.

[_mikwut]

Hi Chap,

Hmm. Mikwut makes an assertion ("in a Godless universe, the universe you believe in there is no meaning"), and then he does not carry the burden of proof for that assertion? I learn new things on this board every day.

I am not making that assertion. I am saying I see no evidence for any ultimate meaning or value in a Godless universe other than personal subjective feelings, drives, opinion or emotions that certainly aren't objective or ultimately worth anything. They don't convince me to live any traditional values. No atheist has convinced me that without God I shouldn't live selfishly. The atheist who claims there is objective or ultimate value, purpose or meaning (or some derivative thereof) in life is making an assertion. So support it, you haven't so far. You want me to do that work for you, that's not how it works. I accept that when the burden is placed on me. I expect it of the atheist just as well. Is it just a given Chap and that's why you have meaning in your atheistic universe? I hope so, my arguments for the basicality of belief in God should be right at home with you.

Indeed no. This is not an argument Mikwut originated, but for once I thought I might manage to get one of the theists who repeat it glibly to explain why it is supposed to be so impressive. Evidently Mikwut can't.

First, I didn't present it without substance or glibly as you put it. I in fact am the only one who has supported what I am saying - you just ignore all that because I am not the Dean of Philosophy at an ivy league school. I also did so on a thread that asked why you believe in God, I directly gave my reasons. That isn't glib. I also gave many reasons in the post beyond this one, that isn't glib. What is strange is why you won't address substantively what I have said. You have so far dismissed it because I misspelled, 'Sartre' and so the discussion wasn't worth your participation, you then contrary decided to participate and dismissed it because my vocabulary is over your head, you then dismissed it because I didn't tell you enough about me. You have now dismissed it because you don't properly understand who is asserting and who is demanding that something be shown. Those reasons, my message board interlocutor, are more properly defined as glib, not my historical and substantive reasons so far offered.

Second, it is impressive for many reasons, but if you don't think a message board is conducive for me to illustrate that in the avenues I have employed your simply having a conversation with yourself and setting the table for yourself. The issue was deeply presented in for example the Old Testament by the preacher, it has been echoed by many brilliant thinkers since, but I am not an Old Testament scholar or the chair of philosophy so all that is glib and can't be what I personally think. But, your suggestion earlier that I just take your word for it isn't, right?

I will always give you the last word and still offer the well wishes previously.

my regards, mikwut

[_mikwut]

Chap,

Also, the board keeps track of editing. I can't find more than one misspelling of Sartre. I might have missed a second. I spelled it correctly initially. I counted 32 correctly spelled 'Sartre's' after the one misspelling. I am really wondering who is being "glib".

regards, mikwut

[Guest]

Two posters are having a learned discussion of the ideas of a certain 20th-century French thinker.

The first discourses at length, giving the name of the thinker consistently as 'Sarte' in more than one post. The other asks some questions, again using the same form of the name. Finally, the original poster tells us more about this thinker, speaking in a confidently expert tone and in this most recent post he finally gets round to spelling the thinker's name correctly as 'Sartre'.

Somehow, I find that this fact significantly reduces the attention I am willing to devote to the views expressed in the relevant posts. That's my loss, I suppose.

Chap,

Also, the board keeps track of editing. I can't find more than one misspelling of Sartre. I might have missed a second. I spelled it correctly initially. I counted 32 correctly spelled 'Sartre's' after the one misspelling. I am really wondering who is being "glib".

regards, mikwut

Since it matters to you enough to keep coming back to it - there are five instance of "Sartre" spelled as "Sarte" in this post:

viewtopic.php?p=475951#p475951

Four of them are your own.

EDITED TO ADD:

I spelled it correctly initially.

Your first post is here:

viewtopic.php?p=475436#p475436


it begins thus:

I find a great deal of affinity with Aristotle Smith. Nietzsche and Sarte saved me from atheism many years ago. I just found them more brutally honest and real than most of the atheism I confront currently. Nihilism or a universe and ourselves endowed with meaning from deity have been my only live options. I read Nausea 15 years ago shortly after Nietzsche and was baffled at how none of the fundamental anxiety and despair was found in my atheist classmates who were attracted to making there own meaning. Nietzsche's madman is still a live parable today. I felt what Sarte's Roquentin felt.

Please note I am only posting about this again because you chose to bring it up.

[_Chap]

Hi Chap,

Hmm. Mikwut makes an assertion ("in a Godless universe, the universe you believe in there is no meaning"), and then he does not carry the burden of proof for that assertion? I learn new things on this board every day.

I am not making that assertion.

But .... but:

That's wierd, your turning things on there head. I am stating in a Godless universe, the universe you believe in there is no meaning.

And at greater length:

Let's try this, your ridiculous life in a godless universe is b***s***, your dark lies of value you feebly place on your life is meaningless a noble dark lie you tell yourself and others but really deep and rich in runny b***s*** it remains. Any purpose you wikipedied for yourself or created for yourself out of whole cloth is a dark abyss of foolishness as ever there was - it is all b***s***. There is nothing that you can say regarding meaning, value and purpose that a rational response of b***s*** would not provide substance in response to. That's from the heart for you.

I think mikwut may just be a bit overwrought.

[_mikwut]

Chap,

The burden isn't mine to show the absence of something - the burden is yours who is claiming the existence of something. That's pretty basic and primary.

But, let me quote a few of your fellow atheists that agree with what I'm saying (because what I am saying isn't that deep or complicated):

"River Out Of Eden", Richard Dawkins wrote: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference" (p.155.)

"The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. (The Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics, in the Darwinian Paradigm, pp. 262-269. Emphasis in blue added.)

I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and wellinformed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.

My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world" Thomas Nagel, The Last Word, Kindle page not stated.

That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; . . . that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built ("A Free Man’s Worship,” in The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell, eds., Robert E. Egner and Lester E. Denonn. p. 67.)

"If there is no purpose to life in general, biological or human for that matter, the question arises whether there is meaning in our individual lives, and if it is not there already, whether we can put it there. One source of meaning on which many have relied is the intrinsic value, in particular the moral value, of human life. People have also sought moral rules, codes, principles which are supposed to distinguish us from merely biological critters whose lives lack (as much) meaning or value (as ours). Besides morality as a source of meaning, value, or purpose, people have looked to consciousness, introspection, self-knowledge as a source of insight into what makes us more than the merely physical facts about us. Scientism must reject all of these straws that people have grasped, and it’s not hard to show why. Science has to be nihilistic about ethics and morality.

There is no room in a world where all the facts are fixed by physical facts for a set of free floating independently existing norms or values (or facts about them) that humans are uniquely equipped to discern and act upon. So, if scientism is to ground the core morality that every one (save some psychopaths and sociopaths) endorses, as the right morality, it’s going to face a serious explanatory problem. The only way all or most normal humans could have come to share a core morality is through selection on alternative moral codes or systems, a process that resulted in just one winning the evolutionary struggle and becoming “fixed” in the population. If our universally shared moral core were both the one selected for and also the right moral core, then the correlation of being right and being selected for couldn’t be a coincidence. Scientism doesn’t tolerate cosmic coincidences. Either our core morality is an adaptation because it is the right core morality or it’s the right core morality because it’s an adaptation, or it’s not right, but only feels right to us. It’s easy to show that neither of the first two alternatives is right. Just because there is strong selection for a moral norm is no reason to think it right. Think of the adaptational benefits of racist, xenophobic or patriarchal norms. You can’t justify morality by showing its Darwinian pedigree. That way lies the moral disaster of Social Spencerism (better but wrongly known as Social Darwinism). The other alternative—that our moral core was selected for because it was true, correct or right–is an equally far fetched idea. And in part for the same reasons. The process of natural selection is not in general good at filtering for true beliefs, only for ones hitherto convenient for our lines of descent. Think of folk physics, folk biology, and most of all folk psychology. Since natural selection has no foresight, we have no idea whether the moral core we now endorse will hold up, be selected for, over the long-term future of our species, if any.

This nihilistic blow is cushioned by the realization that Darwinian processes operating on our forbearers in the main selected for niceness! The core morality of cooperation, reciprocity and even altruism that was selected for in the environment of hunter-gatherers and early agrarians, continues to dominate our lives and social institutions. We may hope the environment of modern humans has not become different enough eventually to select against niceness. But we can’t invest our moral core with more meaning than this: it was a convenience, not for us as individuals, but for our genes. There is no meaning to be found in that conclusion." You can read his essay I quote from here: http://onthehuman.org/2009/11/the-disen ... o-reality/

Keith Augustine, "I think there is a certain degree of plausibility among atheists in the view that without some kind of transcendental intelligence in the universe, there can be no objective moral laws". http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... moral.html

In a deterministic universe, we understand that a criminal's career is not a matter of an unconditioned personal choice, but fully a function of a complex set of conditions, genetic and enviromental, that interact to produce the offender and his proclivities. Had we been in his shows in all respects, we too would have followed the same path, since there is no freely willing self that could have done otherwise as causality unfolds. There is no kernel of independent moral agency -- we are not, as philosopher Daniel Dennett puts it, "moral levitators" that rise above circunstances in our choices, including choices to rob, rape, or kill" Tom Clark, can be read here: http://www.naturalism.org/maximizing_liberty.htm

I think Chap is clearly overwrought, not even by a bit.

my best, mikwut

[_Chap]

Chap,

The burden isn't mine to show the absence of something - the burden is yours who is claiming the existence of something. That's pretty basic and primary.

Where is the post on this thread where I claimed the existence of something whose existence mikwut denies? I have looked quite carefully, but I can't find it somehow ... mikwut on the other hand asserts:

I am stating in a Godless universe, the universe you believe in there is no meaning.

But, conscious of the absolute lack of need to justify anything (such as his statement above), mikwut goes on:

let me quote a few of your fellow atheists that agree with what I'm saying <snip long quotes>

I have terrible news for mikwut.

Members of the Roman Catholic church have fellow-Catholics. Members of the Republican party have fellow Republicans. To some extent all members of such bodies can reasonably be expected to be asked to respond to the relevant views (on religion in the first case, politics in the second) of those they recognize as fellow-members. That is because there is a generally recognized 'party line' on a whole range of topics that comes with the membership

But non stamp-collectors have no significant characteristic that makes it even remotely sensible to refer to two non stamp-collectors in the same way. Apart from the fact that they do not collect stamps, you would not be entitled to assume any common characteristics or views between two members of the group of non stamp-collectors. You would only provoke puzzlement if you said to one non stamp-collector "let me quote a few of your fellow non stamp-collectors that agree with what I'm saying".

Similarly, a person 'A' who does not find a personal deity an interesting or convincing concept (an 'atheist') cannot reasonably be expected to have any common characteristics apart from that with another person 'B' simply on the grounds that 'B' likewise does not find a personal deity an interesting or convincing concept, and hence is 'an atheist'.

If mikwut has no arguments apart from citing the opinions of others, why go on posting at all?

[_mikwut]

Chap,

You are correct my previous post was wrong regarding the spelling, 5 out of 32 is more correct and I did misspell the first instance, my eyes deceive me on the screen. I'm still going with glib and that I provided valuable substance that your ignoring.

I'm about done with the back and forth. If you can show any source where the party making an existence claim places the burden on the party denying the existence claim we can talk further along these lines. I am claiming objective value, morality, purpose and meaning do not exist in an atheistic universe. That is not a claim for something that requires me to meet an evidential burden through argument, it is the denial that evidence exists for it. You are seemingly either claiming they do and you haven't offered the least bit of substance to substantiate that claim or that it doesn't matter in which case I simply say fine, we agree and disagree over the trivial value we each place on the fact. So, if your saying it doesn't matter we are done and we agree, my argument appeals to those that do give a damn about that fact.

If your saying meaning, value, purpose or morality does exist in an objective manner within your personal atheistic view by all means the floor is yours. If we were discussing God this would clearly be a non-issue that I have the burden regarding because I am making the claim, I am sure we agree there, I at least hope so. Why that would be different with any other existent is simply baffling to me and rational people, you don't get a pass. Your wrong, if you don't have the "chaps" to admit that why should I or anyone "take your word for it". I can admit where I am wrong, I in fact just showed you that, it lends to dialogue. Stubbornness like your displaying over such a fundamental matter lends to silliness.

If you are saying something entirely different that simply alludes me then clarify and stop being vague just come out and state our difference, that also lends to dialogue.

Your attempt to either continue to dodge this simple issue via your example of the Catholic church only raises further your burden to either clarify your position your making contra mine or clearly state why something you have seemingly argued against me with does in fact exist. It also doesn't give you a pass it simply makes an obvious observation that people in groups can disagree.

You can have the last word and I won't respond unless you provide one or the other that would rationally further the discussion.

my best, mikwut

[_Chap]

Here is me trying to open a dialog with mikwut, by asking for clarification of his views on one of his central assertions:

Chap,

... there is no objective meaning, value, morality or purpose in Godless universe like ours.

I await your response.

my best, mikwut

[EDITORIAL NOTE: I suspect he meant to type "Godless universe like yours"]

... what exactly is this thing labelled 'meaning' that you feel should be so important to us all, to the extent that we should apparently all collapse in black despair and anomie if you can convince us that we haven't got it?

And what is the special characteristic of certain types of 'meaning' that makes them in your view 'objective' as opposed to other kinds (and hence, I presume, superior to them)?

.....

And here is his response to my modest attempt:

I have been clear in my posts, this is standard statement regarding atheism, and I tire of the what do you mean game. My argument isn't unique or only mine and I am quite certain you have heard it before. You can reread my posts until you understand the "big words".

Looks like the cessation of posts from mikwut's side would deprive me of many deep insights, doesn't it? But I am sure he means well, so no hard feelings I hope.

[Guest]

Chap,

My your evasive of such simple concepts. You state,

mikwut wrote:
Chap,

... there is no objective meaning, value, morality or purpose in Godless universe like ours.

I await your response.

my best, mikwut

Correct. I am saying there is no objective meaning, morality or purpose in a Godless universe like yours. A claim that is equivalent to I don't recognize, I don't see evidence for any objective meaning, value, morality or purpose in a Godless universe like yours. Or equivalent to I have no reason to believe that, or I am without belief that the state of affairs in a Godless universe that you accept is actual. It is a denial of something existing, either a priori because in a Godless universe that current science reveals to us that is nonsense, or because there exists no foundation, evidence or rational argument that would convince us rationally that such (objective states of affairs) do exist. If I am wrong - foundation, evidence and argument is what will persuade me and rational people - you feel no need to provide me with any, instead you reply:

... what exactly is this thing labelled 'meaning' that you feel should be so important to us all,

I just addressed this in my previous post, here it is again:

"You are seemingly either claiming (morality, value, purpose and meaning) do have [i.e. objective meaning] and you haven't offered the least bit of substance to substantiate that claim or that it doesn't matter in which case I simply say fine, we agree and disagree over the trivial value we each place on the fact. So, if your saying it doesn't matter we are done and we agree, my argument appeals to those that do give a damn about that fact.

I further gave room for the possibility that I don't understand what your saying, here that is again:

"If you are saying something entirely different that simply alludes me then clarify and stop being vague just come out and state our difference, that also lends to dialogue."

To which you seem to think you don't even have a burden of courtesy to clarify when it is asked for. You continue:

to the extent that we should apparently all collapse in black despair and anomie if you can convince us that we haven't got it?

It is the "haven't got it" and that seemingly request to "convince us [i.e. I understand as atheists] that implied to me your claim to have it, i.e objective morality, value, purpose and/or meaning. You also asked me take your word for it - which I understood as claiming you personally believe you have objective meaning, value, morality, and purpose or one of that group. To which (the circle goes round and round) I obligated you to demonstrate, articulate or evidence such.

So, I believe the obligation is yours to either 1) accept the basic burden to substantiate your claim of objective morals, value, purpose and/or meaning within your paradigm or that you don't believe such, 2) or, accept the simpler still burden of courtesy by clarifying exactly what your asking me to provide you with. I can only interpret your failure to answer either of those very simple requests, that proper communication surely isn't offended by, as insisting that substance is a one way street that your car doesn't have to drive on.

my regards, mikwut

[_Ceeboo]

It haz ben mi expereence dat whon shewd plase alot moor wait too posders woo kan spel.


Az fer Mikwit, I kan nough disrigerd hiz sillee contibulations

Piece,
Cebuu