tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post741286265967407394..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: A Special Way of KnowingAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-10275711884566935372007-03-19T00:40:00.000-06:002007-03-19T00:40:00.000-06:00I completely agree. Any worldview that does not st...I completely agree. Any worldview that does not strive to be objective necessarily warps the person who holds it. One who chooses to deny (or remain ignorant of) reality, regardless of their reasoning, carries with them the potential to do horrific damage to society as a whole.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-8129227843988136612007-03-09T06:33:00.000-07:002007-03-09T06:33:00.000-07:00mtravenHere, again, you are interpreting my post a...<B>mtraven</B><BR/><BR/>Here, again, you are interpreting my post as if I have a conclusion of the form, "Why don't we X" where X = (something analogous to photosynthesis).<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it would help if you identified this 'X' that I am saying we should do that you assert is analogous to photosynthesis. That would help to determine what it is that I wrote that your objection applies to.<BR/><BR/>Of course, moral theory must be informed by sociology, biology, and psychology. These fields, in turn, must be informed by such things as physics and chemistry, which are informed by math and logic, which . . . ultimately . . . are informed by "abstract philosophy."<BR/><BR/>My post is concerned with valid and invalid reasoning - with whether the premises (evidence, observations) that people draw on actually support the conclusions they claim to draw from that evidence. I suggest that it would be difficult to do sociology, biology, or psychology without a proper understanding of the "abstract philosophy" of assessing the types of conclusions that can be drawn from available evidence.<BR/><BR/>It would be a mistake if I were to assert that a proposition to be true that any of these fields has demonstrated to be false (or vica versa). However, once again, if I have made such a mistake, please point it out to me. Please identify the proposition - implicit or explicit - in this posting that has been proved false.<BR/><BR/>Or, again, identify the 'X' (the assertion of what we should do - like photosynthesis) that I asserted that we should do that we are incapable of doing.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-19882389299927204122007-03-06T22:19:00.000-07:002007-03-06T22:19:00.000-07:00Yes, it's your blog and you can write about what y...Yes, it's your blog and you can write about what you like, and please forgive me my somewhat irritable comment.<BR/><BR/>However (and now maybe I'm being rude some more) I don't see much value in abstract moral philosophy that is not very well informed by sociology, biology, ans psychology about actual human nature.<BR/><BR/>To me, your argument about the opportunity cost of religion is somewhat like a person who notices that eating plants, while it gets us some energy, is vastly inefficient -- wouldn't it be better if we just directly performed photosynthesis ourselves? Well, yes, maybe it would, but that's not how we are put together.mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-73403986159984965282007-03-06T19:48:00.000-07:002007-03-06T19:48:00.000-07:00mtravenYou seem to be writing under the assumption...<B>mtraven</B><BR/><BR/>You seem to be writing under the assumption that an author who does not address your specific interests - who has interests other than what interests you - is for some reason 'at fault'.<BR/><BR/>I write an ethics blog. My interest is in assessing the soundness of moral arguments. Premises in a moral argument that are backed up by appeal to "a special way of knowing" make for very poor moral arguments.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, if the conclusion of that argument is something that is harmful to others, we can say that the appeal to "a special way of knowing" is not only logically objectionable, but morally objectionable. A person who claims that others may be harmed has a moral obligation to provide reasons for harm that are grounded on something more solid than this "special way of knowing."<BR/><BR/>I will leave it to you and others to determine "what religion is for". That is not my topic. I am not a sociologist by training. I am a moral philosopher by training.<BR/><BR/>It is one thing to ask whether or not the man in the convenience store with the gun does what is right if he shoots the clerk. It is quite another thing for the clerk to ask about the best strategy to prevent him from doing so.<BR/><BR/>It may well be the case that moral reasoning will have no effect on the man with the gun. Then again, I have repeatedly argued, that is not its purpose. Its purpose is to argue whether it is legitimate or illegitimate to take those actions that <I>will</I> have an effect.<BR/><BR/>It is not a fault in my posting that I did not cover subjects that I had no intention of covering.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-61339266286673637082007-03-06T18:58:00.000-07:002007-03-06T18:58:00.000-07:00None of this matters in the least. It doesn't matt...None of this matters in the least. It doesn't matter whether something "could have done" better than religion, the fact is is that in real life, human society, culture, and cognition evolved with religiosity as a key component. That's why religion is a "special way of knowing", and it doesn't s on this, so matter a damn whether that knowledge is valid by the criteria of science or common sense. Religion is by definition not reasonable and you won't reason people out of their beliefs.<BR/><BR/>I'm all for reducing religion's pernicious influences but it won't be possible without some understanding of what religion is <I>for</I>.<BR/><BR/>The <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?pagewanted=all" REL="nofollow">New York Times</A> is starting to cover sociology and evolution of religion -- you could start there and then read Atran, Boyer, and Wilson.mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-67231771600284668352007-03-05T23:00:00.000-07:002007-03-05T23:00:00.000-07:00Great discussion of "other ways of knowing" and "o...Great discussion of "other ways of knowing" and "opportunity cost." <BR/><BR/>Couldn't agree more.BlackSunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591731325290405256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-80918902973133696112007-03-05T17:48:00.000-07:002007-03-05T17:48:00.000-07:00Even when you threaten a rant, you make lots of se...Even when you threaten a rant, you make lots of sense.<BR/><BR/>As always, well done!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-20590071243203028412007-03-05T14:32:00.000-07:002007-03-05T14:32:00.000-07:00Lovely post. I riffed a bit about it on my blog,...Lovely post. I <A HREF="http://ambiguation.blogspot.com/2007/03/sunday-secularism-blogging-truth-faith.html" REL="nofollow">riffed </A> a bit about it on my blog, if you're interested...ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15308264045246008025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-36217710804414934302007-03-05T08:30:00.000-07:002007-03-05T08:30:00.000-07:00Excellent post!!Excellent post!!D xxxxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05374667979683866488noreply@blogger.com