Moral Ontology vis-à-vis The Ontological History of Reason Itself
The Ontology of Reason? Moral Ontology? Irreducible Moral Facts vis-à-vis Reasoning through reality’s Concrete Furniture? When it comes to Love Itself and to Reality’s Highest Ethic vis-à-vis the fundamental nature of reality’s concrete furniture we find that such (necessarily) sums to a Singularity vis-à-vis nothing less than Being Itself as Ceaseless Self-Giving. It is obviously Non-Theism’s painfully necessary metaphysical reality that all its own explanatory termini with respect to such contours are constituted of tediously complex self-negations amid ultimately fictitious “As-If’s” ending in the pains of metaphysical elimination immersed within autohypnosis wrapped up inside of Noble Lies and as such factually fail to do the necessary “ontic-work”.
Non-Theism cannot follow / trace its own brands of “moral ontology” from reality’s concrete furniture all the way up to mind-dependent abstractions. But then that is not an “ontology” if it hasn’t the Means/Ends vis-à-vis [Moral Facts] to offer “that” through & through. By that we mean that to go about one’s Moral Ontology while excluding the wider Map of Physics forces us to ask: How? Typically there is a kind of anti-scientific move by our Non-Theist friends as they go about claiming that Moral Facts cannot be reduced to Physics – that there is some other “category” which is not itself entirely subsumed by, defined by, the Map we call physics. That typically lands in a cul-de-sac and the cul-de-sac is supposed to have its own “ontology” which is (somehow) insulated from and immune to the “ontology” of reality outside of said cul-de-sac. And said cul-de-sac is (typically) within the cerebral cortex of sentient creatures. Now, that “walling-off” or “slicing-out” of that proverbial “cerebral cortex” and arbitrarily treating “it” as if “it” has “its” own “fundamental nature” is entirely a circularity neatly & arbitrarily isolated from the Non-Theist’s paradigm’s fundamental & irreducible rock-bottom.
Eventually when faced with what amounts to an obvious circularity as our Non-Theist friends flip-flop and allow our widest maps to define our terms and, so, then we ask: When it comes to describing the “stuff” which our sentience emerged “out-of” (….Gravity or QM or whatever one may posit as one’s fountainhead…) is that stuff or “whatever” something which is itself sentient? If not then we find that one’s Map of sentience is, eventually, self-referencing, which again lands one in a circular map. IF, however, one were to include the wider Map of Physics & allow it to subsume one’s narrower Map of properties v. sentience, well then one finds the honesty of the likes of Sam Harris and Sean Carroll (and many others) for whom the margins of Physics force the inevitable: “The “I” or “Self” is – at bottom – illusion” – and so on and so on. What that does to “Moral Facts” becomes immediately obvious with respect to landing – not in being – but rather in the illusory shadows of non-being.
The tendency looks something like this: Create a nice and tidy cul-de-sac by avoiding the inclusion of the much wider Map of Physics in one’s Moral Ontology and thereby avoid allowing that far wider Map to subsume one’s far more narrow Map of the ontological history of sentience. That of course creates an “ontic-box” which is artificially separated-out from the fundamental nature of reality as per the Map of physics – and the result is simply that one has developed a circular “moral ontology” that begins and ends within self-reference and not in reality’s actual explanatory termini.
Recall that the only reason the Non-Theist avoids Physics is to avoid losing the hard-stop of the wall of his artificial cul-de-sac, because without that wall then love itself does not find that irreducible hard stop but finds instead the Irreducible Indifference vis-à-vis the Fundamental Nature of the Ocean Outside which we referent as “Reality” (….Cosmos, QM, whatever….).
The belief in play there with respect to Sentience v. Self v. Intentionality v. Self-Giving v. Lovev. Moral Facts is a strange form of circular-talk which claims that Moral Ontology can somehow “happen” in a vacuum void of Physics – as if on Non-Theism the Map of our own body of emotions and neurons is not ITSELF entirely subsumed by and defined by that far wider Map (Physics).
That yields an entirely self-referencing set of premises when making all of those arbitrary cuts which of course begs the question on what is good, how it is good, and why it is good, and in fact what “good” in fact “is” vis-à-vis this or that irreducible-hard-stop. And it is that last point there, the “is” and the “irreducible” and the “hard-stop” which forces our Non-Theist friends to insist on that cul-de-sac – for without those arbitrary walls one finds one’s very Self and therein Love Itself giving way to – not the hard-stop of the cul-de-sac’s walls – but instead the fundamental nature of the Wider Ocean v. Reality outside of the cul-de-sac in which and by which we find all that the cul-de-sac is, has, or even can be vis-à-vis any syntax of any category of “fundamental nature”.
When we describe “the ontology of trees” that is a narrative of (some phrase it this way) “the history of the becoming” wrt trees, or some phrase it “the history of the Tree’s becoming” and the word “becoming” is key as it tells us that the essence of and fundamental reality of “Tree” is not something irreducible and timeless but instead suffers from non-being at some point in the history of “reality” (….the universe on Non-Theism…) and then “becomes” (…or we can say “becomes real”…) and eventually fades again into non-being (….trees emerged and so are not irreducible and timeless…). The Ontology Of Trees is NOT “…what we find right here inside of the living experience of trees…“.
IF that is all one has then one does NOT have anything that is actually Ontological but instead one has an entirely self-referencing and circular map. And circular Maps cannot tell us anything about the fundamental essence of Trees as we’ve no contextual sight, no ontology, no physics, and we may actually believe that what causes Water to go to the leaves is something other than [Gravity, Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces, and Electromagnetic Forces] – believing perhaps in something like “Better/Worse” vis-à-vis “Flourishing” and so on.
Recall that the only reason the Non-Theist avoids Physics is to avoid loosing the hard-stop of the wall of his artificial cul-de-sac, because without that wall then love itself does not find that irreducible hard stop but finds instead the Irreducible Indifference vis-à-vis the Fundamental Nature of the Ocean Outside which we referent as “Reality” (….Cosmos, QM, whatever….).
Well with Moral Facts the same narrative applies as in fact what causes Water to go into leaves has nothing within it of Better/Worse and how do we know those facts? We know those facts from the ontological history of trees and NOT by self-referencing slices of Tree against Tree via the circularity of “life-good-death-bad” or of “better/worse” or of “flourish”.
With Moral Facts the same narrative applies with respect to essence and content and the fundamental nature of ANY vector. The reason the growing pool of Non-Theists claim there are NOT any vectors which sum to Objective Moral Facts is b/c of a Nominalism grounded in Non-Theism’s only available Map of Moral Ontology.
Knowledge Gaps cannot help the Non-Theist who foists the reality of Moral Facts simply because he has told us that physics isn’t relevant to moral facts (….as moral facts are mind-dependent abstractions…) and that those abstractions represent Objective Facts. But if Mind-Dependent Abstractions do not reduce to Physics then one is left with [Objective] [Physics-Free] [Moral Facts]. That of course isn’t tenable given Metaphysical Naturalism. Recall that the only reason the Non-Theist avoids Physics is to avoid loosing the hard-stop of the wall of his artificial cul-de-sac, because without that wall then love itself does not find that irreducible hard stop but finds instead the Irreducible Indifference vis-à-vis the Fundamental Nature of the Ocean Outside which we referent as “Reality” (….Cosmos, QM, whatever….).
The “disconnect” between reality’s concrete furniture (on the one hand) and Abstractions v. Moral Facts (on the other hand) is a product of the illusory nature of moral claims when attempting to define them as *Objective* features rather than *Subjective* features of reality. Mind dependent abstractions such as Logic or Good or Mathematics and Etc. are not immune to one’s ontological history. That’s why scientific realism fails. Perhaps the following context:
Anti-Realism and Truth – https://www.reasonablefaith…
Fallacies Physicists Fall For – https://edwardfeser.blogspo…
Propositional Truth – Who Needs It? – https://www.reasonablefaith…
Absolute creationism and divine conceptualism – https://www.reasonablefaith…
God and Abstract Objects – https://www.reasonablefaith…
1— Love, Reason, Reality, And The Golden Thread Of Reciprocity — at https://metachristianity.com/reason-reality-golden-thread-reciprocity/
2— Moral Ontology Vis-À-Vis The Ontological History Of Reason Itself — at https://metachristianity.com/moral-ontology-vis-a-vis-the-ontological-history-of-reason-itself/
Moral Facts? Logic? Reason Itself? Mind? Abstraction? Are THOSE reality’s concrete furniture? One reason that “Logic” and “Abstraction” and Etc. are all relevant to this discussion on Moral Facts is that Moral Facts are in the same category and therefore must survive the same exacting demands. With that overlaps pointed out, our Non-Theist friends often treat Logic along the following lines:
The Form of the Challenge which our Non-Theist friends present with respect to the fundamental nature of Logic typically shows up along the following lines:
1— “….If Logic ends in God then God must be subject to Logic and so God is not God, or else God is metaphysically free to be Non-Logic and therefore able to make round-squares such that [A = Non-A] is true in some possible world….or something like that….”
2— That which is “Logic Itself” is either 1. itself under the Laws of Logic or else 2. It (logic) can be, or is metaphysically free to be, Non-Logic.
The problem with that approach in [A] and [B] whether it’s attempted with *Logic or *Being-Itself or *The-Good or *Reason-Itself, or “Mind” and so on is as follows:
Obviously both A & B employ the syntax of the following:
A— Logic-Is-Subject-To-Logic and/or
B— Logic-Is-Beneath-Logic and/or
C— Logic-Is-Metaphysically-Free-To-Be-Non-Logic or else Logic is not Logic.
Which of course sums to syntax akin to the following:
a. “X Is Subject To X“ akin to
b. “X Is Beneath X“ akin to
c. “Being Itself Is Subject To Being Itself” akin to
d. “X Is Metaphysically Free To Be Non-X” akin to
e. “Being Itself Is Metaphysically Free To Be Non-Being”
Unfortunately, with respect to all such syntax it is the case that:
1— None of themhave anything to do with the Christian Metaphysic.
2— All of themare themselves logical absurdities.
Where Non-Theism gets Morality Wrong is in “foisting” or “assuming” that one can 1. zoom in on an arbitrarily isolated cul-de-sac within 2. a narrow slice of the Milky Way and 3.merely label it “Sentience” and 4. foist a blind axiom of “Flourishing” and somehow 5. claim one is a Moral Realist.
There again Non-Theism cannot follow / trace its own brands of “moral ontology” from reality’s concrete furniture all the way up to mind-dependent abstractions and “that” then is NOT an “ontology” as it hasn’t the Means/Ends v. [Moral Facts] to do THAT through & through.
In all of this we find of course not only the fateful deaths which circularity itself brings but also the pains of illusion which that circularity was seeking to avoid – namely the revelation that Reason Itself is traded away for this or that reductio ad absurdum and, without so much as a pause, our Non-Theist friends merely offer what cannot be less than their blasé and Eternal Shrug and continue speaking – continue acting as-if we CAN and OUGHT get together to Find Moral Facts vis-à-vis reasoning through reality’s concrete furniture.
Unfortunately the only lucid REPLY to such inexplicable autohypnosis is to politely remind our Non-Theist friends that with respect to Theism and/or Moral Facts there cannot be any defenses of such concepts coming from the Christian (…in fact anyone…) unless and until the Non-Theist first demonstrates that they reject whatever terminus ends up necessitating any Reductio Ad Absurdum and can therein value something else more than Reductio – namely Reason Itself and thereby arrive at the Table with a Currency by which one can in fact Reason meaningfully.
With respect to Intentionality vis-à-vis the Intentional Self/Mind we find that increasingly larger swaths of our Non-Theist friends are (rightly, justifiably) admitting their own paradigm’s inability to retain the tool of reason itself throughout its ontological history and therein avoid Circularity and achieve Closure – and – then – without even a pause – they nonchalantly shrug it off and claim that they can and humanity can come and reason together vis-à-vis finding truth vis-à-vis the tool of reason.
Given this or that A. Reductio or B. Brute Fact or C. Contradiction which Non-Theism’s various attempts land in – given that – there is no good reason for the Non-Theist to think that “we” much less “he” can rationally claim to Reason Through Reality and that is simply because of the fact that to reason atop A. Reductio or to reason atop B. Brute Fact or to reason atop C. Contradiction – is in fact itself yet still another forced reductio ab absurdum.
Additionally and a bit ironically widely published voices are heard nonchalantly conceding something in the general zip code of the following:
Non-Theism’s Eternal Shrug: “….Yeah, sure, all available roads end in cul-de-sacs vis-à-vis circularity and/or in Reductioand/or in B. Brute Fact and/or in C. Contradiction given on our own terms and, yeah sure, it is all in the End some category of absurdity on our own terms, but it’s enough to get by on here and now….. so come on man… Man-Up and let’s Reason Through Reality’s Concrete Furniture and together discover Moral Facts….”
After which those same voices (…like our Non-Theist friends described a few paragraphs earlier…) nonchalantly shrug it off and claim that they can and we can and humanity can come and reason together vis-à-vis finding truth vis-à-vis the tool of reason – as the cycle of self-talk and autohypnotic shrugs repeats itself.
Unfortunately for our Non-Theist friends what they are asking themselves and the Christian to do is to arrive at the Table without the necessary and sufficient Currency given the stated task or goal. At that point it becomes necessary to speak of those goals and to establish a fixed and lucid Goalpost – which would go something like the following:
We politely remind our Non-Theist friends that with respect to Theism and/or Moral Facts there cannot be any defenses of such concepts coming from the Christian (…in fact anyone…) unless and until the Non-Theist first demonstrates that they reject whatever terminus ends up necessitating any Reductio Ad Absurdum and can therein value something else more than Reductio – namely Reason Itself and thereby arrive at the Table with a Currency by which one can in fact Reason meaningfully.
Over and over again our Non-Theist friends come to the proverbial Fork in the Road or “Y” in the road at which there would be “Reality” such that down one “Path” at the Fork or down one “Arm” at the “Y” it is the case that the express being itself of that which is Reason Itself is not retained in its own ontological history but is instead found inexplicably coming out of – emerging out of – non-being only to then again fade again back into non-being as the Magical Story of Non-Being Sourcing Being ends Non-Theism’s Self-Soothing fairytale with following ending:
“Yeah, sure, all available roads end in cul-de-sacs vis-à-vis circularity and/or in Reductioand/or in B. Brute Fact and/or in C. Contradiction given on our own terms and, yeah sure, it is all in the End some category of absurdity on our own terms, but it’s enough to get by on here and now….. so come on man… Man-Up and let’s Reason Through Reality’s Concrete Furniture and together discover Moral Facts.”
All attempts to ground reason without landing in Reductio / Brute Fact / Contradiction are conceded such that the Ocean atop which all Ships sail – namely Reason – is found to have an “Edge” such that the Ocean is found to cover – not a Globe but instead a Flat Surface with a fateful Edge. While the Christian reminds the Non-Theist that there is another “Path” at the Fork or another “Arm” at the “Y” in the road, the Non-Theist insists that there is in fact only one valid “Path” to the “Fork” such that the “Fork” is itself an illusion – or that there is only one valid “Arm” to the “Y” such that the “Y” itself is an illusion.
Even more peculiar is the fact that all such insistence on illusory ends arrives at the very same time that our Non-Theist friends are insisting that we Come And Reason Together so that we can “discover” “moral facts” vis-à-vis “reality” and reality’s concrete furniture.
Obviously the simple point of the “Y” is that the Non-Theist in fact insists that there is in fact only ONE valid Path or Arm and that it carries us to that catastrophic End or Edge of Reason Itself with respect to its own/actual Being such that Reason’s “being” is in fact non-actual and therein Reason lands in Non-Being, which “just is” all the stuff of Illusion/The-Illusory. That same Non-Being is found yielding the proverbial Map of the “Flat Earth” via that proverbial “Edge” of Reason (…as briefly looked at in the content of https://metachristianity.com/atheism-world-flat-none-non-non-theist/ …).
“Moral Ontology” & “The Ontology of Reason”
The phrase “Moral Ontology” is used when the topic is this or that analysis of the fundamental nature of “Morality” and, in the same way, here in the discussion of the fundamental nature of “Reason” we find the phrase of the “Ontology of Reason”. Often our Non-Theist friends will insist that Non-Theism CAN provide the tools to seamlessly employ “Reason”. But of course showing that one (…or one’s paradigm…) has the tools to employ Reason-Itself necessitates that one unpack a coherent Ontology of Reason, or, at the very least, demonstrate a willingness to not settle for anything which ruins that Ontology by employing vectors which land in Brute Fact or Contradiction or Circularity or a reductio ad absurdum, which will thereby demonstrate that one values Reason-Itself as more valuable than Contradiction / Reductio / Brute Fact.
That often segues into a key problem (…equivocation really…) which is that our Non-Theist friends will often appeal to Gaps-In-Knowledge and claim to be “holding out” for that as-of-yet-unknown which will allow Non-Theism to claim and land in some irreducible (…non-illusory vis-à-vis being…) vector of Reason Itself coherently. The reason (…no pun intended…) that is even in principle an eventual equivocation is this: to hold out for “that” necessarily entails that one is in fact holding out for nothing less than Irreducible Reason Itself vis-à-vis the Irreducible Intentional Self/Mind vis-à-vis Irreducible Being Itself as there we find that which does not land, at some point in Reason’s Ontological History of Becoming, in the illusory shadows of non-being.
Non-Theism values what it must and so our Non-Theist friends have premises which reflect that as they challenge the fact that both Reason & Reciprocity – or Logic & Love – can be found in an Ontology which retains Both in an “ontic singularity”. But if they are correct well than that of course would mean that at some point in the ontological history of of Love / Reason one is forced to affirm terms which divest Reason from Love and which divest Love from Reason.
Therein Non-Theism again must void-out any metaphysical singularity (….along the lines of Being Itself as Reason Itself as Timeless Self-Giving…) which coherently sources both Love and Reason without losing either to Reductio / Brute Fact / Contradiction. An interesting observation is that it is not only here in this topic where Metaphysical Convergence vis-à-vis Singularity is traded away at some point and therein Reason / Love are each divested of the other, but, also, we find this treatment of ontological histories when it comes to Non-Theism’s treatment of Mind & Matter. Mind becomes its own ultimate even as Matter becomes its own ultimate and that same “Side-By-Side-Duo” approach of settling for something other than a full-on convergence is employed. Of course both of those in the end insist on [Two Ultimate Realities] which of course eventually collapses into a metaphysical absurdity.
The Value-System which claims to employ reason in order to find moral facts and to do so all WHILE doubting that it’s possible to retain coherence in the form of Ontological Continuity vis-à-vis Singularity vis-à-vis Convergence is, in the end, putting the Cart before the Horse – and so leaves one in need of Reason’s Ontology. The failure here is both one of reason/intellect and one of morality in that to knowingly do “that” is to knowingly put the Cart before the Horse and that intentional move is NOT akin to being “….sincerely mistaken….”. Instead it sums to that “Eternal Shrug” described in earlier discussions which in part is knowingly settling for, picking up, and moving forward with yet another reductio ad absurdum and, just as bad, it is only by trading away the coherence which comes in the form of ontological (…one could say metaphysical perhaps…) Singularity vis-à-vis Convergence in the Ontology of Reason & Love that one actually gets their hands around said reductio in the first place.
Non-Theism’s Ontology of Reason by which we are to Reason Our Way To Moral Facts is [at worst] guilty of knowingly embracing Brute Fact and/or Absurdity and/or Contradiction. That “at-worst” leaves its premises without the intellectual or moral currency to claim that we can reason through reality’s concrete furniture and discover a lucid Ontology of Reason much less a lucid Moral Ontology. Whereas, [at best] Non-Theism is forever placing “Let’s Reason To Moral Facts” before, ahead of, in front of, its own “Let’s Defend and Value Reason v. Reason’s Ontology…..”.
There again it is the case that at-best Non-Theism has a reversed Cart/Horse and so does not have the intellectual currency to claim that one can reason through reality’s concrete furniture and discover a lucid ontology of Reason and of Moral Facts.
Does Non-Theism / Atheism 1. cause Cosmic Indifference or 2.comport with Cosmic Indifference wrt Atheism’s explanatory terminus? Clearly 1 is fallacious. Clearly 2 is absolute.
Whereas, it is logically impossible for indestructible love in ceaseless reciprocity v. the Trinitarian Life to 1. cause Cosmic Indifference or to 2. comport with Cosmic Indifference wrt the explanatory terminus of Life’s “A” to “Z”.
“Ultimate Reality” and therein all Fact is going to be, and *is*, defined by that which exists irreducibly, by the “Always & Already”. Not by frail and mutable contingencies such as me or you or some other relative or friend or enemy.
1— Reason & Truth-Finding & Moral Facts
2— Hume & Harris & Fincke
3— Mathematical–Continuum & Identity–Relation
4— at http://disq.us/p/1yf4p2u (…copy/pasted several paragraphs down…)
Reason Itself, Mind Itself, Self-Giving, & Moral Facts:
Reason reveals and unmasks the many absurdities within Non-Theism’s / Metaphysical Naturalism’s many varieties of syntax landing within the fundamentally illusive [Self] or “I”. Mind itself and Thought itself there sums to “I can think/choose/reason, but I cannot think what to think, choose what to choose, reason what to reason.” There the Currency of [reasoning] ultimately emerges as never having emerged at all — as non-emergent — as non-being. Non-Theists such as Harris, Carroll, Rosenberg, Churchland, and of course many other widely published Non-Theists agree with the Christian Metaphysic with respect to what we find “…given metaphysical naturalism…” (and so on). Whereas, on the Christian Metaphysic, reason’s ontology comes upon reality’s concrete furniture vis-à-vis Reason-Itself as Being-Itself (and so on).
The Christian Metaphysic and Non-Theism there converge and agree that one cannot rationally land within the illusory shadows of non-being vis-à-vis those Currencies just described which ultimately emerge as never having emerged at all — as non-emergent — as non-being, even as they converge and agree that once one has arrived within Irreducible Mind one has arrived in Theism. It is there that all Non-Theistic premises pay the price of valuing the topography of No-God above the topography of Reason Itself as they are forced to avoid claims of Realism vis-à-vis Reality’s Concrete Furniture vis-à-vis Irreducible Mind just as they are forced to avoid the subtle equivocations within claims that “THAT” can be or is in fact contingent and mutable (…Cartesian Demon, the Matrix, the 4D Block’s embedded conscious observer, Neuro-Physics, Idealism, Brain In A Vat, and so on…), and thereby in principle available within Metaphysical Naturalism — for the simple reason that all such combinations and permutations can only be made on pain of contradiction, circularity, and, all over again, reductio ad absurdum.
Ultimately all paradigms, including all forms of Non-Theism(s), must follow through on their respective metaphysical / explanatory termini vis-à-vis Reason & Reciprocity — or vis-à-vis Logic & Love — such that each must traverse their respective Maps ever outward and upward — and outward and upward still again — and still again — until one’s epistemic gives way to one’s ontology and one’s ontology gives way to one’s metaphysic and – in the case of all forms of Non-Theism – one’s metaphysic vis-à-vis Reason & Love in/as Being gives way to Non-Being – as per illusion. The concept of this or that fundamental nature vis-à-vis being somehow emerging from non-being gives-way to what it always housed and collapses into a metaphysical absurdity — namely the syntax of non-being vis-à-vis the syntax of the illusory-fundamental-nature-of vis-à-vis the syntax of illusion.
Contra that unfortunate reductio ad absurdum within Non-Theism, the explanatory distinction which the Christian Metaphysic enjoys is that the Christian spies within Reason & Reciprocity — within Logic & Love — that which when followed through and through to the irreducible contours of being itself vis-à-vis reality’s concrete furniture in fact reveals that Reason Itself has no Edge/Bottom — no terminus other than Being — even as Reciprocity Itself has no Edge/Bottom — no terminus other than Being — even as Reason & Reciprocity or Logic & Love arrive in a Metaphysical Singularity which has no Edge/Bottom — no terminus other than Being Itself. It is there vis-à-vis the robust lucidity of the Redutio Ad Deum that the Christian rationally rejects Non-Theism’s unavoidable Reductio Ad Absurdum.
A— Here with respect to Mind it is the case that reason cannot find (on Non-Theism) the distinction of irreducible intentionality vis-à-vis the Intentional Self/Mind such that the Mind is lost – literally.
B— Similarly, in the discussion of objective moral facts the terminal problem Non-Theism faces is that of reason not finding irreducible self-giving (…as per https://metachristianity.com/reason-reality-golden-thread-reciprocity/ …) via-a-vis reality’s concrete furniture such that objective moral facts are lost – literally.
C— We find that AS the Intentional Self/Mind goes SO TOO goes Moral Facts and it’s obvious WHY that is the case, as per…
D— WHY that is the case is obvious as only a minute of reflection reveals that in both cases it is the same necessary ontological substrate which one must account for.
ANY “contingent” terminus (…Cartesian Demon, the Matrix, the 4D Block’s embedded conscious observer, Neuro-Physics, Idealism, Brain In A Vat, and so on…) cannot self-account, and, just the same, ANY contingent terminus with respect to “love / self / giving” and with respect to “self / intend / mind” cannot self-account. As the Contingent Conscious Observer in our own selves, it is the case that our own self-existence cannot provide its own terminus of explanation with respect to reality’s concrete furniture and therein any notion of “Fact” is, IF left off there (….akin to “Full Stop”…) illusory at first, and absurd in the end as the notion of trading on non-being forces the reductio ad absurdum. We come there to Being Itself as Reason Itself as Mind Itself as Love Itself in the uncanny syntax of Singularity.
Non-Theists On Non-Theism’s Moral Ontology:
A— “The lack of an ultimate objective scientific grounding for morality can be worrisome. It implies that people with whom we have moral disagreements—whether it’s […insert any evil here…] or schoolyard bullies who beat up smaller children—aren’t wrong in the same sense that it’s wrong to deny Darwinian evolution or the expansion of the universe….But that’s how the world is.” (S. Carroll)
B— “Hume was right. We have no objective guidance on how to distinguish right from wrong: not from God, not from nature, not from the pure force of reason itself….Morality exists only insofar as we make it so, and other people might not pass judgments in the same way we do.” (S. Carroll)
C— “– Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. -Tis not contrary to reason for me to choose my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me. -Tis as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledg’d lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent affection for the former than for the latter.” (Hume, Treatise of Human Nature 184.108.40.206)
D— Non-Objective once again — “There’s no rational foundation for morality… It has to appear to be objective, even though really it is subjective…. but… our psychology will get us by….” (M. Ruse)
E— Non-Objective once again — “Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and hating toothache and marking student papers. But it is, and has to be, a funny kind of emotion. It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down. Before long, we would find ourselves saying something like: “Well, morality is a jolly good thing from a personal point of view. When I am hungry or sick, I can rely on my fellow humans to help me. But really it is all bull___t, so when they need help I can and should avoid putting myself out. There is nothing there for me.” The trouble is that everyone would start saying this, and so very quickly there would be no morality and society would collapse and each and every one of us would suffer. So morality has to come across as something that is more than emotion. It has to appear to be objective, even though really it is subjective. “Why should I be good? Why should you be good? Because that is what morality demands of us. It is bigger than the both of us. It is laid on us and we must accept it, just like we must accept that 2 + 2 = 4.” I am not saying that we always are moral, but that we always know that we should be moral. Am I now giving the game away? Now you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what’s to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense.” (Michael Ruse)
F— “Pressing on through Alex Rosenberg’s The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, we come to Rosenberg’s treatment of morality. Followed out consistently, Rosenberg says, scientism entails nihilism. As Rosenberg is keen to emphasize, this is not the same as moral relativism or moral skepticism. It is not the claim that moral truth is relative, or that it is real but unknowable. Nor is it the claim that everything is morally permitted. It is a far more radical and disturbing claim than any of these views. Nihilism, as Rosenberg understands it, is the view that there is no such thing as being “morally permitted” or “morally prohibited” in the first place. For there is, given Rosenberg’s scientism, no intrinsic value in the world of the sort that is necessary for morality to be intelligible. Morality — not just commonsense or traditional morality, not just religious morality, but all morality, morality as such, including any purported secular, liberal, permissive morality — is therefore an illusion.” (…from https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/02/reading-rosenberg-part-vii.html )
Lauding Truth & Lauding Noble Lies – http://disq.us/p/1w6epee
Auschwitz in Non-Theism’s fatality:
Another lens: https://www.thinkingchristi… which is in a comment section and opens with the following:
8. scbrownlhrm says:
June 29, 2018 at 5:26 am
Christianity is a non-totalitarian metanarrative……
The Copy/Paste of “Reason & Truth-Finding & Moral Facts / Hume & Harris & Fincke / Mathematical–Continuum & Identity–Relation” begins here and note that it is from a discussion and so the syntax of “you/I/my/yours/our” and so on is retained:
Reason & Truth-Finding & Moral Facts
Hume & Harris & Fincke
Mathematical–Continuum & Identity–Relation
“Is it a pre-requisite that I assimilate and understand your premises before we can begin unpacking moral questions?”
It’s actually the opposite. You need to clarify your own premises in order to discuss moral reasoning and the proverbial ought-do-otherwise. Obviously we’re building on the items listed inhttp://disq.us/p/1y9re0s and in http://disq.us/p/1yf6avj and, so, about 95% of what remains will be focused on two areas within your body of premises which are still a bit unclear. The last 5% at the end will close with a statement, not an argument, of what Reason finds “given” the Christian God. So let’s start with those two on your side of the proverbial equation:
A key equivocation in your premises is in relation to Hume’s claim that there is no preference (…appetite or goal or preference…) which is contrary to reason — and Hume gives his examples that it is not “contrary to reason” or it is not irrational to prefer the destruction of the world to the scratching of one’s finger — just as it is not irrational to seek one’s one lesser good instead of one’s own greater good given this or that preference for some other end or goal (Etc.). For Hume it was Passion/Feeling which ground morality such that there is no moral reasoning, there is only moral appetite-ing, so to speak. Different things lead different folks to pleasurable feelings rather than unwanted feelings.
“….is to ought….. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason…..”(Hume)
Identity Is A Necessary Relation:
Sam Harris affirms Hume, although perhaps not intentionally, as William Lane Craig shows. In the following excerpt we come again, as we must, to identity, to the syntax of
“….There is no possible world in which some entity A is not identical to A. So if there is any possible world in which A is not identical to B, it follows that A is not in fact identical to B…..”
From https://www.reasonablefaith… is the following from Craig:
“….Therefore, [Harris] concludes, “It makes no sense … to ask whether maximizing well-being is ‘good’.” Why not? Because he’s redefined the word “good” to mean the well-being of conscious creatures. So to ask, “Why is maximizing creatures’ well-being good?” is on his definition the same as asking, “Why does maximizing creatures’ well-being maximize creatures’ well-being?” It is simply a tautology — talking in a circle. Thus, Harris has “solved” his problem simply by redefining his terms. It is mere word play.
At the end of the day Harris is not really talking about moral values. He is just talking about what’s conducive to the flourishing of sentient life on this planet. Seen in this light, his claim that science can tell us a great deal about what contributes to human flourishing is hardly controversial. Of course, it can — just as it can tell us what is conducive to the flourishing of corn or mosquitoes or bacteria. His so-called “moral landscape” picturing the highs and lows of human flourishing is not really a moral landscape at all.
On the next to last page of his book, Harris more or less admits this. For he makes the telling admission that if people such as rapists, liars, and thieves could be just as happy as good people, then his moral landscape would no longer be a moral landscape; rather it would just be a continuum of well-being, whose peaks are occupied by good and evil people alike. What is interesting about this is that earlier in the book Harris observed that about 3 million Americans are psychopathic, that is to say, they do not care about the mental states of others. On the contrary, they enjoy inflicting pain on other people.
This implies that we can conceive of a possible world in which the continuum of human well-being is not a moral landscape. The peaks of well-being could be occupied by evil people. But this entails that in the actual world the continuum of well-being and the moral landscape are not identical either. For identity is a necessary relation. There is no possible world in which some entity A is not identical to A. So if there is any possible world in which A is not identical to B, it follows that A is not in fact identical to B. Since it’s possible that human well-being and moral goodness are not identical, it follows necessarily that human well-being and moral goodness are not the same, as Harris has asserted. By granting that it’s possible that the continuum of well-being is not identical to the moral landscape, Harris has rendered his view logically incoherent.
Thus, Harris has failed to solve the “value problem.” He has not provided any justification or explanation of why, on atheism, objective moral values would exist at all. His so-called solution is just a semantic trick of providing an arbitrary and idiosyncratic redefinition of the words “good” and “evil” in non-moral terms…..”
[…Note: Several of the remaining parts along the way here are from discussions with our Non-Theist friends and retain the syntax of “you / my / your / our” and so on…]
The entire state of affairs there with respect to Peaks/Nadirs populating various foci along a Continuum unmasks the false identity claim within the following claim of yours (or what seems to be your claim), which you’ve not quite resolved yet. That is with respect to what Reason finds “IF-God” vs. “IF-No-God”.
1— “IF God Exist” (etc.) THEN Reason finds DIFFERENT Facts wrt reality’s concrete furniture.
2— “Even If God Exists” (etc.) THEN Reason STILL finds the SAME concrete furniture wrt reality.
So far you seem to claim 2. Yet can you?
So far with respect to Identity it is the case that “A” is not “Non-A”such that your “2” there is untenable “IF” Reason finds Being Itself of / as the Trinitarian Life vis-à-vis Being in love’s ceaseless Self-Giving (…and Etc…). It’s fine to object and say No-God-Therefore-No-Difference.
However, there still seems to be residual fragments of equivocation (…in your premises…) with respect to Reason and her role of Truth-Finding given that you seem to side with “2” instead of “1”.
A bit more on this whole state of affairs:
“….Now if moral values don’t exist then it’s not like ethical propositions are mind-dependent; rather they are meaningless. If good and evil do not exist then the proposition “Punishing people is evil” is simply meaningless. As is a proposition about the DNA of unicorns. Some atheists resort to changing the meaning of words and argue that “when we say that some deed is evil what we really mean is that we experience that deed as very distasteful – when we speak about evil we mean feelings that our brain produces as the result of sociobiological causes”. But as a matter of fact this is not at all what we mean by “evil”. And I say it would be best not to follow atheists in their confusing word-games….” (…from http://edwardfeser.blogspot… …)
Those examples leave no wiggle-room. If one is going to claim as Non-Theism demonstrably does in its most robust vectors (….in addition to Hume & Harris also see http://disq.us/p/1y84cou …) that the rational mind (…that Reason as truth-finder….) cannot find some fundamental grain to reality which one in fact runs one’s hand against should one prefer / chase-after “Goal X” instead of “Goal X2” then one affirms that the Psychopath has different feelings, but not irrational feelings (..Goal X vs. Goal X2..).
And that is where here Hume (…and we can say Harris with him…) surfaces again finding in the Psychopath no ought-not with respect to Reason as the Rational Man finds no immoral feelings (..no ought / ought-not between or among or amid Goal X vs. Goal X2..) such that the Psychopath is not, and in fact cannot even in principle be that which we would describe as Morally Unreasonable.
That is Non-Theism’s Currency vis-à-vis Moral Reason-ing. A Mathematical Continuum & Peaks/Nadirs. Full Stop. Atheist philosopher and blogger Daniel Fincke comments:
“…Teleology should not be at all out of bounds for atheists. Teleologists do not need to posit that there is an intelligent goal-giver who gives natural beings purposes to fulfill, as many theists think…..
….I am an atheistic virtue ethicist requiring no divine agency for the teleological dimensions of my ethics to make minimal sense and have minimal coherence. I am just describing purely naturalistically occurring patterns as universals or forms. I am saying that since humans’ very natures are constituted by a specific set of powers, fulfilling them is incumbent on humans as the beings that we are. It is irrational and a practical contradiction to destroy the very precondition of our own being (all things being equal). We have a rational imperative instead to flourish maximally powerfully according to the powers which constitute us ourselves….” (…excerpt from https://edwardfeser.blogspo… …)
That fatal move of his “…I am just describing purely naturalistically occurring patterns as universals or forms….” just is one more repetition of Equivocation© wrapped up in Conflation© and heavily seasoned with dashes of Question-Begging’s© best spices as it all circles back again to Non-Theism’s fundamental rock-bottom which Reason finds: A Mathematical Continuum & Peaks/Nadirs. Hard-Stop.
Any Moral Ontology which begins and ends in the Contingent, in the Mutable, in the eternally open-ended will always take us to this same Currency. Another way to say it is to say that amid Appetites / Goals we find all of our syntax swimming to nowhere in particular there inside our skulls, awash in an ocean of trillions of little isolated [Pockets of Physics] eternally converging and colliding and diverging — and “that” “ontology” never can get us to ontic–distinctions (….as per http://disq.us/p/1yc63r5 etc…). In fact “that’ “ontology” is not even an ontology at all given the obvious fact that “Physics” (…and cosmology…) is not convertible with “Ontology” in the wider sense and so of course in these thinner slices of arbitrary cutting points that is unchanged.
That all, in the end, leaves Non-Theism sort of rehashing and rephrasing Hume as we discover that the phrase “Morally Unreasonable” is unintelligible within Non-Theism. There is no such thing (….see both a. http://disq.us/p/1y84cou and also b.http://disq.us/p/1w6epee …).
Sitting At The Table Attempting To Morally Reason:
So far these are two problems within your own body of premises with respect to sitting at the table and reasoning through this or that prescriptive instead of this or that descriptive.
The first of those is that you claim to be able to finance a Seat at the Table in which Moral Reasoning takes place when in fact Reason finds no relevant Facts, no ought/ought-not soaked in and through Goal-X & Goal-X2. The Prescriptive is illusory there and another “reason” why is that your terms are unavoidably beginning and ending within the Contingent, the Mutable, the eternally open-ended. For all the reasons given above (…and earlier items via http://disq.us/p/1y9re0s …) we find that Non-Theism provides no factual Moral Ontology.
The second of those is the specific issue mentioned earlier with respect to the following, as you seem to be holding a bit of room for something like two here:
1— “IF God Exist” (etc.) THEN Reason finds DIFFERENT Facts wrt reality’s concrete furniture.
2— “Even If God Exists” (etc.) THEN Reason STILL finds the SAME concrete furniture wrt reality.
But is that (…2…) the case?
So far with respect to Identity, it is the case that “A” is not “Non-A” such that your “2” there is untenable “IF” Reason finds Being Itself of / as the Trinitarian Life vis-à-vis Being in love’s ceaseless Self-Giving (…and Etc…). It’s fine to object and say No-God-Therefore-No-Difference. However, there still seems to be residual fragments of equivocation wit respect to Reason and her role of Truth-Finding if you equate v. identity that which is Being Itself v. the Divine Mind (and Etc.) to that which is nature’s four fundamental forces (Gravitational, Strong/Weak Nuclear, & Electromagnetic).
The Christian Metaphysic & The Explanatory Terminus:
Every metaphysic has one (…explanatory terminus…) and the proverbial A and Z of one’s Metaphysic either will or will not provide a seamless and lucid ontology with respect to The Good and Reason. Where Non-Theism there fails, awash in a sea of reductio’s, it forfeits the convertibility of the necessary transcendentals (…see https://metachristianity.com/reason-reality-golden-thread-reciprocity/ ….).
The following is not an argument defending what D.B. Hart refers to as “….the eternal one-another…” vis-à-vis nothing less than The Trinitarian Life, but, rather, it is a statement of what Reason in fact interfaces with in her role as Truth-Finder “given” the Christian God:
Being Itself in/by/as love’s Timeless Self-Giving vis-à-vis the Ontic-Self in totum:
Three quotes of David Bentley Hart with respect some of the more esoteric ontic-tensions between Being Itself as such and the contingent reality we observe and which the Trinitarian Life resolves:
A clipped assembling of related and nascent contemplations blended with selective paraphrases and manipulations of Garrigou-Lagrange’s “The Trinity and God the Creator”– a book which is neither recommended here nor the reverse here – mingled with embryonic ruminations, random pontifications, and underdeveloped reflections on the silhouettes of metaphysics, necessity, and the Triune God vis-à-vis the fact that Perfect Goodness is essentially diffusive of itself and where reason finds the necessary means and ends of Act void of Cause in seamless union with The Good’s Ontic Diffusiveness void of Contingency:
F1. https://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/01/the-deity-of-christ-and-the-reality-of-the-trinity.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb08ad5e39970d#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb08ad5e39970d which opens with the following:
More logical compulsion:
The problem for all Non-Triune metaphysical explanatory termini is their intrinsic and constitutional incoherence vis-à-vis The Necessary.
A clipped assembling of related and nascent contemplations blended with selective paraphrases and manipulations of Garrigou-Lagrange’s “The Trinity and God the Creator”– a book which is neither recommended here nor the reverse here – mingled with embryonic ruminations, random pontifications, and underdeveloped reflections on the silhouettes of metaphysics, necessity, and the Triune God:
That which sums to the Necessary realizes satisfaction in Trinity – that is to say – the means and ends of Actvoid of Cause and of the Perfect Good’s diffusiveness void of Contingency surface as the fundamental shape of reality. The Necessary carries us to the Triune in all that we spy, whether such be the contours of being or of life or of act or of intention or of some other contour of being. That which causes the universe from withoutrather than from within appears before us void of contingency’s potentiality in need of this or that actualization and begins to come into focus. Trinity reveals to us the very contours of, not causation, but of transposition within and by all that sums to Mind’s lucidity even as we encounter that which sums to the essence of relational collocation in all that sums to the very delineation of Person as love’s filiation void of causation establishes its incantation of ceaseless reciprocity………..
The mixed ingredients of a. Aristotle mixed with b. David Bentley Hart mixed with c. Fred Sanders mixed with d. Susanna Wesley’s skirmish with Aristotle in which Aristotle supposes God must eternally be communicating good to something or other, and e. Scott Ryan’s open-door to an actual infinite vis-à-vis the Father-Son series (contra the per se series) all come together at:
H1. This comment’s content is extended a bit in the comment which follows it in the order of the discussion here, which is at Reason, Moral Facts, Logic, the Ethic of Love, & Trinity ≠ No-God at http://disq.us/p/1yi9win
End Copy/Paste of “Reason & Truth-Finding & Moral Facts / Hume & Harris & Fincke / Mathematical–Continuum & Identity–Relation”.
And on it goes vis-à-vis Non-Theism’s Moral Ontology vis-à-vis Non-Theism’s Ontology of Reason vis-à-vis Non-Theism’s Ontology of the Intentional Self/Mind as per earlier discussions.