities.

Weird that you see my discussion about fundamental principles of medical ethics as being driven by the NHS, an organisation that I never mentioned. The field of medical ethics and the discussion of primacy of principles is global and indeed the UK (and the NHS) had very little to do with the move from privacy of 'doctor knows best' to the primacy of 'patient consent' in the mid part of the 20thC. That shift was primarily driven by a recognition that what is in the best interests of the patient is best defined by, err, the patient, rather than a healthcare professional. And the reason for that shift was largely in response to non-consensual medical treatment foisted on people by medical professionals particularly in Nazi Germany, but also other countries. The view being that the best protection against such actions was to ensure the principle of patient consent.

Hence, certainly in terms of research ethics the key driving principles are enshrined in international declarations - most notably the Nuremberg Code (the key is in the place in the title) and the Declaration of Helsinki.

Yet in your narrow view (on this and so many other topics) this seems to be entirely driven by one healthcare system in one country.

[jeremyp]

That equates Empiricism with atheism,

That depends on what you mean by "atheism". The weak version - "I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God" - is just an extension of the general notion of not assuming things exist if there is no evidence for them. That seems like a perfectly reasonable position to take.

Empiricism excludes a lot of things e.g. a sixth sense for instance.

In what Universe do you think that is a compelling argument? If there was any compelling evidence for such a thing as a sixth sense, empiricism wouldn't exclude it. In this Universe, where the evidence does not exist, we can safely assume that neither does the so called sixth sense.

Of course the notion that the universe only comprises of things that can be empirically demonstrated cannot itself be empirically demonstrated and that is why it is so unreasonable.....that's just philosophy 101.

You have just said that things that cannot be empirically demonstrated are "unreasonable". That would include your god and your alleged sixth sense.

Empiricism is just the observation that that things that have no effect on the Universe that we can detect can safely be ignored even if they do really exist. Why should we care about anything that can't even make its existence known to us?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Weird that you see my discussion about fundamental principles of medical ethics as being driven by the NHS,

Do I?, I thought it more evident that I see you harking back to the situation prior.

an organisation that I never mentioned.

I put that down to you not thinking.

The field of medical ethics and the discussion of primacy of principles is global and indeed the UK (and the NHS) had very little to do with the move from privacy of 'doctor knows best' to the primacy of 'patient consent' in the mid part of the 20thC. That shift was primarily driven by a recognition that what is in the best interests of the patient is best defined by, err, the patient, rather than a healthcare professional. And the reason for that shift was largely in response to non-consensual medical treatment foisted on people by medical professionals particularly in Nazi Germany,

Funny you wish to include Nazi medicine but not the working principles of the NHS IMV

but also other countries. The view being that the best protection against such actions was to ensure the principle of patient consent.

Agreed. Patient decision and consent based on patient education by reliable agents should be a paramount condition.

Hence, certainly in terms of research ethics the key driving principles are enshrined in international declarations - most notably the Nuremberg Code (the key is in the place in the title)

I can't help wondering if this statement isn't just an interesting manifestation of Godwin's law

and the Declaration of Helsinki.

Yet in your narrow view (on this and so many other topics) this seems to be entirely driven by one healthcare system in one country.

I did say I would leave you to outline the good points of your discussion and your response shouts''I don't like my approach to be criticised mim mim mim mim'' I also, actually, discussed several  healthcare systems. The privatised 1920's, The NHS and a possible system where a patients rights as a consumer are paramount, the latter based on conversations with a friend who is now a professor of medicine who in hospital practice had had to argue with patients and relatives who insisted on treatment they had seen on casualty and ER rather than listen to professional advice.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That depends on what you mean by "atheism". The weak version - "I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God" - is just an extension of the general notion of not assuming things exist if there is no evidence for them.

Yes Jeremy, but this is inevitably dependent on one's definition of evidence which for you people is inevitably philosophically empiricist with all the attendant problems that has.

Dismissing the above just screams ''Goddodgin''

[Gordon]

Yes Jeremy, but this is inevitably dependent on one's definition of evidence which for you people is inevitably philosophically empiricist with all the attendant problems that has.

Then all you need do now, Vlad, is produce some non-empirical evidence (which sounds like an oxymoron) for 'God' that has no "attendant problems".