Darth Wong wrote:How is that different from "whatever I really like"?
You strike me as a reductive hedonist, so it might not seem different to you. Most normal people, however, make a distinction between higher and lower kinds of pleasure, the highest of which would be the feeling of a purposive life. But if you want to reduce all feelings of happiness to biochemicals, then there wouldn't be a qualitative difference. Quantitative, maybe.
That's easy: it's internalization of those concepts. It happens all the time, you know: we internalize things if we're sufficiently indoctrinated in them.
Aside: do you not realize that you've been indoctrinated into New Atheistism? You're coming across as someone who's watched enough Dawkins and Hitchens to be effective at proselytizing naive listeners, but that's no different than the methods of religions of old. Something tells me you were a mighty fine preacher in a past life.
Tell me, why do you get upset if someone butts into a line? You get upset because you have internalized the social practice of queueing. You believe it is wrong or unfair. And yet, in some societies, people don't particularly care for queueing. This is a fine example of a social custom which has become internalized.
Does this mean that it's impossible for me to have a unique rule imposed upon myself? For example: a person is born into a harsh society that advocates cruelty, yet that person chooses to live a life of humility and charity.
I never said they were all illogical. I said that your statement about the minor nature of logical arguments is false.
We're just having a confusion of terms, then. My use of "logical" earlier was in the narrower sense I clarified upon. No worries.
Those competing "lenses" are worthless in a discussion of secular morality, or indeed, anything useful.
And the scientific "lens" is worthless in a discussion of secular morality, or indeed, anything useful.
See? I can play the dogmatist game too. Again, you're acting like a religious nutter, who feels it is "beneath" him to try and validate his world view with rational argument.
The Occam's Razor argument is simply that terms which are not necessary do not serve a purpose, and are therefore useless. It is nearly a tautology. This metaphysical nonsense you insist on bringing up is useless. It purports to explain things when it merely puts narratives to them.
A fun fact you may enjoy learning about: the term is relatively new, dating back to the 14th or 15th century (can't remember off-hand), and was a nominalist Christian concept that had to do with the problem of universals and particulars. Second, I said that the "modern" form of the razor is weak in that seemingly unnecessary terms or beliefs often are
necessary. In other words, the simplest solution isn't always the right one.
Though you didn't address the question here, which is how Occam's razor (the modern variation) can be used to justify scientism.
Darth Wong wrote:First, you are totally ignoring the fact that this is explicitly intended to be a discussion of secular morality, not religious morality. You are disregarding the parameters of the discussion, the whole point of which was to figure out how morality works when you have no religion, you fucking idiot.
How cute. Do you not realize that the only person who's been subscribing to religious dogma here is you? I know you love how neat and tidy your scientific philosophy seems to be, but it's not the only account of secular morality. I was asking for you to defend your secular account with a rational basis, and I'll extend that invitation again.
By the way, "metaphysics" is not a religious term. The metaphysics of your scientism argues, among other things, that the natural world is intelligible, that it is intelligible to the human intellect, that it is a casual-mechanistic nexus, that it has a one-to-one causal correspondence with no gaps or holes, that it follows rigid natural laws, etc. None of these are religious, but all of these are metaphysical.
Do you seriously not understand how you cannot answer a question about how one builds a non-religious morality code by insisting that we incorporate religion?
I might be the most committed atheist on this board. I just happen to take the threat of religion seriously enough to learn about it with some integrity. You're free to remain in the dark if it makes your small little world that much more comfortable.
Alternatively, you can put your ostensible commitment to reason to some use, and actually respond to my arguments next time.