jlay wrote:Spock wrote:
jlay wrote:
No. You said you believe in OM in the weak sense, and we covered the definition, to which you agreed. Not in the strong sense, being that Craig believes that moral values refer to something that exist independent of the mind. In other words that there is something outside of man and his concepts. So, in that sense you can say you believe in OM, but as you already admitted in the strong objective sense, you would be equivocating.
I have no recollection of any conversation with you concerning "strong" vs. "weak" realism, so I searched this thread and confirmed that we never had any such conversation. If I missed something, please quote our exchange. I don't even know what you think you mean by that distinction. If you want to base your argument on it, you must at the very least define your terms. But be forewarned - there are a wide variety of ways to separate realism into "strong" and "weak" forms and there is no consensus on the validity of such distinctions. This is why your bald assertion that you and I have settled this issue is so mind-numbingly absurd, especially since it is predicated on a conversation we never had.
I never said strong versus weak realism. We had a discussion about the term objective. There were two definitions sited. The first one you held. The 2nd one would comply with realism, the position I hold as do many here and of course WLC. I even commented that in this sense (1st defintion) the GR is objective, but this is not the sense in which WLC (realism) is using the term objective. So I am using the term strong and weak in the sense of the GR being objective. You objected and said he is equivocating. I know you've asserted it, but I don't see how you've proved it.
Hey there jlay,
Philosophical and religious discussions are based entirely on words, and so precise definitions are critical for successful discourse. You asserted that I "
believe in OM in the weak sense, and we covered the definition, to which you agreed." OM means "Objective Morality" and Objective Morality entails some form of Moral Realism. Therefore, when you said that we had come to agreement about the meaning of "OM in the weak sense" I assumed you were talking about "strong vs. weak realism." Now you say you were not talking about that. Your equivocation on these terms is causing a lot of confusion. And more important, we never came to any "agreement" about any "definition." If we had and I missed it, please quote what I said so I will know what I "agreed" to.
I also am confused by your statement that "
There were two definitions sited. The first one you held. The 2nd one would comply with realism, the position I hold as do many here and of course WLC." That makes no sense because both definitions are a form of realism, one "weak" and one "strong" according to you. How then can you say that only the second one "would comply with realism?" The terms are obviously confused.
You say that you are "
using the term strong and weak in the sense of the GR being objective." That makes no sense. Realism of any form implies objectivity. This confusion of terms is making the discourse impossible.
It seems to me that the real issue is that you are trying to force a false dichotomy between Realism and Nominalism, and then force me into the position of a Nominalist. That's now how this discourse should proceed. I have explicitly told you that I am not a Nominalist. If you want to prove that I am, you will need to demonstrate it necessarily follows from something I've actually written.
You say that you don't see how I've proved that Craig is equivocating. Well, then you should have responded to the evidence I gave. Here it is again (with the offending comments removed):
Spock wrote:
And as for your suggestion that I am equivocating - it is CRAIG who equivocates, in spades. He doesn't even bother to inform his audience that their naive realism might have some philosophical problems and that there are many other possibilities and that there is nothing like a philosophic consensus on this question. Yet it is the foundation of his argument. And worse, if we accept the definition you say he is using for "objective" then his argument fails because God is a mind and so if morals are grounded in his mind, they are not "independent of mind." That's why Craig often equivocates on his definition of objective and has to invent a question-begging definition carefully designed to eliminate all minds except God's. This has been exposed just like many of his other errors in
this article:
The first question to ask here is, “what does Craig mean by ‘objective’”? Here’s the definition from Reasonable Faith:
To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or evil independent of what any human being believes. Similarly to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong independently of whether any human being believes them to be so (p. 173).
This is a [poor] definition. On this definition, someone who believes morality is whatever space aliens tells us it is counts as a believer in objective morality. A more sensible definition would be something like “morality independent of what anyone says or thinks.” And I do think morality has to be objective in something like that sense.
Craig’s reason for defining “objective morality” the way he does is that he wants to claim the only moral theory that works is one based on God. Craig is trying to rig the definition of “objective morality” to favor God. But not only would this be ruled out by a sensible definition of “objective morality,” Craig’s moral theory is in fact [quite dubious].
In short, Craig’s moral argument depends on claiming that his [dubious] theory of morality is the only possible one. I could move on to the next argument now, but I want to say a couple things about how Craig argues for premise (2) of his argument. Frequently in his debates, his entire argument for premise (2) is to cite atheists who (he claims) agree with him about (2).
This is a terrible argument because many atheists, as well as some theists like Richard Swinburne, disagree with Craig about (2). This has been frequently pointed out to Craig, but he has yet to drop his appeals to authority.
I concur with his conclusions. They are self-evident. Craig's errors are legion. He supports his second premise with nothing but fallacious appeals to authority and the assertion that it is "obvious" and that "we all know it." His pseudo-philosophical ploys have been exposed.
jlay, you did not respond to any of this evidence. If you want to show it is not true, you need to answer it. Your entire response consisted of the statement "According to you" which sounds like something a child would say. You did not address, let alone challenge, any of the facts I presented. Is this what you consider to be rational discourse?
jlay wrote:
And as for your love affair with the word "equivocate" - it is CRAIG who equivocates, in spades. He doesn't even bother to inform his audience that their naive realism might have some philosophical problems and that there are many other possibilities and that there is nothing like a philosophic consensus on this question. Yet it is the foundation of his argument. And worse, if we accept the definition you say he is using for "objective" then his argument fails because God is a mind and so if morals are grounded in his mind, they are not "independent of mind."
Love affair? Please. I mean listen to the way you are talking. Insulting for the sake of insulting? For someone who lauds such a high IQ of philosphy, you should refrain from such antics. Plus, I think you know we are talking about independent of the
human mind.
I'm sorry you found my use of the phrase "love affair" offensive. It was not intended as such. I used it because it well-captured my take on the situation - you have accused me a equivocating many times, yet when I show you that I was not, and that it is in fact Craig who is equivocating, you ignore the evidence and don't acknowledge a word I wrote. You chose rather to focus on a minor point of offense rather than the evidence. I find that disturbing.
jlay wrote:
The first question to ask here is, “what does Craig mean by ‘objective’”? Here’s the definition from Reasonable Faith:
To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or evil independent of what any human being believes. Similarly to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong independently of whether any human being believes them to be so (p. 173).
This is a silly definition. On this definition, someone who believes morality is whatever space aliens tells us it is counts as a believer in objective morality. A more sensible definition would be something like “morality independent of what anyone says or thinks.” And I do think morality has to be objective in something like that sense.
Craig’s reason for defining “objective morality” the way he does is that he wants to claim the only moral theory that works is one based on God. Craig is trying to rig the definition of “objective morality” to favor God. But not only would this be ruled out by a sensible definition of “objective morality,” Craig’s moral theory is in fact completely insane.
According to you.
Yes, my opinion is "according to me" just like all your opinions are "according to you." But my opinions are also "according to logic and facts." Can you say the same?
Why are you not addressing the facts I have presented? How can you assert that you "don't see how I've proved it" when I showed you the evidence and you didn't refute a word I wrote?
jlay wrote:
In short, Craig’s moral argument depends on claiming that his insane theory of morality is the only possible one. I could move on to the next argument now, but I want to say a couple things about how Craig argues for premise (2) of his argument. Frequently in his debates, his entire argument for premise (2) is to cite atheists who (he claims) agree with him about (2).
there you go again. When you preface something by saying "Insane theory" it only indicates you aren't being intellectually honest.
So, even if he is wrong, how does this prove your moral theory?
I would not be intellectually honest if I failed to state what I believe, and I believe that Craig's moral argument for God and his Divine Command theory are truly "insane" in the sense of "obviously false and just plain nuts." Sorry if my intellectual conclusion disturbs you. It is not meant for that. It's just my honest opinion based on logic and facts as I best understand them.
jlay wrote:
This is a terrible argument because many atheists, as well as some theists like Richard Swinburne, disagree with Craig about (2). This has been frequently pointed out to Craig, but he has yet to drop his appeals to authority.
So, other philosophers disagree. What's new?
Is that how truth is determined? Polularity poll. Who is appealing to authority??
That is perhaps the most ironic comment in this thread. First, you are trying to force a false dichotomy between the highly disputed and varied philosophical categories of "Realist vs. Nominalist" when in fact there are many varieties of both as well as many other possibilities too. Philosophers have come to no consensus on these issues. There are perennial disputes over these issues.
It is also ironic because Craig's argument is based on the assumption of naive realism without any philosophical development of the wide variety of possibilities.
And the ultimate irony is that is is Craig himself who blatantly appeals to authority as the only support for his second premise, other than his assertion that it is "obvious" and that "we all know it." Such assertions are blatantly fallacious and warrant my charge that his argument is philosophically "insane."
jlay wrote:
If that is what your friend said, then your friend is a philosophical fool of the first order. It indicates he has no understanding of the complexity of the issues we are discussing. Indeed, it proves he does not even understand that realism vs. nominalism is a false dichotomy because there are many other possibilities. No serious thinker could come to that conclusion from what I have written in this thread, let alone assert it as if it were "at a minimum." No serious philosopher would baldly assert such a presumptuous and preposterous claim which directly contradicts my own words.
Then please explain your position. You've told us what you aren't. What are you then? A conceptualist? Of course we would contend that this is a nominalist only under a different name. My friend has read the thread entirely. I guess we could both throw the same accusations at you. I think you do not udnerstand what Craig is arguing. There are many possibilities but I still contend that they ultimately fall under one or the other. Bottom line, you reject that morals are objective in the strong sense, no matter how much you argue otherwise. Fair enough. Therefore you are not following realism. He actually said you would respond exactly how you are, because he said you don't think you are nominalist. Calling myself or him a fool only supports that you are being sophomoric and condescending. Either way, whatever you aren't doesn't verify your argument. It seems your entire argument is based around defeating Craig's. Of course we all know that even if Craig's argument is false, it doesn't make yours valid.
I do not have a settled position on ontology. It's all metaphysical speculation so why should I claim knowledge that no one has? I lean towards the Perennial Philosophy and something along the lines of Idealism but am not committed to those positions because such knowledge is beyond the limits of my humanity.
It would be good if you stated explicitly what aspect of Craig's argument I have failed to accurately understand. A good place to start would be to respond to the criticisms of his argument that I have posted in this thread. Please try to actually quote something I've actually written rather than a paraphrase of what you think I meant.
There is a major problem in your assertion that Realism vs. Nominalism form a dichotomy of the only two possibilities. Here are definitions of the two positions:
REALISM: Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that our reality, or some aspect of it, is ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. Realism may be spoken of with respect to other minds, the past, the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the material world, and thought. Realism can also be promoted in an unqualified sense, in which case it asserts the mind-independent existence of a visible world, as opposed to idealism, skepticism, and solipsism. Philosophers who profess realism state that truth consists in the mind's correspondence to reality.
NOMINALISM: Nominalism is a metaphysical view in philosophy according to which general or abstract terms and predicates exist, while universals or abstract objects, which are sometimes thought to correspond to these terms, do not exist. Thus, there are at least two main versions of nominalism. One version denies the existence of universals—things that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things (e.g. strength, humanity). The other version specifically denies the existence of abstract objects—objects that do not exist in space and time.
As you can see, there are varieties of both, and they form a kind of continuum with a lot of overlap. The main issue is the question: What does it mean for an abstract object to exist? This is a big issue concerning time. Does the past exist? If not, how can we reference it? If so, what does it mean to "exist" if it does not actually exist (since the past is past). And on it goes. There are profound questions with no simple answer. Look at all the variety of topics this question touches, such as that which "can be spoken of with respect to other minds, the past, the future, universals, mathematical entities, moral categories, the material world, and thought." For you to think to pigeon-hole me into a position on philosophical issues as complex as this without even discussing it with me is absurd in the extreme. It looks like you are merely looking for a short cut to avoid a legitimate discussion. If that is the case, it would probably be best for us to just quit now. I would like to continue the discourse, but if you are not interested or willing to discuss it with me in a way that leads to authentic understanding, what's the point?
All the best,
Spock
