Mighty C smacks down Prof P

[_A Light in the Darkness]

but they fail miserably in the empirical realm, unless they have devised some objective method of assessing one's moral capacity (atheists, such as myself, assert moral thoughts, feelings, ideas, behaviors etc. as much as believers,

I never made any claims about an atheist's moral capacity beyond noting that I acknowledge believers and nonbelievers alike have a sense of right and wrong. The argument you are referring to argues that moral understanding, if it is to be made sense of as something with which someone can make objective truth claims about, requires certain philosophical foundations. One of those foundations, according to the argument, is something that is necessarily contradictory to atheism. You might disagree with this, but you and a few others really don't understand what is even being claimed.

One can sit around and debate ad nauseum whether atheists are "moral in a theoretical sense, yet the empirical record (at least by casual observation, and I'm guessing also there's systematic empirical evidence to back it up) overwhelmingly demonstrates that they are.

Doubtless there is empirical evidence that atheists have been able to act in accordance with the dictates of moral ideas. But that was never, ever under dispute. What is under dispute is if it is consistent to not believe in God and also think a moral statement like, "One ought to use ones talents to improve the general happiness of humanity" is an true statement independent of personal preferences. Where's your "empirical evidence" of that? Good luck, as this is the kind of argument suited to other kinds of knowing.

I should add that this tendency noted above is implied by Mormon epistemology. If Mormon epistemology is accurate, this implies, therefore, that all other religious experiences that testify to some "truth," are inherently invalid or less valid than those that affirm Mormonism. Plus, Mormon epistemology is precisely the type of thing Dawkins is criticizing above; reaching firm determinations of truth without factoring a single piece of real world data. Even worse, the paradigm in which the epistemology resides denigrates the attempt to feed in real world data, well, that is as long as the real world data might contradict the "truth" arrived at through entirely ontological means.

Spiritual experiences are "real world data." That point aside, you're veering off in the same ill-fated direction you did when you started dividing moral theory into "formalism" and "utilitarianism." My arguments have not been "ontological," and ontological is not the opposite of empirical. One gets the sense that you think "ontological" means something like "philosophical argument absent empiricism." This is silly, but what am I supposed to do about it?

When you stop to think about it, it's really pretty amazing; an entire system of belief based on the fundamental assertion that real world data is unnecessary, indeed even undesirable, to know "truth."

This bizarre claim is not a view shared by me or implied by LDS doctrine.

And our believing colleagues find it hard to understand that there are those of us for whom this is not a satisfactory method of truth seeking?

But thanks for showing that even people with Ph.D's can have uninformed views, especially when leaving their area of expertise.

[_Levi]

I should add that this tendency noted above is implied by Mormon epistemology. If Mormon epistemology is accurate, this implies, therefore, that all other religious experiences that testify to some "truth," are inherently invalid or less valid than those that affirm Mormonism. Plus, Mormon epistemology is precisely the type of thing Dawkins is criticizing above; reaching firm determinations of truth without factoring a single piece of real world data. Even worse, the paradigm in which the epistemology resides denigrates the attempt to feed in real world data, well, that is as long as the real world data might contradict the "truth" arrived at through entirely ontological means.

When you stop to think about it, it's really pretty amazing; an entire system of belief based on the fundamental assertion that real world data is unnecessary, indeed even undesirable, to know "truth."

And our believing colleagues find it hard to understand that there are those of us for whom this is not a satisfactory method of truth seeking?

Yes further evidence that believers really, really need to step outside their theoretical constructs and actually observe the world now and then.

It is pretty easy to be arrogant about religion, isn't it? The damn fools that they are. So easy to be pompous and condescending about the whole thing.

[_guy sajer]

but they fail miserably in the empirical realm, unless they have devised some objective method of assessing one's moral capacity (atheists, such as myself, assert moral thoughts, feelings, ideas, behaviors etc. as much as believers,

I never made any claims about an atheist's moral capacity beyond noting that I acknowledge believers and nonbelievers alike have a sense of right and wrong. The argument you are referring to argues that moral understanding, if it is to be made sense of as something with which someone can make objective truth claims about, requires certain philosophical foundations. One of those foundations, according to the argument, is something that is necessarily contradictory to atheism. You might disagree with this, but you and a few others really don't understand what is even being claimed.

It's not that we don't understand, we fundamentally don't agree with the underlying assumption. You refer to "one of those foundations," yet there are others in which atheism is perfectly consistent with morality. The problem is that I, and others, think that "one" foundation you refer to is a badly informed one. You confuse misunderstanding with disagreement.

One can sit around and debate ad nauseum whether atheists are "moral in a theoretical sense, yet the empirical record (at least by casual observation, and I'm guessing also there's systematic empirical evidence to back it up) overwhelmingly demonstrates that they are.

Doubtless there is empirical evidence that atheists have been able to act in accordance with the dictates of moral ideas. But that was never, ever under dispute. What is under dispute is if it is consistent to not believe in God and also think a moral statement like, "One ought to use ones talents to improve the general happiness of humanity" is an true statement independent of personal preferences. Where's your "empirical evidence" of that? Good luck, as this is the kind of argument suited to other kinds of knowing.

One could with little difficulty, I imagine, identify a number of data points as empirical evidence of atheists adhering to moral frameworks of various kinds in which such a statement would be entirely entirely justified. You don't make clear what constitutes "personal preference," is this some kind of ad hoc moralism? Sorry, I just don't find your argument persuasive in any sense.

I should add that this tendency noted above is implied by Mormon epistemology. If Mormon epistemology is accurate, this implies, therefore, that all other religious experiences that testify to some "truth," are inherently invalid or less valid than those that affirm Mormonism. Plus, Mormon epistemology is precisely the type of thing Dawkins is criticizing above; reaching firm determinations of truth without factoring a single piece of real world data. Even worse, the paradigm in which the epistemology resides denigrates the attempt to feed in real world data, well, that is as long as the real world data might contradict the "truth" arrived at through entirely ontological means.

Spiritual experiences are "real world data." That point aside, you're veering off in the same ill-fated direction you did when you started dividing moral theory into "formalism" and "utilitarianism." My arguments have not been "ontological," and ontological is not the opposite of empirical. One gets the sense that you think "ontological" means something like "philosophical argument absent empiricism." This is silly, but what am I supposed to do about it?

Depends how you define "real world data." I am thinking in terms of, and I think Dawkins was too, "empirical" evidence. Spiritual experience is not empirical data, and someone who claims to be as smart as you should see that.

You are correct; I erred in inserting "ontological" in my phrasing. Thanks for pointing that out. I was typing fast and not picking my words carefully. Will be more careful next time.

When you stop to think about it, it's really pretty amazing; an entire system of belief based on the fundamental assertion that real world data is unnecessary, indeed even undesirable, to know "truth."

This bizarre claim is not a view shared by me or implied by LDS doctrine.

That other spiritual witnesses lack the validity of Mormon experiences is precisely implied by its epistemology; and to the extent you accept this same epistemology; you are guilty as well of making the same implied assertion.

That real world data (empirical data) is unnecessary is also directly implied. Where in Moroni 10: 3-5, perhaps the most concise expression of Mormon epistemology, does it mention empirical evidence? I doubt there are too many missionaries out there urging investigators to do empirical research to verify Mormonism's truth claims. I don't recall too many GC talks urging members to seek out empirical evidence. This is hardly a bizarre claim; what is bizarre is your lack of understanding of Mormon doctrine and culture.

And our believing colleagues find it hard to understand that there are those of us for whom this is not a satisfactory method of truth seeking?

But thanks for showing that even people with Ph.D's can have uninformed views, especially when leaving their area of expertise.

And you needed me to show you this? As our good buddies at FARMS demonstrate quite clearly, having a PH.D. does not necessarily imply capacity for sound reasoning.

And we can feel confident in assuming that this is not your area of expertise either; that and the power of empirical observation.

[_Some Schmo]

What is under dispute is if it is consistent to not believe in God and also think a moral statement like, "One ought to use ones talents to improve the general happiness of humanity" is an true statement independent of personal preferences. Where's your "empirical evidence" of that?

This is an prime example of the crux of why it's useless to debate someone like you or Coggins.

It is only in dispute because you've conflated some imagined macro meaning to the universe with the personal meaning we all make up for ourselves. What the hell does your imaginary god have to do with morality or personal meaning at all? Nothing, except the relationship you give it.

And why on earth should a person's desire (what he/she thinks someone ought to do) be independent of personal preferences? That's the whole point! (You're pretty frickin' daft for someone who thinks they're so smart.) Someone making that statement is clearly expressing their personal preferences. No macro meaning needed.

You're the one that wants to impose some special external meaning to your life, and it's all in your head. You're the one who would need to come up with empirical evidence to support that there's some divine meaning to the universe, not us. You're the one who wants to claim god-given meaning, so the onus is on you to prove it.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

It's not that we don't understand, we fundamentally don't agree with the underlying assumption. You refer to "one of those foundations," yet there are others in which atheism is perfectly consistent with morality. The problem is that I, and others, think that "one" foundation you refer to is a badly informed one. You confuse misunderstanding with disagreement.

I don't think you understand what the word "foundation" means in that sentence. It is referring to logically necessary components to a true metaethical framework that treats moral purposes as objectively binding. "Atheists can act moral" is not a refutation of this.

One could with little difficulty, I imagine, identify a number of data points as empirical evidence of atheists adhering to moral frameworks of various kinds in which such a statement would be entirely entirely justified. You don't make clear what constitutes "personal preference," is this some kind of ad hoc moralism? Sorry, I just don't find your argument persuasive in any sense.

I mean that atheists have access to noncognitivist or nihilistic views of ethics. Atheists can express that moral obligations reflect what they'd like to be the case in the same sense they can express their like for chocolate ice cream. They cannot claim their preferences are rationally binding on others no more than one can say that, in order to be rational, one must like chocolate ice cream. Yes, empirical evidence can tell us that atheists have ascribed to this or that moral theory. What it doesn't tell us is if it is a sound, internally consistent, metaethical viewpoint.

Depends how you define "real world data." I am thinking in terms of, and I think Dawkins was too, "empirical" evidence. Spiritual experience is not empirical data, and someone who claims to be as smart as you should see that.

I've never claimed to be smart, but that you have this impression is in an odd way a compliment. You know, if you neglect the fact that it is intended as an insult. If you're just asserting that logical positivism is right, then, well, you're wrong. if you are saying that Mormons don't take into account empirical evidence when understanding the world, this is also wrong. The fact that there are thousands of LDS scientists should clue you into this. It just so happens that LDS, along the academic community at large, do not thing knowing begins and ends with empiricism. I consider myself a scientific realist (not an empiricist). Nothing about my beliefs is inconsistent with spiritual knowledge.

That other spiritual witnesses lack the validity of Mormon experiences is precisely implied by its epistemology; and to the extent you accept this same epistemology; you are guilty as well of making the same implied assertion.

It is not implied by LDS doctrine or held by me that only spiritual witness has validity. I think it does have validity, but I don't think it is the only means by which one can obtain knowledge. I think you have a rather narrow, strawman conception of what spiritual witness is or can be thought to be. Perhaps this explains your apostacy, perhaps not. Can you reasonably trust some forms of knowing over others? Of course. Do you believe your eyes when you see a magic trick? No? Spiritual witness can, in some instances, provide so much compelling reason that it overrides what one would think absent that witness. It is in that sense that a wise Saint will admonish others to not be fooled by the arm of the flesh when they have their testimony.

That real world data (empirical data) is unnecessary is also directly implied. Where in Moroni 10: 3-5, perhaps the most concise expression of Mormon epistemology, does it mention empirical evidence? I doubt there are too many missionaries out there urging investigators to do empirical research to verify Mormonism's truth claims. I don't recall too many GC talks urging members to seek out empirical evidence. This is hardly a bizarre claim; what is bizarre is your lack of understanding of Mormon doctrine and culture.

If you want to grow in your understanding of the Church, you should seek out spiritual witness to obtain confirmation of its truths. How does this imply that one ought not, for instance, perform scientific experiments to understand how electricity works?

[_harmony]

It is not implied by LDS doctrine or held by me that only spiritual witness has validity.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Because it most certainly is implied by LDS doctrine that an LDS witness is the only spiritual witness that has validity. Where on earth did you get the idea that any other witness is okay? From the beginnings of the church, the church has held that the LDS church is the only true church, the only church with authority to act in God's name, the only church with the true ordinances, and all other churches are abominations with no authority. For you to say otherwise is crosswise of the church's teachings and not doctrinal.

For a second there, I was almost seduced into thinking you know what you're talking about, so this is a decided disappointment.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

It is not implied by LDS doctrine or held by me that only spiritual witness has validity.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Because it most certainly is implied by LDS doctrine that an LDS witness is the only spiritual witness that has validity.

Me: LDS doctrine does not imply that spiritual witness is the only valid way to obtain knowledge

You: LDS doctrine does imply that LDS witness is the only kind of witness that has validity.

Surely you can see why these are completely different assertions?

That said, witness isn't LDS or not in this sense. It just is witness. The LDS faith simply holds that properly understood witness will confirm the truth of the LDS faith.

From the beginnings of the church, the church has held that the LDS church is the only true church, the only church with authority to act in God's name, the only church with the true ordinances, and all other churches are abominations with no authority. For you to say otherwise is crosswise of the church's teachings and not doctrinal.

Of course, though I think you are using the term abomination with more rhetorical flair than technical intent. This isn't contradictory to what I said.

[_Who Knows]

Of course, though I think you are using the term abomination with more rhetorical flair than technical intent. This isn't contradictory to what I said.

Harmony? Or Joseph Smith? Or God?

[_Some Schmo]

Me: LDS doctrine does not imply that spiritual witness is the only valid way to obtain knowledge

You: LDS doctrine does imply that LDS witness is the only kind of witness that has validity.

Surely you can see why these are completely different assertions?

Sure, they're different if you leave out the word "spiritual" from what harmony said.

Yep, this is DCP alright, acknowledging only what he wants to see in order to support his weak argument.

[_harmony]

It is not implied by LDS doctrine or held by me that only spiritual witness has validity.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Because it most certainly is implied by LDS doctrine that an LDS witness is the only spiritual witness that has validity.

Me: LDS doctrine does not imply that spiritual witness is the only valid way to obtain knowledge

You: LDS doctrine does imply that LDS witness is the only kind of witness that has validity.

When you quote me, at least quote what I actually said, not what you want me to say.

I said:

Because it most certainly is implied by LDS doctrine that an LDS witness is the only spiritual witness that has validity.

It makes a difference.