Much of the discussion in the religion forum becomes confused because little distinction is made between metaphysics (why things are the way they are) and meta-ethics ( how things are or should be). A further muddle lies in the using of meta-ethics as a normative term to “prove” a metaphysical perspective. This creates friction among theists and atheists, because meta-ethics, as a normative term , is used by both ends of the metaphysical spectrum as justification of there respective positions. While meta-ethics may provide justification for any particular perspective, it forces a narrow and agreed upon definition of validation (in a normative sense) which is rarely if ever proposed or discussed if understanding is the common goal.
Little wonder that many of the threads here are more diatribe than dialog.
I don’t get your definitions of terms. “why things are they way they are” sounds ethical to me, and “and how things are” sounds metaphysical. I think you might be on to something, but I can’t tell yet because of that, not clear what makes a position metaphysical to you.
You need to analyze some examples that illustrate your point. Right now we just have your claim that this abstract phenomenon of confusion is happening somewhere and it is explained by people conflating some other abstract things we don’t understand. Let’s see some examples.
I see metaphysical definitions (in a religious sense) as those that attempt to explain normal sensate observations as caused or part of an externalized creator, a supernatural whatever you wish to call it.
What is meta-ethics concerns how one should conduct their actions.
Both are constructs of supposition with no necessary physical validation.
Example: We observe lightning and thunder coming from storm clouds. It is obviously Vulcan at his forge. His hammer produces both sparks and thunderous sounds. A construct of why that explains a natural phenomenon. Further, one should treat his neighbors with fairness and kindness lest Vulcan direct a fearsome spark toward you as punishment for your “sin” of ignoring your neighbor. This is a how perspective based on a normative observation that compassionate behavior is more often than not, rewarded in kind. This would be a theistic perspective. A non-theistic perspective would agree with the how, (normative) but not the why.
This is why we end up in the “god did it” and purple wombat arguments. Both theist and non-theists can, and usually agree to the meta-ethics, but part company on any other consideration.
Consider: Is morality given by Vulcan? or is morality a consensus perspective within a social grouping? Both perspectives are likely to contain similar content, but their explanations of why something is considered moral can be 180 apart.
Of course, the variables are far more complex than my simple description, but this seems to be the core of most of the talking past one another I observe in this forum.
Hm. Other than being the kind of things a theist would say, how are these sorts of explanations different from regular, non-metaphysical explanations? I guess that’s one of the problems I see with the atheist/theist debate, is that the atheist too often demands that the theist see himself as one who proposes something ridiculous, when it fact it’s as common sense as anything else. i.e. I don’t see any clear difference between holding that Vulcan makes lightning, and holding that humans make the greenhouse effect, or that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare’s plays, or all kinds of stuff.
I understand that. Justification depends on one’s apriori assumptions and perspective of-the-moment. That is why I spoke of verification in the OP. Justification is a given - for theist and non-theist alike. The question is verification. We both know that there is no such thing as rock solid verification of any metaphysical claim. But the question remains, how close can we get? What method of inquiry gets us as close to matching supposition with observable sensing as possible? It is the lack of any definition of what is acceptable verification that precludes any reasonable discussion. Does this explain in part my constant harping on the issue of knowing? All of our blathering may be interesting and is sometimes downright elegant (not mine), but if we are to understand (not necessarily agree) one another, then there has to be at least some sort of agreement as to how we assign credibility to our statements. Verification has no absolutes. Such efforts must of necessity fall along a continuum, but the credibility of any perspective is directly proportional to its verification in the normative constructs from which we view the world. One may believe anything they wish on faith alone, but that doesn’t engage any method of inquiry asking for verification of any sort.
Yeah, I guess so- though I’m still hung up on how you’re using ‘metaphysical claim’. Nothing in philosophy is subject to ‘rock solid verification’, is it?
Well, these days that may be true, but it didn’t used to be so. It used to be that atheists held all the cards on what counted as verification, and consequently, theism didn’t do so well. In the past generation or so, theistic philosophy has largely either vindicated itself by the atheist’s own standards, or else shown those standards to be deficient. As far as I can tell, atheist epistemology (which is where we get our standards of verification from) is in a full retreat- they just know there isn’t a god, it remains to be seen if they know anything else- but it’s not looking good.
Well, that depends on what you want your statements to accomplish, I suppose. One of the big problems for the theist in this regard is that coming to some consensus with a non-believer here on credibility is completely impossible, because they’re all nihilists who don’t believe anything is true at all- why would I try to convince somebody theism is credible in this thread, when people have failed to convince them that 1 + 1 = 2 is credible in others? That’s why you’ll see me say, of you and others, that it’s really of no consequence when this person doesn’t find one of my statements credible, because as far as I’ve ever seen, this person has never admitted to finding anything anybody says credible.
So yeah, I do agree with you that finding common ground in standards is important, but when the only people available to talk to are either general skeptics who consider all human knowledge to be folly, or people who just plain don’t like you, or people who participate only to mock whatever side they consider their enemy, there’s no point in even trying. In situations like that, the most you can do is point out their fallacies, show the coherence of your position, and aggravate them until they go away. Proof is a very personal thing, and for two people to share it just isn’t something you can achieve with a bludgeon.
Wecome to the meta–, Etta,
Welcome to the post–,
Where from midlands you can getta
Clear view of the coast.
You don’t have to be or go.
You just have to say you know.
In no small part, the levels of misunderstanding are an issue of linguistics… We throw around words encompassing whole concepts that need explanation if not definition. Too many of us know exactly what we mean, but sort of forget to explain how we are using our words. It’s probably a necessity in an internet forum. We could eat up enough bandwidth to run ILP for a year just discussing meta-ethics. But that said, too much of what is written here is about finding differences instead of finding commonality. Still, if we are aware of the issue, those of us who can, should spend a little more time examining our own posts and at least provide a hint of what we mean by what we are saying. This doesn’t mean agreement on any particular, but it would shut down much of the talking past one another.
I did not attempt to belittle your OP with my small poem. Its purpose was to show how language imposes on belief and vice versa. I’m with those who believe that our religious needs are innate; but also, that they are often ridiculed by those who believe that their self-substatianting assumptions should be everyones’. From that belief comes the impossibility of the type of complementation you request.
I enjoyed your little poem. I guess in part, I started this thread to emphasize the limitations and constraints of language. There is too much assumption and not enough delineation of our words to convey meaning that results in understanding. But it may be that it is all that can be expected in a venue where the three sentence gloss is considered adequate communication.
tentative- Yeah, they were generalizations, but I wish you’d address them though. epistemological nihilism is rampant among non-theists, and skepticism is often enough encountered as a position rather than a tool, that it makes it impossible to agree to ‘standards’ very often, especially in an environment like this. I guess what I’m saying is, agreed standards of verification are nice when you can get them, but quite often that isn’t going to happen, and a person (atheist, theist, or otherwise) must have some way to explore justification/verification in their absence.
Also, don’t forget how easily this can be manipulated- if the goal is a common standard of verification between two participants, then all one of them has to do is not make any claims- that is, stay purely critical- and they can insist on as high a standard as they like, because they never have to worry about meeting it themselves. And this isn’t necessarily malign- there’s plenty of skeptics who, in goodwill, think it’s fair play to behave exactly like this, because they’ve been taught it’s the best way to proceed. That’s another problem in the atheist/theist/agnostic debate- how do you arrive at a fair standard of verification when only one party has anything they want to verify?
I’m not sure you can find agreement in such instances, but those of us who are capable of seeing the issues can at least be honest. When I started this thread I knew that there wouldn’t be more than 3 or 4 people who would weigh in. Why? Because your generalizations are, in the main, accurate. Perhaps I’m just tired of the level of discourse remaining at such a superficial level. But hell, this is the internet, so it is fair to ask what did I expect?
As to the verification issue: As far as I’m concerned, the god is - isn’t debate is a worthless waste of time. I’m not interested in converting or being converted. The suppositons and conjecture of the metaphysical can play out personally for each of us. It does anyway. It is not why I’m interested in, but the how shall we live? issues that I consider important. It is true that our metaphysical stance informs our ethics, and it is here where verification/ credability becomes important. As long as we are here, it is how we act out that is the issue, and how we act out needs some level of verification in our interaction with others. If I am to have any credability, I have to show that my ethical stance is somehow mirrored in pragmatic day-to-day reality. To say that we can know nothing (radical skepticism) or fall back on “God says so” are the simplistic superficial arguments we need to avoid. I’m convinced that it is possible for theist and atheist discourse to be possible, but there has to be a clear line established between what is a descriptive (not verifiable) statement and what is normative (subject to verification).
Is this an easy task? No. But if no attempt is made, then we end up reverting to the simplistic blather so common in this forum.
I’m not sure how important I find the debate between atheism/theism either. Mostly I just like playing a game I can win. That said, once you move beyond the debate, it seems the only thing we can do is accept the incongruence- if you aren’t interested in converting or being converted, then you just have to accept it as a matter of fact that some people will ask/answer questions as though God exists, and some will do so as though He doesn’t. And that’s when you get into another problem here, like I complained about a couple weeks ago - a theist wants to ask the other theists here some questions about how Christianity views X. Predictable, skeptics blow in to demand that the theists prove the existence of God before they are allowed to carry out their conversation. That’s the debate aggressively coming after you- and don’t get me wrong, I’m sure it happens the other way around as well. So in a situation like that, what’s a person who finds the debate a waste of time to do? If they ignore the questions, we get the whole ‘elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about’ (yeah, I won’t let that go) thing, and the other side claims victory. Is that just how it has to be?
In other words, I don’t consider theism/atheism to be terribly important either. I’d much rather discuss salvation, the trinity, virtue vs deontological ethics given theism, and etc. Do I ignore the skeptic who insists there’s a gauntlet I have to run (each and every time) before I discuss these things?
Well, its true I’m touchier than a man with a paper *******, but I leave the christian talking to christian threads alone as long as the thread involves the metaphysical considerations. But when the thread wants to know what to do with us heathens, or involves interaction with the secular world, then in an open forum, I don’t have any problem putting in my 2 cents.
Right now, there is a thread running in Soc with a verse quoting extremist who is busy spouting extreme libertarian gibberish ALL supported by the holy book. The guy could drown in a teaspoon of water… One the other end is the continuous stream of extremist nihilists. (shrug) Its rather easy to spot these people and ignore them. But for those who have thought about more than how to tie their shoelaces, it would be good if there were a bit more care in explaining than just spouting…
