Which Worldview is Supported by Evidence?

[Jester]

Each of us has a worldview.
That is, each of us have a list of beliefs that get us through our day, on which we base our practical and ethical decisions and by which we find some sense of purpose in life.

I have noticed that many claim to have rejected all forms of theism on the grounds that they feel there is little or no evidence supporting it.
Assuming this is the case, which worldview (or weltanschauung) is supported by evidence?
And, of course, what is that evidence?

[Jester]

And you believe your "experience" of morals is more accurate than other's experience because?

I do so for the same reason that I claim that the sky is blue, rather than bronze, as Homer claimed.

If, however, you feel that all moral systems are equally valid, I wold like an argument in support of that. I've requested some reason to believe that the proponents of the Crusades were being as ethical as you and I, and have not, as of yet, received one.

[scourge99]

And you believe your "experience" of morals is more accurate than other's experience because?

I do so for the same reason that I claim that the sky is blue, rather than bronze, as Homer claimed.

This appears to be an evasive reply. Perhaps you can elaborate?

How have you determined that your "experience" of morals more accurately reflects objective morals than others?
How is it that some people are more "in-tune" to objective morals than others? Luck? Praying to the right god(s)? Reading the right holy book? Divine intervention?

If, however, you feel that all moral systems are equally valid, I wold like an argument in support of that.

I'm unconvinced that people have greater or lesser ability to "experience" objective morals (let alone that objective morals exist), which is something you appear to believe. So my disagreement will probably be much different than your own.

Feel free to ask what my beliefs about morality are but understand its a completely separate discussion to the questions I am asking about your beliefs.

I've requested some reason to believe that the proponents of the Crusades were being as ethical as you and I, and have not, as of yet, received one.

I don't believe in objective morals, per say. I believe morality is a combination of our personal values, instincts, and brain state. It is dependent on many factors. For instance, the morality of a child is probably radically different from that of a university philosophy professor due in major part to the vast difference in knowledge and amount of thought each has put into the matter. So when you ask if the proponents of the crusades were being as ethical as you and I, I don't know how to answer except in very vague generalities because I don't have the mind of a crusader proponent to pick to explain themselves. In general, I could say that I hold values that discourage killing but there are always exceptions. Self defense for example. But those values are dependent on my situation as well. Perhaps if i lived in medieval times, I would value honor over my current value of individual rights because of a different situation and structure of society.

I don't know if you are familiar with the show "the walking dead" but it touches on some moral dilemmas that arise when society has broken down. That our perceptions of what is moral and correct behavior radically differs when our situation and environment has changed.

[Jester]

This appears to be an evasive reply. Perhaps you can elaborate?

How have you determined that your "experience" of morals more accurately reflects objective morals than others?
How is it that some people are more "in-tune" to objective morals than others? Luck? Praying to the right god(s)? Reading the right holy book? Divine intervention?

Apologies if that seemed evasive, but I see the same situation regarding any experience. I was genuinely wondering why you don't ask this question regarding the physical senses.

But, how do I know? Because that is my experience. I know I have a headache because I feel it. It wouldn't matter one bit if a doctor did exhaustive testing, and reported that I have no discernible causes of pain - and therefore should not have a headache. My experience is a more basic source of information than the doctor's tests.
I see no reason why it should be any different with morality.

If, however, you feel that all moral systems are equally valid, I wold like an argument in support of that.

I'm unconvinced that people have greater or lesser ability to "experience" objective morals (let alone that objective morals exist), which is something you appear to believe. So my disagreement will probably be much different than your own.

Feel free to ask what my beliefs about morality are but understand its a completely separate discussion to the questions I am asking about your beliefs.

My view is different, actually.
I do not remotely suggest that my position can be established in a vacuum. I fully agree that my position, like any other, can be criticized. I only claim that it is the best system I know.
That is, the only refutations I will accept (or even consider) is the claim that one can show logical incoherence in my position, or an alternative position that can be shown to be superior to mine.

I don't believe in objective morals, per say. I believe morality is a combination of our personal values, instincts, and brain state. It is dependent on many factors. For instance, the morality of a child is probably radically different from that of a university philosophy professor due in major part to the vast difference in knowledge and amount of thought each has put into the matter. So when you ask if the proponents of the crusades were being as ethical as you and I, I don't know how to answer except in very vague generalities because I don't have the mind of a crusader proponent to pick to explain themselves. In general, I could say that I hold values that discourage killing but there are always exceptions. Self defenshgmchge for example. But those values are dependent on my situation as well. Perhaps if i lived in medieval times, I would value honor over my current value of individual rights because of a different situation and structure of society.

This is a very good description of relativism.
What I would like, however, is a defense of this position. This should not require any special knowledge of the crusaders. It would merely need support for relativism. Given this, if you would still freely admit that you cannot defend the notion that the crusaders' moral position is equal to our own, then I see no reason to change my view.

[Bust Nak]

Not so close that I would claim morals to be physical objects.
So no, building a detection device would not be possible.

Well if it's not physical then would you agree that moral does not have a concrete existence and hence abstract? Or is there some other kind of existence outside of physical and abstract.

You are free to suggest that. In fact, I'd agree with the notion that all experience is, to some degree, subjective.

Would you agree with the following? So I take a ruler and measure the length of a block to be 5cm, that is an subjective experience. I give the same ruler to someone else and they measure the same block as 5cm, that too is an subjective experience. The length of the block is 5cm objectively, regardless of our experiences; But you can say the block is objectively 5cm long base on your subjective experience.

The follow up point is I can point to a ruler for measuring blocks, I can't do the same with my morality.

However, the fact that culture affects how one perceives color doesn't incline me to think that there is no such thing as light.

Would that incline you to think colour is subjective? Light exists, I can build a sensor for it. Light of particular waveleght exists, I can build a machine to differentiate between them.

Along the same argument, the harm murder causes exists, I can measure that objectively, but evil, like colour is subjective.

It is difficult to say, in a philosophically precise way, whether I see the physical universe as self-evident, or accept it based on experience. Properly basic beliefs are difficult to categorize in this way.

Well I can touch this keyboard I am typing on. Its existence as part of the universe is properly basic, based on experience.

Morality is no different.

I can't do the same for morality.

I didn't make any case based on my moral senses being consistent with my physical senses (though I would say that they are).
Rather, I made the case that I experience morality as directly as I experience the physical universe, and have been given no defeater for either of these beliefs.

The difficulty you are having in explaining how you experiencing morality, the lack of physical objects for measuring is the defeater.

To put it in more concrete terms, I have a direct sense that the Crusades were immoral. I would need a good argument supporting the idea that its proponents' ethical system is equally as valid as my own before accepting that idea as fact.

I am trying to convice you of moral subjectivism, that one cannot measure the morality of the Crusaders objectively. The idea that Crusaders's ethical system is equally as valid as your own would be the very opposite of that, as it imply there is a way to measure and compare ethical system objectively. In fact I would say the Crusades ethical system is worse than yours, simply because yours align with mine better.

[scourge99]

This appears to be an evasive reply. Perhaps you can elaborate?

How have you determined that your "experience" of morals more accurately reflects objective morals than others?
How is it that some people are more "in-tune" to objective morals than others? Luck? Praying to the right god(s)? Reading the right holy book? Divine intervention?

Apologies if that seemed evasive, but I see the same situation regarding any experience. I was genuinely wondering why you don't ask this question regarding the physical senses.

I do. But its answered by a convergence of multiple lines of evidence and reason.

Furthermore, i don't claim my experience of reality is somehow more accurate than other's. For the overwhelming majority, everyone has identical experiences of physical objects via their senses. E.G., no one in a normal state of mind confuses a rock with a car.

Color blindness, hearing loss , and other altered or damaged sense organs do not indicate the presence of a different physical reality.

But, how do I know? Because that is my experience. I know I have a headache because I feel it. It wouldn't matter one bit if a doctor did exhaustive testing, and reported that I have no discernible causes of pain - and therefore should not have a headache. My experience is a more basic source of information than the doctor's tests.
I see no reason why it should be any different with morality.

that doesn't answer my questions. I didn't question whether you have a experience of morality. I asked:

How you determined that your "experience" of morals more accurately reflects objective morals than others?

Explain how it is that some people are more "in-tune" to objective morals than others? Luck? Praying to the right god(s)? Reading the right holy book? Divine intervention?

If, however, you feel that all moral systems are equally valid, I wold like an argument in support of that.

I'm unconvinced that people have greater or lesser ability to "experience" objective morals (let alone that objective morals exist), which is something you appear to believe. So my disagreement will probably be much different than your own.

Feel free to ask what my beliefs about morality are but understand its a completely separate discussion to the questions I am asking about your beliefs.

My view is different, actually.
I do not remotely suggest that my position can be established in a vacuum. I fully agree that my position, like any other, can be criticized. I only claim that it is the best system I know.
That is, the only refutations I will accept (or even consider) is the claim that one can show logical incoherence in my position, or an alternative position that can be shown to be superior to mine.

I find such reasoning flawed because you are rejecting the agnostic position. The "i don't know" position.

Imagine that someone argues that they will believe fairies created the universe until you prove their position logically incoherent or until you provide an alternative explanation that is superior. The problem is that a number of imaginary positions are logically coherent. And of these alternative explanations, many cannot be shown superior nor inferior because if its not evidence based then there is no basis to proclaim an idea inferior or superior other than coherence and consistency. This would seem to make the truth claim about fairies arbitrary.

Is your belief about objective morals and ability to sense them arbitrary? If not the can you explain why you believe its true other than its consistent and coherent?

I don't believe in objective morals, per say. I believe morality is a combination of our personal values, instincts, and brain state. It is dependent on many factors. For instance, the morality of a child is probably radically different from that of a university philosophy professor due in major part to the vast difference in knowledge and amount of thought each has put into the matter. So when you ask if the proponents of the crusades were being as ethical as you and I, I don't know how to answer except in very vague generalities because I don't have the mind of a crusader proponent to pick to explain themselves. In general, I could say that I hold values that discourage killing but there are always exceptions. Self defenshgmchge for example. But those values are dependent on my situation as well. Perhaps if i lived in medieval times, I would value honor over my current value of individual rights because of a different situation and structure of society.

This is a very good description of relativism.
What I would like, however, is a defense of this position. This should not require any special knowledge of the crusaders. It would merely need support for relativism. Given this, if you would still freely admit that you cannot defend the notion that the crusaders' moral position is equal to our own, then I see no reason to change my view.

I don't even understand what it means to say "the crusaders' moral position is equal (or unequal) to our own." On what basis are we equating moral positions? Perhaps you can explain.

Furthermore, if i cannot defend the notion can you explain precisely what you think that demonstrates?

[Haven]

But, how do I know? Because that is my experience. I know I have a headache because I feel it. It wouldn't matter one bit if a doctor did exhaustive testing, and reported that I have no discernible causes of pain - and therefore should not have a headache. My experience is a more basic source of information than the doctor's tests.
I see no reason why it should be any different with morality.

This seems like the appeal to emotion logical fallacy. You desperately feel as if objective morality to exist (I do too), so you assume it does.

That doesn't mean moral facts are illusory, only that the "feeling" argument isn't a valid line of obtaining moral facts.

[Jester]

Greetings again!

I'll try my best for brevity...

Well if it's not physical then would you agree that moral does not have a concrete existence and hence abstract? Or is there some other kind of existence outside of physical and abstract.

Depending on our definition of abstract, I would add more to the list.
If, however, all we mean by abstract is that a thing is non-physical, then I would not object to this.

Would you agree with the following? So I take a ruler and measure the length of a block to be 5cm, that is an subjective experience. I give the same ruler to someone else and they measure the same block as 5cm, that too is an subjective experience. The length of the block is 5cm objectively, regardless of our experiences; But you can say the block is objectively 5cm long base on your subjective experience.

The follow up point is I can point to a ruler for measuring blocks, I can't do the same with my morality.

Let me state what I believe your argument to be syllogistically:
Premise 1: Physical objects can be measured, with consistent results between individuals.
Premise 2: Morals cannot be measured in this sense.
Premise 3: A thing should not be considered objectively real unless it can be measured with consistent results between individuals.
Conclusion: Physical objects should be considered objectively real, whereas morals should not.

Obviously, my issue is with premise three. I see no reason to accept it - and it is no small matter that premise three cannot itself be measured in this way. If we are subjecting all truth claims to this test, then it fails on its own terms.

Beyond that, insisting upon such a physical demonstration is an argument from ignorance - claiming absence of evidence and insisting that it is evidence of absence.

I am trying to convice you of moral subjectivism, that one cannot measure the morality of the Crusaders objectively. The idea that Crusaders's ethical system is equally as valid as your own would be the very opposite of that, as it imply there is a way to measure and compare ethical system objectively. In fact I would say the Crusades ethical system is worse than yours, simply because yours align with mine better.

But there is no objective content in your statement here. You are specifically claiming that your position on the ethics of the crusaders no more reflects truth than their opinion on your ethics.
I've seen no support of this idea. Rather my experience teaches me that there is more truth in the claim that the crusaders are wrong, than there is in the claim that you are wrong to criticize them.

[Jester]

Furthermore, i don't claim my experience of reality is somehow more accurate than other's. For the overwhelming majority, everyone has identical experiences of physical objects via their senses. E.G., no one in a normal state of mind confuses a rock with a car.

Speaking for myself, I don't believe in ghosts, and would not doubt that belief simply because another person claims to have seen one.
Isn't this a vital part of the basic atheistic position, believing that the theist must give one data that can be verified as part of ones own experience - rather than trusting that the reported experiences of others are valid?

We all consider our own experience to be more fundamental evidence than that of others.

How you determined that your "experience" of morals more accurately reflects objective morals than others?

I expect that it is the same way that you determine that your experience, or lack thereof, more accurately reflects reality than those who claim a religious experience.
I'm open to hearing new insights, but trust my experience until someone can give me a sound reason not to do so.

I find such reasoning flawed because you are rejecting the agnostic position. The "i don't know" position.

I do reject that position, as I do not personally feel that it is livable.
I'm making no attempt to convince anyone of that, however - and will not debate the point. I am merely letting you know that I, personally, do not debate against agnostic positions.

Imagine that someone argues that they will believe fairies created the universe until you prove their position logically incoherent or until you provide an alternative explanation that is superior.

Then I would either do so, or (much more likely) leave the debate.

I don't even understand what it means to say "the crusaders' moral position is equal (or unequal) to our own." On what basis are we equating moral positions? Perhaps you can explain.

I mean to say that I would like an argument that it is no more rational to accept the claim "the crusaders were wrong in their moral values" than the claim "you are wrong to criticize them".

If you believe that neither statement holds any truth, and no rational support can be given for one argument over the other, I would request support.

[Jester]

This seems like the appeal to emotion logical fallacy. You desperately feel as if objective morality to exist (I do too), so you assume it does.

That doesn't mean moral facts are illusory, only that the "feeling" argument isn't a valid line of obtaining moral facts.

I definitely understand the accusation, and can understand why a reasonable person would make it - I've done as much myself many times.

Insofar as I disagree, however, it is because I know of no sound argument leading to the conclusion that moral perceptions are nothing more than emotional reactions. I've often had moral perceptions that have run counter to basic state of my emotion. I'm not so unaware of psychology as to claim that proves anything, but I don't think that ethics can be dismissed this easily.

Rather, the same reasoning that leads one to reject moral experience leads one to reject physical experience. Once we have abandoned an entire realm of experience, there is no external proof for its truth. This is what makes an experience properly basic.

So, I agree that a simple feeling is not relevant. And, as often as I've felt very strongly that morals are simply feelings, I know of no rational reason to accept that claim.

[Bust Nak]

Depending on our definition of abstract, I would add more to the list.
If, however, all we mean by abstract is that a thing is non-physical, then I would not object to this.

I like this definition: Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
According to this, numbers are purely abstract, the mental image of an apple is abstract based on observation, an apple is not abstract.

Where would you place morality? I am guessing something outside of abstract.

... Premise 3: A thing should not be considered objectively real unless it can be measured with consistent results between individuals...

Obviously, my issue is with premise three. I see no reason to accept it - and it is no small matter that premise three cannot itself be measured in this way. If we are subjecting all truth claims to this test, then it fails on its own terms.

The premise is not objectively real though - it's an abstract idea, without concrete existence, which doesn't mean it's any less true. Hence the argument is not self-defeating. As a side note, I think the phase "objectively real" implies abstract ideas as somehow fake or inferior.

As for why you should accept it, I would say by inductive reasoning, I can give countless example of objectively real objects and ways to measure them. I can also give countless examples without concrete existence which accordingly cannot be measured consistently. Then rebute any counter-example (such as moralty itself) you care to bring up as special pleading.

In fact, I would shorten the argument to:
Premise 1: Anything cannot be measured, with consistent results between individuals is subjective. (Definition of subjective re: dependent on the individaul.)
Premise 2: Morals cannot be measured with consistency.
Conclusion: Morals are subjective.

Beyond that, insisting upon such a physical demonstration is an argument from ignorance - claiming absence of evidence and insisting that it is evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence, if evidence is expected. You said it was as obvious as the existence of the universe, right?

But there is no objective content in your statement here. You are specifically claiming that your position on the ethics of the crusaders no more reflects truth than their opinion on your ethics.

I see what you are saying, yes, mine and crusaders ethics are equal in that sense, as neither reflect truth. But there is no reason to treat them as equally valid, for the same reason that while there is no objective content over which ice-cream favor is more tasty, there is no reason for anyone to buy chocolate and vanilla in equal amount.

I've seen no support of this idea.

How about the lack of an objective way to measure our ethics itself?

Rather my experience teaches me that there is more truth in the claim that the crusaders are wrong, than there is in the claim that you are wrong to criticize them.

How you you demostrate this truth to someone who thinks you are wrong to criticize the crusaders? The difficulty you will have is evidence that there is no objective truth in either position.