Quebec bans religious teaching in publicly subsidized daycares

[Lorizael]

Humans almost universally have strong personal beliefs about right and wrong, educed from their moral sentiments. These moral sentiments are essentially similar to all of the other inputs to our brain (in a Descartes-style picture of the mind). To the same degree that abduction from sights, sounds, etc. to testable hypothesis about a physical reality is true, so is abduction from these sentiments to testable hypotheses about right and wrong. The fact that these sentiments are even strongly consistent between individuals and cultures makes an even better case for a shared, objective, true morality.

You're assuming a direct connection where there may not be one. That most humans have mostly similar thoughts on morality allows us to make testable hypotheses about psychology, but not necessarily morality.

What you're saying is that if by some quirk of history a very large majority or even all of the population came to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, this would have some impact on a testable hypothesis with regards to Jesus being the Son of God (or religion in general).

[Kuciwalker]

You're assuming a direct connection where there may not be one.

I'm not making any stronger assumptions than you are when you decide to believe that electrons exist.

[Kuciwalker]

That most humans have mostly similar thoughts on morality allows us to make testable hypotheses about psychology, but not necessarily morality.

This isn't necessary, it's just helpful.

[KrazyHorse]

Humans almost universally have strong personal beliefs about right and wrong, educed from their moral sentiments. These moral sentiments are essentially similar to all of the other inputs to our brain (in a Descartes-style picture of the mind). To the same degree that abduction from sights, sounds, etc. to testable hypothesis about a physical reality is true, so is abduction from these sentiments to testable hypotheses about right and wrong. The fact that these sentiments are even strongly consistent between individuals and cultures makes an even better case for a shared, objective, true morality.

I don't see how this contradicts what I said.

[Lorizael]

You're assuming a direct connection where there may not be one.

I'm not making any stronger assumptions than you are when you decide to believe that electrons exist.

There kind of is a difference. I'm assuming that the scientific process does a good job of describing reality, whereas you're assuming that what is good for the human species is somehow related to the concept of morality. The scientific process' ability to describe reality is borne out by increasingly accurate predictions of natural phenomena, but a link between good for humanity and morality is, uh, nebulous.

[KrazyHorse]

Why are you so certain that "reality" exists any more than morality does?

[Kuciwalker]

I don't see how this contradicts what I said.

While it's possible I seriously misread your posts, you're arguing for the fairly standard "soft relativism" position of "objective morality doesn't really exist, but we have to do something and we all in practice act like there is one guiding rule so let's do that". I'm claiming that we should reject that position as fervently as we reject the idea that cogito ergo sum is the furthest reach of science.

[Lorizael]

Why are you so certain that "reality" exists any more than morality does?

There is a reality, no matter what, even if this reality bears no resemblance to what we commonly think of as reality. If we're all a simulation within a computer, there's still the computer. If this is all a dream, there's still the dreamer. If we're brains in jars, then we're brains in jars.

[Kuciwalker]

There is a reality, no matter what, even if this reality bears no resemblance to what we commonly think of as reality. If we're all a simulation within a computer, there's still the computer. If this is all a dream, there's still the dreamer. If we're brains in jars, then we're brains in jars.

You are completely unwilling to entertain this notion beyond dicking around on Internet forums. No one actually believes that this is (or even could be) true; everyone's actions reveal a fundamental belief in objective reality roughly corresponding to the apparent one.

[giblets]

No one actually believes that this is (or even could be) true; everyone's actions reveal a fundamental belief in objective reality roughly corresponding to the apparent one.

How so?

[KrazyHorse]

While it's possible I seriously misread your posts, you're arguing for the fairly standard "soft relativism" position of "objective morality doesn't really exist, but we have to do something and we all in practice act like there is one guiding rule so let's do that". I'm claiming that we should reject that position as fervently as we reject the idea that cogito ergo sum is the furthest reach of science.

I go beyond cogito ergo sum just as much as I go beyond relativism.

However, in both cases I acknowledge that going beyond requires appeal to shared unfounded beliefs, for example the belief that human beings have intrinsic value or that physical laws are uniform across space and time

[Lorizael]

No one actually believes that this is (or even could be) true...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom#Simulation_hypothesis

[Hauldren Collider]

Everyone, I have a provable moral axiom!

Discussing religion on the internet is about the most pointless thing imaginable!

Observational evidence: THIS THREAD.

SHUT UP.

And shut up I know that's not a moral axiom just stop talking religion it makes my brain hurt shut up

[Kuciwalker]

How so?

When was the last time you deliberately touched a hot stove?

[KrazyHorse]

HC

Go away, you bore.