Language is universal

[MaxFF]

I think we've heard various similar things. Usually fundies will tell us how the logic, mathematics, and morality are universal and objective and how this proves the existence of god. In this post at Debunking Atheists, things get a little off topic, since the post is about Ron Paul, but eventually there is an argument about religion where Dan makes the false Dichotomy that either morality is objective and universal, or it is personal. I tend to see different moral codes across societies in different parts of the world and across history, so I reject both and suggest that morality is a societal agreement.

Then I try to use language as an analogy for morality, to see if it helps him understand(it doesn't). Different cultures will develop there own letters, spelling, grammar and definitions etc. All these aspects of language are based on a societal agreement. They are not personal since one person speaking something that no one else understands cannot communicate, and it is not universal or objective, since there are many different languages with there own rules and such. Dan's response:

MaxFF,

Ref, straw man of "societal agreements" of languages.

Lets drive it home.

No matter what "possible" world, or universes, that there could be, the Law of Non-contradiction (LNC), would still apply universally. The implications are fantastic. That even if there were intelligent alien life somewhere in the universe, or any universe, that spoke something that sounds like it came from a Star wars bar, that no matter how advanced, or how evolved their civilization. Their language would follow the laws of logic in a very universal, and absolute, way just like us.

So logic is universal and applies to everything, but in Dan's mind anything which follows the laws of logic is itself universal. Never mind the linguistic differences which obviously exist between different societies. They all follow the laws of logic so any differences between languages are simply ignored I guess.

[Debunking Atheists]

I tend to see different moral codes across societies in different parts of the world and across history, so I reject both and suggest that morality is a societal agreement.

You're implying that people do not have consciences. In other words, consciences are arbitrary and subjective. That is not based on reality if that is indeed the case. Reality says different. Take lying as an example.

ALL people, across all genders and races show signs of the consequences / telltales of when a person lies, like; They experience sweaty palms; They experience induced swallowing; Their heart rate increases; Their faces turn red; They avoid eye contact; compression of pupils; They speak more quickly, etc. etc. This is with everyone human being on the planet. (Except of course for sociopaths and those who have perfected deception)

O.K., ... so these are physical reactions (that cross all humanity), that occur when people lie, keeping in mind that none of them are at all based upon comfort, self esteem, or integrity, why is that?

Here's a hint, lying is a spiritual event. It's not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creation lies, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself. Therefore He has constructed us with built in sensors that perhaps we just might someday, in our blind little, self seeking minds, finally get the big picture.

They all follow the laws of logic so any differences between languages are simply ignored I guess.

They should be ignored. Fallacies, like this irrelevant thesis, should be. BTW-There can be no logical fallacies absent an absolute standard of logic, which you simply cannot account for without God. If logic is merely a characteristic of nature, can the laws of logic change, since nature is constantly changing? The point still stands. No matter what universe, the universal laws of logic are sound and absolute no matter what alien life form is communicating. Hopefully you will stop resisting that one point and realize that God does indeed exist and His absolute nature and character is revealed in our world. As logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God.

Sye said once," the existence of logic is intuitively grasped by anyone whose cognitive faculties are functioning properly; what the presuppositionalism of Reformed theology and Van Til et al. does is expose the necessary preconditions thereof, providing an account of the nature and intelligibility of logic, the fundamental principles of which express analogously the curious fact that reality is non contra se. (1) As a divine attribute (original), logic is coterminous with the nature and character of God, understood in terms of divine necessity and simplicity and constituting the coherence and consistency of his nature and unchanging character; as such, logical order is manifest everywhere that the sovereign and sustaining power of God is, which is everywhere. (2) As a human attribute (derivative), given our nature as imago Dei, logic is contingent insofar as we are creatures whose existence is distinct from and sustained by God; at this level, logic is understood analogously as conceptual formulations expressing the logical order of creation and the self-consistent coherence of God's immutable being. The fact that logical principles (e.g., the law of contradiction) are necessarily true, absolute, and universal is accounted for by their analogical relationship to the divine attribute of logic that is coterminous with the very nature and character of the covenant God of promise."

[MaxFF]

Okay Dan I'll try to explain this one more time, see if you can wrap your brain around this. These letters you see on the screen are not universal or objective. Chinese have their own characters as do several other languages in the world. Even societies that use the same characters will have very different set of words, such as French and English. Even English speaking societies will develop slightly different rules for spelling and grammar. The laws of logic do not create one universal language, societies have developed several languages.

[E-lad]

ALL people, across all genders and races show signs of the consequences / telltales of when a person lies, like; They experience sweaty palms; They experience induced swallowing; Their heart rate increases; Their faces turn red; They avoid eye contact; compression of pupils; They speak more quickly, etc. etc. This is with everyone human being on the planet. (Except of course for sociopaths and those who have perfected deception)

That is hogwash. Sociopaths, like you, lie all the time with no effects whatsoever.

[Debunking Atheists]

...(Except of course for sociopaths and those who have perfected deception)

That is hogwash...

FTW

[Debunking Atheists]

Okay Dan I'll try to explain this one more time, see if you can wrap your brain around this. These letters you see on the screen are not universal or objective. Chinese have their own characters as do several other languages in the world. Even societies that use the same characters will have very different set of words, such as French and English. Even English speaking societies will develop slightly different rules for spelling and grammar. The laws of logic do not create one universal language, societies have developed several languages.

I completely agree with this irrelevant thesis. Now back to point. Its LoL, Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC), that is universal in ALL languages no matter what universe. Explain that one away. Why are you even speaking to me if you do not believe uniformity of languages. On what bases are you assuming that the words you're speaking to me are going to be the same 5 seconds from now? You're assuming uniformity when you're speaking to me.

[MaxFF]

Well the original purpose was to use language as an analogy for morality and demonstrate that there are things that are neither universal, nor personal, but are societal, and you have agreed to the thesis that aspects of language including but not limited to character set, vocabulary and grammar are societal. So mission accomplished we agree that societal agreements actually exist.

As to the uniformity of language over time, it is not something that can be expected. Reading beowulf, shakespeare and numerous other works from different times show that language does change. Even within my own lifetime I've seen language change a bit. The exact rate at which it changes is unknowable to me. However you have been able to understand previous comments by me, so even if the official language completely changes with a new character set, and whole new vocabulary and grammar, I would hope you would still be understand what I wrote like you have in the past, but that might be giving you too much credit.

[Vagon]

I actually agree with Dan here to an extent:
I think there is an objective normative model that we should formulate, however I do not think we have dedicated enough resources to achieving it. What you are talking about Max is just a descriptive model of the various moral codes. The next steps would be creating some prescriptive steps to help us get closer to the normative model and I think you'll most first world judicial systems try to incorporate these prescriptive steps in so much as the can within the current political environment.

Where Dan fails is in talking about nonsense things like spirits and mysticism, which by their very definition are non-objective.

I would argue the rational thing to do here is realise Dan is beyond helping and save your posts for his blog where you are likely to have more of an impact on his fence-sitting audiences.

[IntellectualNinja]

It's just too bad the universe, particularly at the quantum level, doesn't follow the rules of logic such as the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, these rules must be descriptive as opposed to proscriptive and the result of thought which by definition is subjective.

[Azou]

You're implying that people do not have consciences. In other words, consciences are arbitrary and subjective. That is not based on reality if that is indeed the case. Reality says different. Take lying as an example.

ALL people, across all genders and races show signs of the consequences / telltales of when a person lies, like; They experience sweaty palms; They experience induced swallowing; Their heart rate increases; Their faces turn red; They avoid eye contact; compression of pupils; They speak more quickly, etc. etc. This is with everyone human being on the planet. (Except of course for sociopaths and those who have perfected deception)

O.K., ... so these are physical reactions (that cross all humanity), that occur when people lie, keeping in mind that none of them are at all based upon comfort, self esteem, or integrity, why is that?

Here's a hint, lying is a spiritual event. It's not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creation lies, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself. Therefore He has constructed us with built in sensors that perhaps we just might someday, in our blind little, self seeking minds, finally get the big picture.

Bull FUCKING shit.

First off: congrats on figuring out that members of the same species have the same response to stuff. I'm sure that took you hours of studying.

People don't have these reactions because their guilty conscience is nagging at them. That will happen after the event has long blown over. People lie because there are consequences for telling the truth. What emotion is associated with a high heart rate, fast speech, sweaty palms and so forth? Guilt? No, nervousness and anxiety. People get nervous when lying because they are afraid of the consequences of being caught in the lie. That's not some spiritual censor blaring at you: that is a real emotional response to the potential bad things that might happen to you if you get caught in your fib. Many people lie all the time with no change in emotional state at all because either the stakes are low (so you actually ate the last cookie, who cares?) or you're confident that you won't get caught (you've told your boss that ugly shirt looks fine a million times). It's context sensitive to what is being lied about and how confident the person is in their lie actually fooling the target.

Sociopaths or the mentally ill don't feel these emotions because they're not lying. They have a mental sickness and actually believe what is being said is truth. They may be incredibly wrong, but being wrong is not the same as intent to deceive. It certainly isn't "perfected deception." It's just the workings of an improperly functioning brain.

There's a reason the Supreme Court has issues with lie detectors. Nervousness over the result of a lie detector can show up as a positive on the test. Even if you are incredibly confident in your innocence, the threat of imprisonment or other legal retribution can be incredibly scary and stressful. And it shows up as if you're lying.

So what is it, Dan? Is the conscience just lazy and does a copy-paste job for guilt? Maybe it's the whole "fallen world" spiel, so our emotion when lying is similar to our emotion when stressed or anxious. Yeah, that's a great system.

Or maybe you're completely full of bullshit.