GIMR wrote:Ok, I'll be good! Only for you, Runtu. :-) But it's been so much fun!
I know, but I appreciate it. I'm really tired today, and this kind of hostility wears me out.
Yeah, I feel you. It was stress that made my head hurt those few weeks back, and I've been avoiding any more since. I like you, and I definitely don't want you worn out. You're such a gentle spirit, a la Moksha. You two should have lunch.
I'll stop picking with the newest child on the school bus for today.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
GIMR wrote:Ok, I'll be good! Only for you, Runtu. :-) But it's been so much fun!
I know, but I appreciate it. I'm really tired today, and this kind of hostility wears me out.
Yeah, I feel you. It was stress that made my head hurt those few weeks back, and I've been avoiding any more since. I like you, and I definitely don't want you worn out. You're such a gentle spirit, a la Moksha. You two should have lunch.
I'll stop picking with the newest child on the school bus for today.
I like you, too. I hope you're doing better. I've been pretty worried about you.
I have this sinking suspicion that a new thread will pop up on MADB showing how intolerant we are to rational discussions about religion and atheism, etc. I hope I'm wrong.
Runtu wrote:I have this sinking suspicion that a new thread will pop up on MADB showing how intolerant we are to rational discussions about religion and atheism, etc. I hope I'm wrong.
They probably do that on a regular basis with every thread we have. And then on fast and testimony sunday, they randomly pick ten and go off on tangents about how spiritually depraved we are.
One thing they need to understand over on MADB is that just because you are favored there doesn't mean that the same rules apply everywhere. You can spit on the little people over there and pretend that you're as intelligent as DCP tells you you are. But in the real world you have to swim with the big fish. And that means posing your questions in a respectful manner, cognizant of the fact that Orpheus has no power here.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
Why should the abstract concept of an infinitely long universe take precedence over my family when evaluating whether or not my life has meaning?
Translation: I also didn't read the paper.
Here is the short of the argument:
A necessary condition of a person being morally obligated to engage in an action is that the performance or consequence of the action either increases positive value or prevents the decrease of positive value. If the future is infinite, it is impossible to increase or decrease the amount of value.
Hi LID,
No, the accurate translation is that his argument isn't pursuasive.
Addressing the original issue of the thread, you claim that moral nihilism is a logical implication of atheism. But that isn’t what the paper says: it says that moral nihilism is an implication of “moral realism” and “aggregate value theory.” And as you should know, atheism entails neither moral realism nor aggregate value theory.
While it’s interesting, I don’t find his mode of thinking persuasive. Here is why (from a previous post which you may have missed).
Here is his argument. Every unit of time has a certain “value” attached to it. When you fill your units of time living a good life, loving your family, caring for those in need etc., you are filling your units of time with more units of value than they would otherwise have.
A key assumption to this sophistry is that every unit of time has at least one unit of value.
Another key assumption is that an action is defined as being “moral” if it increases the total amount of value in the universe.
Here is the logic part. Since every unit of time has at least one unit of value, and there is an infinite amount of time, the total amount of value in the universe is infinite. Regardless of how you live your life, there will still be an infinite amount of value in the universe. Therefore, your actions can’t change the total amount of value in the universe. Therefore what you do is irrelevant. Therefore moral nihilism.
This seems exceedingly stupid to me (maybe I just haven’t seen the light with regards to moral realism and aggregative value theory?).
I claim:
1- Morality should be defined as something that increases value over the time and space that are within our influence: not over all time and all space.
2- Units of time outside of our influence should be assigned zero units of value.
3- The value associated with a choice should be assigned to the time when the choice is made. The overall “morality score” of the universe should be expressed as a function of time. If you make a choice that increases value, then the finite score of the universe increases at that moment and at every subsequent moment.
No, the accurate translation is that his argument isn't pursuasive.
Odd. Your reply didn't address the paper's argument. It seemed to rely on a different meaning of the term meaning.
Addressing the original issue of the thread, you claim that moral nihilism is a logical implication of atheism. But that isn’t what the paper says: it says that moral nihilism is an implication of “moral realism” and “aggregate value theory.” And as you should know, atheism entails neither moral realism nor aggregate value theory.
That's why I added the qualifier "moral truth." You can deny moral realism and aggregate value theory. Doing so, however, leaves you in the position of denying moral truth. The reason I say atheism is because I don't think his argument applies to a universe with God.
This seems to be an attempt to "smack" atheism. Most of these discussions about atheism and morality are poorly cloaked attempts to argue belief on the basis of what one would prefer to be true. Believers point to the possibility of nihilism with horror, either saying, or implying, "this is an unacceptable byproduct of atheism, hence, atheism must be rejected".
This is a flawed argument. What human beings prefer to be true has nothing to do with what is actually true.
Human beings may not like the idea that their lives have no inherent purpose in terms of the infinite universe, but that arguably egocentric dislike has nothing to do with whether or not human beings actually do have an inherent purpose in terms of the infinite universe.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
ALITD: Odd. Your reply didn't address the paper's argument. It seemed to rely on a different meaning of the term meaning.
A: The paper wasn't about meaning. My reply wasn't about meaning. I didn't even use the word meaning. What are you talking about? I thought I got to the heart of it just fine. Could you explain specifically what I missed?
ALITD: That's why I added the qualifier "moral truth." You can deny moral realism and aggregate value theory. Doing so, however, leaves you in the position of denying moral truth.
A: You don't sound like somebody who knows what he is talking about. What is your basis for this claim? Has somebody proven that there is no moral truth without moral realism and aggregate value theory?
ALITD: The reason I say atheism is because I don't think his argument applies to a universe with God.
A: Whether or not the universe has God is irrelevant: his proof depends upon moral realism, aggregate value theory, and infinite time.