The Atheist Experience

The Atheist Experience Aug 11, 2018 2:33:13 GMT

Quote

Post by Arlon10 on Aug 11, 2018 2:33:13 GMT

Aug 10, 2018 13:18:34 GMT FilmFlaneur said:

Aug 10, 2018 12:30:39 GMT Arlon10 said:

you still do not understand what you're talking about. You saw the words "nature" and "religion" in the same paragraph and decided there must be some "fallacy." Red flag that. We both know you only have to see the word religion in a paragraph to decide it must contain a fallacy.

Religion has nothing to do with it (even though you first asked people to check out your site to see your vague definitions of god). As the emphases in my last replied showed, the fallacy found was in asserting that nature was essential in establishing ethics, i.e. where your words were just a variant of the idea that "something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable" or it must be a guide for ethics. So, QED again. I still hope this helps. But it won't, since you are not accepting the obvious.

You are the one guilty of any "fallacy of nature." See how that works? Now you try and get out of it.

Then please show where I have entertained the naturalistic fallacy in my arguments. I shan't hold my breath.

Argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance are also not really rules ...

Yet as a rule, one often discovers them in your arguments, Arlon LOL.

... and not helpful in deciding the winner of any argument. They are just "made up" by grunts who can't win any other way than claiming some rule requires it. You need such "rules" because you are losing so bad.

'Winning' and 'losing' are your terms of reference for this sort of discussion not mine. I commonly, and I think more realistically, see the disputations on this board at most leading to the impression, on balance, of one side being likely more correct than another. But, whatever.

   I understand that nature can inform ethics. Geography can inform ethics. That seems to have escaped your attention for the moment. I will try to explain why.

   Most of this has already been covered by me for years, but here it is again anyway. Formal debates do not argue over definitions. Definitions are considered mere labels that contain no truth in themselves. Definitions are not right or wrong. They are useful in their application or not. They fit as applied or don't fit. All definitions are in fact arbitrary. Therefore both sides of a formal debate choose definitions before the debate starts by mutual agreement. You might have one definition of "good" and I might have another. In order for us to have a debate whether some plan XYZ is "good" we would have to agree to one definition of good in the first place, or the debate would be pointless and unending.

   The reason many debates online about the existence of god are pointless and unending is that the two (or more) sides have failed to agree on the definition of a god. The existence of one depends entirely on what you mean by one. If you mean an entity that grants a million dollars to anyone who asks, then that god probably does not exist. If you mean a god who symbolizes some set of higher ideals, then that god probably does exist. Until both sides agree to one and the same definition of a god, the debate over its existence can never resolve anything.

   The Britannica article on the "naturalistic fallacy" is about one definition of "good." It is saying that there is no "true" definition of good. Notice that is what I just said. No definitions of any words are true. All definitions are arbitrary. The meaning of the word "good" is whatever the speaker intends it to mean. People who claim they have "the" definition of good are not justified, since there is no such definition. Notice others on this board often proceed on the assumption that they have "the" definition of a word, the "right" definition of the word. The "naturalistic fallacy" is saying there is no such definition of the word "good," but I have told you there is no such definition of any word.

   That means that if we are going to have a debate whether plan XYZ is "good" it is necessary for us to agree what we mean in this context by the word "good" before we begin the actual debate. That does not mean that we must proceed with no definition at all or one based on your use or one based on my use. We may mutually and arbitrarily decide to define "good" anyway we want for the purpose of assessing whether plan XYZ is "good." Our choice may be informed by nature. It may be informed by geography. There is no "fallacy" in a definition that is mutually agreed upon.

   Got all that?

   Now back to how nature does in fact inform belief systems, even ethical belief systems. The "naturalistic fallacy" does not permit the automatic definition of "good" by some natural phenomena, however notice that it does not provide any other definition. That is a big problem. We need some definition of "good" or some definition of "ethical" or some definition of something before we can begin developing a system. This definition may be informed by nature and probably should be.

   Gender roles in the past and still today are informed by the differences in the nature of men and women. Still today men are preferred to fulfill military roles. Women are preferred to assume custody of children. Technology has enabled people to escape these roles somewhat, but not entirely. The "Equal Rights Amendment" intended to make men and women "equal" in all respects failed. It will always fail because the courts are not capable of making the military half men and half women. The courts are not capable of awarding custody of children half the time to the father and half the time to the mother. Nature defies it. You must recognize nature. You must obey. It is ethical and it is logical. There is no fallacy.

   Geography informs the laws of the many states in the United States of America. Indeed what is "right" or "wrong" in one state can be different in another state with a different landscape. It is totally ethical and totally logical.

   Because you never learned anything I taught you and probably never will, you took the position that nature cannot inform ethical systems, that it would be a "naturalistic fallacy" to attempt that. Yours is the totally ridiculous, illogical position.