...makes no sense.

For you? Or are you saying that the article didn’t do the topic justice?

Mike, faith-free

Wow, this is an old thread. I can't find my post that you are responding to. I don't remember posting that I believed there is absolutely no objective truth or beauty, and even if I did, It is possible that my views have changed since then, because I entertain the notion that perhaps there IS a basis for objective beauty and perhaps even objective truth in the natural world.

Perhaps something I said about being an atheist/not believing in God or a god caused you to infer that I believed there was no objective basis for truth or beauty.

Do you think there is objective beauty?

The concepts of objective truth or morality or even beauty carries two aspects AFAIK. One is the ontological aspect that there IS some actual objective truth/morality and since you mentioned it, beauty. The other is the epistemological aspect of determining/deciding what IS the truth, what IS moral and even what IS beautiful. One need not think they know for certain what IS true (epistemology) to hold the basic belief that there IS, somewhere, somehow, an absolute truth (ontology). At least that is how I understand the difference.

My discussion with Kevin suggests that while both of us agree there IS such a thing as beautiful (music), there might be a disagreement on WHAT can pass as beautiful music. Keven seemed convinced no one could seriously enjoy atonal music while I found some "sounds" that were atonal to be pleasant. Maybe he chaffed at me calling it music. But it all still fits into the category of beauty. I think both would concur that humans have a concept of beauty and it seems to be based on a built in tendency...we are born with the ability to perceive what is generally considered to be on the "beauty scale" even if individuals don't always agree with what actually IS beautiful.

But more to the heart of what I think you are getting at. You said that if there is no objective truth then why call Hitler an evil man.

Again, the basis for objective truth has two connotations. One, that there IS an objective truth even if, perhaps, we don't know exactly what it is truth. The other is the epistemology of the matter...what IS the truth on a given issue. In the case of Hitler being an evil man. It depends on me having some basis for saying there IS such a thing as goodness/evil and that my statement has some truth value.

One response would be that the truth of the statement depends on some context. That kind of takes it out of the objective truth and puts it into a subjective category that based on some frame of reference what he did was evil and since it doesn't seem like he was forced to do it...ie he freely ordered mass killings of many people, it leads me to say that he is, indeed and in that context, an evil man. I don't see the problem with leaving it right there. I am not ashamed to believe that I have a pretty good idea of what constitutes treating other fairly/kindly if at all possible and I have some pretty good reasons for how I make that determination in the case of Hitler. Of course it DOES depend on me believing that humans have a favored place in the world and that certain things that more or less can be done to other things including other life forms without thinking it evil should not be done to humans.

Can one only make comments on someone's relative wickedness/goodness if there is objective truth? Maybe the statement reflected a value judgment based on my reasons for thinking some wicked vs some one else good. And I can produce those reasons.

In your opinion, are there good reasons for calling Hitler an evil man? If so why aren't those reasons sufficient?

But the question still comes up, am I making a truth statement beyond how I can define it with rationale?

I entertain the notion that there is a basis for saying there is objective truth in the natural world. First, it is as useful to say I have faith that there is a basis for objective truth in the natural world as it is for me to say I have faith that God provides the basis for objective truth. At its core that is all it is, faith. How does God provide a basis for objective truth? That assumes (requires faith) that God is aware of what objective truth is, cares about it and has some nature that tells him what it is. Of course that is how God is defined, as the creator and originator of objective truth...but that is just a definition. It further depends on how one defines God's nature. One just has to assume that God has a nature that produces objective truth/morality and perhaps beauty. Said another way, it is faith; faith that God is the basis for objective truth. I can't argue against it, but neither does it convince me. I can as easily say that nature provides the basis for objective truth as to say God's nature provides a basis for objective truth. Perhaps it has to do with how matter/energy behaves...consistently/regularly/reliably. And as a naturalist, I believe we are composed of matter/energy...entirely matter/energy, no magic/supernatural parts. So why wouldn't any sentience that developed from this foundation take on the notion that there is a right way and a wrong way to do things...for things to happen? To me, that's as good an explanation as "God has a nature that just happens to be good and we don't know why but that is why we can say God is good."

Atheism explainaton make no sense

If there is no objective truth or beauty, then why call Hitler as "evil man"?

Imho, not quite right. Yes, to things not being the way they should ideally be. No, to the Catholic obsession with guilt (sorry!).

Things are screwy because 1) we're made of thought (psychologically), 2) thought operates by a process of division which, 3) creates an experience of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", which leads to 4) fear, which is, 5) the primary cause of things being screwy.

The price tag for the awesome power of thought is to be trapped inside an illusion of separation from everything else. We did not create that equation, we were just born in to it.

Who created that equation, who to blame, above my paygrade.

"And in reality, there isn’t just 1 thing."

Oh uh, sorry, must disagree. Reality itself is the one thing. "Thing" is an unfortunate word for me to use though, given that as a noun it implies division and separation, which are inventions of the human mind, not properties of reality. Perhaps "reality is the one" is better language?

Hi De ha!

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Would you say that if you personally look at a painting and say "that is beautiful", you would actually by lying because there is nothing actually beautiful about the painting itself.

If that is the case, then there is nothing about an outside object to actually be able to say it is beautiful.

In that case, beauty doesn't actually exist, but it some sort of an illusion.

Would you agree? If not, what would be your account of pointing to a painting and saying, "that is beautiful"?

I think that, to go down to an even deeper level, it could be summed up by saying that from an atheistic point of view, beauty and goodness don't actually exist.

***ME***

That’s not my point of view at all. What are you talking about?

***YOU***

Goodness is tied up with the fact that there is a way that things ought to be, and when they are not that way we say they are "bad" or "evil". And something is beautiful insofar as it is pleasing because it points towards what is true and good in some manner.

***ME***

Wrong. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Please don’t make me elaborate. If I actually have to explain how the sexual tastes of gorillas vary from ours, I will be insulting both of us.

***YOU***

If goodness doesn't really exist, then beauty doesn't really exist either.

***ME***

Wrong again. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is absolutely not objective but it is also real. We evolved to aesthetically desire signs that the opposite sex would most likely produce successful children.

***YOU***

Some do try and reduce beauty to subjective feelings, which again means that beauty doesn't really exist,

***ME***

You keep dismissing human feelings because they’re “subjective”, yet you also call this “the Atheist point of view”. Which is it? We ARE human! YOU are the one obsessed with “objective” in the apparent belief that you god’s opinion is “objective”. Stop mixing up YOUR weird obsession with OUR “point of view”.

***YOU***

its just some arbitrary subjective feeling. I.e., beauty is reduced to "pleasure" and "good feelings" and one could try and argue that these good feelings influence an animal to try and stay alive.

***ME***

Bingo.

***YOU***

But then we have no real explanation why one thing causes "beautiful feelings" and another one does not.

***ME***

You JUST SAID it was a survival thing!

***YOU***

In my Aristotelian-Thomistic sensibility, beauty can only be rationally accounted for when placed in relation to the true and the good.

***ME***

And Atheists don’t share your opinion, do we?

***YOU***

In that way, an atheistic account of reality will, as Joe explained, come up radically short in explaining normal human experiences of beauty and goodness. (

***ME***

YOU already explained that the beauty helps the survival of the entire pack.

Sometimes, I don’t understand creationists at all. You’ll use “merely” and “survival’ in the same sentence. What is it with you? Are you all just a very very lazy suicide cult or something?

***YOU***

I do think the greatest argument against an atheistic-materialistic account of reality is still the existence of truth,

***ME***

How would “truth” not exist? no matter what universe we’re in, that would be the truth. If there’s no truth there’s nothing but lies, except a lie is a contradiction between a lie and the truth, so Truth would still have to exist.

If we’re in the Matrix, the Machines are the truth. If we’re in Dark City, that’s the truth. Etc.

Explain to me how a world with no “truth” would work. No metaphors, no word games, no philosophical bullsh*t, I want you to explain to me, exactly, technically, literally, how the hell a world with no “truth” in it would work.

***YOU***

which is why I'm working on an article to discuss this fact.)

***ME***

You don’t even know what “fact” means.

Also, pain is not a mystery you moron. We know how the human nervous system works.