A question for all Atheists

I know what epistemology is and I've said many times that empiricism is not claiming to have the capacity to discover, identify, or verify the true nature of things. As to gradations, I think your examples are semantics. I also think your notion about the circularity of the empiricist's argument is faulty because the empiricist is not making an argument; he's only asking for evidence if you want to assert a claim. To insist that logic and reason can provide such evidence is mistaken. From Plato's Forms to god propositions all divine and metaphysical claims sit still as speculation and will remain so until something more than argument can be provided. In fact, metaphysics is truly no better than magic. What is the metaphysical? Where is the metaphysical? How can you even claim it when you can't even show me where or what it is? So an answer to your question about objective reality would first start with a question of my own: Where is it and how do you know about such a thing? The material world may be an illusion, but at least it's one we can provide evidence for.

The definition of empiricism is not under dispute. What is under dispute is your belief that anything not within its purview is automatically "vacuous."

That demand is for evidence that is definitionally outside of the scope of the claim. Asking for physical evidence for the claim "a non-physical thing exists" is simply incoherent. It literally makes no more sense than me saying "no trees are currently visible" and you saying "prove it by showing me a tree."

Show me logic. Where is it? How can you claim it exists, and base all your deductions on it, when you can't show me where or what it is?

I don't know what "question about objective reality" you mean. I don't think I asked one. But objective reality, if it exists, would only be accessible through some form of sensory experience.

Serious question, though: how many of your questions do I have to answer before mine get an audience? I'm glad to answer questions, but it requires a good faith showing on both sides that tries to keep this ratio at least somewhat in balance.

I just asked for evidence of a metaphysical or divine claim. If there is none then it's speculation. You offered logic as a means to provide such evidence but it can't. And what exactly is outside the physical, what does it consist of, where is it, and how would you know?

See above.

Logic is a thought process within our brains that we use to organize the world. It's demonstrated when you speak or write it. An MRI can point to the area in the brain where it's happening when you do it. In time, we'll be able to see how our neurons do it in detail.

Typo. I meant objective morality.

See above.

No sir; you also categorically dismissed all non-physical claims as vacuous simply by virtue of them being non-physical. And that's what I've taken issue with.

I didn't, though: I offered logic as an example of a non-empirical source of evidence. We haven't even gotten into making an affirmative case for theism; we're still stuck on the circular demands of empiricism.

In order: 1) I don't pretend to know exactly, 2) "where is it" and "what does it consist of" are obviously inapplicable given that it's not physical, and 3) the only way to know about anything outside the physical is for it to make itself known in our sensory experience somehow. I think it does this in a variety of ways (for example, the presence of a universal morality, which you helpfully already detailed for me). Not that any of this has any bearing on whether or not the argument advanced was, in fact, circular.

See what, exactly? I don't see anything that makes "give me physical evidence" a coherent response to the claim "non-physical things exist." It is still circular and definitionally impossible to satisfy.

That's not logic, that's the electrical signals which transmits examples of it. If logic only existed in our brains there would be no basis from which to claim that someone's logic was valid or invalid. Saying either presupposes an external standard to which we can appeal.

Re: sources of knowledge. What I'm saying isn't terribly controversial, I don't think. I came across an article a few weeks back that I didn't get around to reading until today that, coincidentally, makes the same point:

A truly skeptical worldview cannot skate by the existence of things like logic, as if their existence simply was and didn't tell us anything about existence. It has to account for them. And, at the very least, it can't hope to make a compelling argument against competing worldviews by asking others to simply take these things as a given.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you guys seem to be arguing is thus: what qualifies as a sufficient reason for holding a belief? And I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to hold the position that if you want me to believe in something fantastic like an immensely powerful supernatural being with specific attributes to qualify it as a "god" then I want to see some real evidence for it. Otherwise, I'm not going to believe it exists. I'm not sure why that's so outlandish.

If someone else wants to believe in a god, and they're satisfied with some other form of evidence beyond what can be demonstrated or argued, then that's their right, but they shouldn't be amazed that it doesn't convince other people. I was going to comment on some things Yoda said a while back, but I've decided not to, and besides VFN can certainly hold his own, better than I could.

Part of the problem is there needs to be some definition of "god" because otherwise no one knows what definitions someone's using. There's a big difference between arguing for a god with specific attributes and just some vague concept of a "higher power." At the very least it should be clear if one is arguing for a personal god that expects us to worship it, or some far away deity that oversees the universe or something like that.

The one thing I will say is I think claiming objective morality proves God is a terrible argument, but it seems to appeal to people's desire for there to be some ultimate code of right and wrong, even among atheists. Yet, I've never even heard "objective morality" defined, let alone rationally supported.

__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.

The answer is embedded in the question: "real evidence." If I ask you what you mean by "real evidence," it's probably going to come out that you're defining evidence in a way that definitionally excludes the thing you're asking of evidence for.

The core of the disagreement is that most atheists expect their evidentiary standard--which stacks the deck against any metaphysical possibility from the beginning--to be taken as a given, and/or a neutral starting point, when it isn't.

I certainly agree that they entail different arguments, but in virtually all of these conversations it seems like the leap for the skeptic is always believing in the metaphysical at all. Not a lot of point in arguing about the likelihood of a personal God as long as that's true.

Whether or not you've heard it defined or supported is going to depend on where/whether you've looked, I suppose. It's certainly been written about extensively and intelligently by people a lot smarter than myself. As I referenced earlier, it's the starting point of Lewis' Mere Christianity, and forms the foundation of what is essentially a book-wide syllogism.

Apologies if what I'm about to say has been already discussed or redundant: (I only read this last page, ignored the rest of the thread)

I do think that logical reasoning can serve as a means to know certain superficial and empirical truths. The thing is, there's no guarantee that reality itself (or absolute Truth) can actually be understood by logical means. To nurture this or the alternate view that Truth can be knowable by entirely empirical means is essentially an act of faith. For all we know reality could be absolutely impossible according to our understanding, therefore, impossible to know. Wouldn't surprise me at all if reality proves to be much more paradoxical than people usually think.

I do think that we are somewhat limited in our ability to reason our way to the truth (even with the aid of empirical evidence) simply by virtue of our human condition. We have a particular way to think and work out data so that we can understand things in our intellectual framework. This necessity to translate information for our own code makes all our knowledge inherently subjective. I think it's reasonable to assert that all our knowledge is indeed subjective, including that which is harvested by scientific means because science itself is a discipline tailored according to our subjective judgement about what should be the proper way to collect knowledge or evidence.

Basically we're doomed to think inside the box. Omniscience is impossible (I'm assuming here that one has to be omniscient to know the Truth, but this could be debatable). So theists and atheists, you're all in the same delusional bag.

Words from an agnostic and moral nihilist.

I actually agree with a lot of what you said kk10. The difference between me and you is you use it as a reason to dismiss faith and I use it as a reason to activate mine. Just because we cannot prove truth does not mean we should stop searching for it and everyone is. You call yourself a moral nihilist but are you really? Even sociopaths live by a moral code. It may be twisted beyond what most of us find acceptable but it is still there.

__________________
Letterboxd

Please don't interpret my words as if I affirming that we should stop looking for answers. This is not what I was implying and is not a view I share. I'm the last person you'll ever see advocating such thing, I'm all for searching and exploration.

Moral nihilism doesn't imply anything about one's actions, it's not something by which a person has to guide his/her behavior. And doesn't mean that I'm going to act like a psycho, this is a silly statement.

Moral nihilism doesn't imply anything about one's inner drive or even emotions. I still cringe and feel disturbed when I see an 'injustice' just like everybody else. Moral nihilism is purely a meta-ethical stance. See the wikipedia article to read what moral nihilism means.

Morality is a useful social construct to keep society unified and efficient.
But there is no reason to believe that qualitative values like 'right' or 'wrong' have truth value in an absolute sense of reality. Nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral just like nothing is intrinsically beautiful, or funny, or dirty, etc,. These are simply subjective qualities we attribute to our perceptions, not qualities of reality itself. In a way, this is all moral nihilism stands for. I have the feeling that many people are proponents moral nihilism, but they just don't know it.

This rationale goes back to what I was saying in my previous post.

I understand the distinction between looking for the truth but not thinking you will ever find ansolute truth so I am sorry if I misinterpreted you there.

I don't think I misunderstood what moral nihilism is. Either you believe in moral absolutes or you do not. You cannot believe in them for the whole and not the individual. That makes no sense to me.

I don't necessarilly think that we'll never find the truth. My post might make it seem like that's what I'm saying, but if you read it carefuly you should find that it doesn't. Near the end, I still present a debatable hole that gives rise to other hypothesis if we were about to discuss them. Overall, I was simply saying that we don't know if what we do and the way we think can leads us anywhere. Don't relate this to Nihilism in any way.

If you cannot make sense of my post then you didn't understand moral nihilism. Read my post again and at least try to use the link I provided to inform yourself about moral nihilism.

Again, I don't believe in moral absolutes for either the whole or the individual. I say that 'morality' is an artificial/social construct. By this I'm implying that 'morality' is learned and not innate to the human intellect nor intrinsic to reality. Note that I don't claim to state anything for a fact here, I have devised an archaic theory about this. It's just an hypothesis I drawed out of my believe that nothing is intrinsically moral in an absolute sense.

EDIT: By the way! "So theists and atheists, you're all in the same delusional bag. " > I have the feeling that this line is causing some discomfort... I ask you guys to not take it seriously, as I was just being playful. I wasn't actually accusing anyone, I was just teasing OK?

I'm fine. I thought the line was funny. I am trying to wrap my head around the distinction your making between what I think moral nihilism is and what it actually is. I guess you are okay with the social construct of moral absolutes but don't think we are born understanding them. Is this closer to what you believe?

It's still lacking many important details, but yes, it's closer to my stance.
I think (I hypothesize) people learn to conceive a notion of 'morality' as they grow and interact with other people. Basically a rationalization of our instincts of survival, empathy and aversion to pain and death by method of social conditioning. This happens naturally as we socialize and interact with each other and with time this enculturation gives rise to a sort of 'moral instinct' in each one of us - the thing that makes us feel that something is 'right' or 'wrong'.

I'm perfectly fine living in a society with a moral construct, in fact, I think a moral/ethical code is necessary for a society to function correctly otherwise we'd all be just a bunch of sociopaths (kind of exaggerating a bit here for illustration purposes). Basically, one can view 'morality' as a sophisticated biological defense mechanism to protect us from our own intellectual and predatorial nature.

EDIT: What I explained here is just my theory, my view, so feel free to disagree. This is not actually moral nihilism, this I explained in the posts above. Better read the link I provided and search for more sources if you still can't wrap your head about the concept. It's pretty simple really...

Labels are rigid. I look at terms as misleading in themselves. I think everything is to a varying degree, and maybe it's intellectual laziness we use terms that might mean something isn't necessarily true. What we might say today may change tomorrow depending on circumstances.

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

Nihilism: rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.

I looked up the definition of nihilism to make sure what I thought it meant was not totally off base. I don't think it is. I get that what you believe has more nuance but I still feel a lot of what your saying is at odds with each other. Just feels a little too punk rock for me. That's okay though. I get the same reaction when people find out I believe in an all knowing all seeing God, but also believe in free will.

I remember hearing about these nihilists who wrote these books, so they must have cared about something..

I understand that your beliefs make it impossible for us to agree, but it's important to make a clear distinction between Nihilism as defined in your post and moral nihilism. For the sake of understanding, these are not the same thing.

I kind of resent the "Moral Nihilism" wording because of the connotation of the word "nihilism". It can lead to a lot of misunderstandings which is apparently happening here as well. The fact is that moral nihilism is not the same thing as Nihilism as you have it defined in that post. A moral nihilist can still believe in a God, or be religious, or believe that life has meaning.

What makes someone a moral nihilist is simply the belief that 'morality' has no truth value in objective reality. That's all and only applies to morality, nothing else.

So while one can deduce that a universal nihilist is necessarily a moral nihilist, the same is not true the other way around. To be a moral nihilist doesn't imply that one is a proponent of universal nihilism. This implication is false. Moral nihilism is just particular subset of nihilism which doesn't imply automatic affiliation with the universal nihilism. I'm not a nihilist, I'm just a moral nihilist. (eh... pun not intended!)

There are many types of nihilism, it can get confusing.

I think it's a common misconception that nihilists don't care about anything. The belief that everything is ultimately meaningless doesn't mean we can't create our own personal meaning, does it?

I think it is time for me to bow out of the conversation. I can feel myself becoming reductive, and I don't like myself when I get that way. Sorry if I came across that way to you at all kkl10, it was not my intention.