Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Conversation

For those who might be interested in reading or commenting on it, there is a conversation in progress on the Challenges (Right column).

19 comments:

petran said...

Stan, I have read in another post you say the first principles are descriptive and not prescriptive. If something is what we "ought" to do or obey, doesn't that make it prescriptive since descriptive just says what is? The same about objective morality which I think you subscribe to. Isn't that an "ought" and "should" instead of "is" as well?

viatiffi said...

Stan, I have read in another post you say the first principles are descriptive and not prescriptive. If something is what we "ought" to do or obey, doesn't that make it prescriptive since descriptive just says what is? The same about objective morality which I think you subscribe to. Isn't that an "ought" and "should" instead of "is" as well?

Chris said...

Unrelated to the the above....

Anyone interested in commenting on the compatability of atheism with a modern conservative political stance? I have friends whose conservatism seems to be grounded more in what I would call an ideology of rugged invidualism- no connection whatsoever to religion or transcendence at all.

Martin said...

I once asked a question like this on a Christian forum (when I was still an atheist).

I think I framed it something like this: "If I were an alien that just landed on Earth, and I wanted to know about Christ, and all I had to go on were his American followers, I would conclude that he must his main points must be that abortion and homosexuality are the greatest of all evils, that your home country and patriotism are the greatest of virtues, and that God's real name is Freemarketia."

Despite my recent change in worldview, I must say that I still see quite a disconnect between what we call the "Religious Right" and a reading of the Gospels.

Stan said...

Petran/viatiffi,

022411 Description vs Prescription of the First Principles.

The First Principles are statements about truth and existence that we could not violate if we tried: they are necessary features of our universe. So in a sense they describe prescriptive laws that exist. For example, we cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, there is a universal law against that which prescribes that universal characteristic, but we are not able to violate it.

We might say that it is prescriptive for existence, but not for our behavior since we cannot choose to violate it.

To say that we “ought” to recognize the validity of the First Principles is a moral statement about choosing to recognize the First Principles, a statement that is not contained in the First Principles.

Because there is no total validation of the First Principles (they are intuitive), they cannot be used to deductively derive, unless an intuitive base is acceptable.

For a philosophy in which it is intuitive not to accept intuitive principles (and Atheism and the Left both accept this), then deduction is not valid enough to prescribe.

Moral prescription is rationalized by other techniques, including the concept of “thriving”, which is actually defined intuitively, and that is used in an attempt at deductively deriving behaviors that are “moral” because they encourage “thriving”. While denying absolutes, some Atheist philosophers use “thriving” as a moral absolute, from which they deduce and prescribe morals for others to adhere to. Since “thriving” is a subjective term, then the prescribing person may create definitions that become absolute laws to be held as moral tenets.


Here is an interesting exercise, regarding First Principles (FP) and Logic (L), if viewed using Modus Tollens:

We can argue that,

Modus Tollens:

If FP are valid, then L is valid;
FP are not valid;
Then L is not valid.

The Modus Tollens argument itself becomes not a valid test, if the First Principles are not true.

So if Tollens is true, then Logic is false;
If Logic is false, then Tollens is false.

This is a paradox, a violation of the Principle of Non-Contradiction – but the Principle of Non-Contradiction is a First Principle which was declared not valid.

Some have argued that the First Principles are circular, maybe because of this attempt to validate the FP using Logic. But the First Principles are the basis for Logic, and it is not expected that Logic would verify the FP. The FP are verified by empirical observation of the universe, and are seen to be necessary for the universe to be as it is.

Stan said...

The problem which the religious Right runs into is that their own ethic is a personal one, designed for personal character development of the individual. The schools and culture in general deny that personal character is of any value (some people just can't do that, so it's not fair to them), and then attempt to force overt fallacious standards on Christian children, such as considering absolutely every possible behavior as equally valid.

Those with personal character standards are then assaulted as intolerant, if they decline to grant the complete equality of any and all behaviors, and intolerance is the biggest secualar sin, one worthy of punishment.

When the religious Right takes a stand, they are charged with fascist aggression.

There is no happy medium to be had in today's secular, pagan society. The religious Right is being forced into enclaves in an increasingly irrational society, one without personal character values.

Chris said...

One could argue that era known as the Enlightenment gave rise to what would become the Modern world. The main intellectual product of the Enlightenment, Liberalism, displayed a fundamental fault line that is still with us today. The "right wing" was liberty centered and the "left wing" was equality centered. On the face of it, it appears to me that these principles are fundamentally opposed. Is the following correct?


Liberalism, in the classical sense, moving "leftward" to its final conclusion ,we arrive at a tyrannical collectivist all powerful state. But, on the other hand, if we take the right path of Liberalism to its final conclusion we arrive at a tyrannical fascist all powerful state.

How does atheism and/or worldview relate to this seemingly irreconcilable liberty/equality duality? Or is this simply an ill-conceived question?

Stan said...

Caveat: I am not an historian; the following is merely my take on the issue of totalitarianism vs. liberty.

I have never thought of the liberty / totalitarian spectrum as being linear, with totalitarianism at both ends. I have always conceived of the spectrum as being circular, with liberty on one side of the circle, and the two totalitarianisms meeting together at the opposite side of the circle, having taken opposite paths to the same destination. The bitter fighting between the two totalitarianisms is about power and control, rather than details of principles.

This has been supported by Jonah Goldberg’s book, “Liberal Fascism”, which documents the commonality between the turn of the century progressive movement in the USA and western Europe, and the National Socialists under Hitler. These same progressives lauded the soviets and visited fake “Potemkin” villages set up to demonstrate prosperity to western "useful idiots" while in reality the masses were being starved into eugenic submission, with the Kulaks and others eliminated categorically.

If there were an ethic for these two totalitarian regimes, it was Consequentialism in both cases. Consequentialism is not viable under an objective ethic. This leads to the conclusion that the two types of totalitarianisms are Atheist.

The history of today’s liberal / progressives is one of eugenics and Jim Crow racism; the Republican-driven Civil Rights legislation was co-opted as a “liberal” bill, and was used to bury the blacks in victimhood by paying them to be black, in return for co-dependent votes in gerrymandered districts. Eugenics is still carried out against blacks by Planned Parenthood (over 40% of American blacks in D.C., for example, are killed in utero).

This contrasts with Libertarian principles, which are closer to Constitutional intentions for the nation.

sonic said...

Chris-
Some thoughts-
Liberty and equality are principles in opposition.
Because they are in opposition (and it is possible for one individual to hold both as worthy) we end up with a political process of compromise.
The political spectrum starts with tyranny and ends with tyranny. This is why some think a limited government a good thing.

Chris said...

Stan has written considerably concerning the Left and atheism.

The connection is clear; nevertheless, I'm somewhat puzzled by the fact that there are many atheists who identify with the right (libertarians I presume) and many Christians who identify with the left.

Not to belabor this issue, how is the variation to be accounted for?

Can we make any generalizations regarding the relationship between worldviews and politcal orientation?

Stan said...

I myself was a conservative Atheist. This is because my Atheism was superficial, and was not the driving force of my life. I retained the Judeo-Christian ethic of the dominant social ethos of the day. And I never really gave it a thought; I was quite busy with other things, and certainly not interested in evangelizing. I was even Leftist for a very brief time, until I realized that the Vietnam war was a Democrat war, and it took Nixon to get us out (even though Nixon was was otherwise disgusting).

Conservatism is contrary to Atheism in the sense that there are universal principles in play, and Atheists reject absolutes. But there are other paradoxes that Atheists accept, so one more is not a problem, especially for the philosophically superficial (as I was).

Hitchens is loud and prolific, but he is not philosophically sophisticated. He is rebellious and perpetually angry, self-righteously so. Self-righteous anger does not make for a dispassionate philosophical observer.

Leftist Christians are victimized by evolving ecclesiastic dogma, which becomes more philosophically materialist as it ages. It appears to me to be like the frog in the gradually heated water. Many of these are de facto Atheists in Christian clothing. For example, if Jesus were "just a man, albeit a good teacher", then he was a liar and the New Testament is false, so that belief cannot be called "Christian" in any rational sense.

Also, the Beatitudes demonstrate that Jesus' teachings were toward development of personal character strengths. If a "Christian" Leftist is preaching egalitarianism, he is actually preaching proto-totalitarianism, the opposite end of the spectrum.

There is plenty of false teaching and deception (including self-deception) in today's world.

Chris said...

Greetings,

Stan, your description of the Christian left- "like the frog in the graually heated water"- spot on.

Anyone care to share their opinions of Ayn Rand. I'm not that familiar with this philosopher; I just orderED Atlas Shrugged. Is she yet another example of the self deceived? Her objectivism seems to be an anomaly for the typical atheistic materialist.

Her moral conclusions about society and the individual appear to be diametrically opposed to the more expected Atheo-left position.

comair said...

That reminds me of my favorite objectivist youtuber dhorpatan and his great video of proving God doesn't exist in 3 minutes!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KxHD6o259I

This is the "formal" version of that argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03A5B2dpoz0

Stan said...

I will address the second dhorpatan video, since it is supposedly more complete than the first.

The argument is based on two premises:

P1: If God exists then God must be infinite (qualitatively).

P2: God can’t be infinite (qualitatively).

C: Therefore, God cannot exist.

He bases his logic on the First Principles, starting with the Principle of Non-Contradiction.

Non-Contradiction, he says, prohibits God from being finite, but not contingent. This is because things which are finite are contingent. No exception for God. An exception for God would be a Fallacy of Special Pleading, exempting God from reality which applies to all other things.

So, he concludes, P1 is OK.

P2 is based on the First Principle, Identity. Identity means that a thing is limited to being itself and only itself. This, he says, means that all things are limited, so God, which must be infinite, cannot exist without contradicting the Principle of Identity which limits everything.

The second validation of P2 comes from the contradictions which are instantiated by an infinity. His examples are the O’s: omnipotence, omniscience, etc.

So, he concludes that he has proven that God does not exist. And then he gins up some rebuttals which he refutes.

Let’s take this in order.

First, the idea of infinitude in play here is a mechanical idea based in mass-energy space-time conceptualization used by Philosophical Materialists. The objection is absolutely demolished if the subject of other dimensions is broached, with our inability to conceive of them. So Special Pleading is not a valid complaint, if reality in other dimensions is the issue, and it is.

Second, the First Principles are based on our observation of our four dimensional universe, and in no way are intended to project outside or beyond our universe. So the use of Non-Contradiction and Identity to describe, define and limit existence of other dimension's characteristics is ill-conceived, and false.

(continued below)

Stan said...

(continued from above)

Third, even when using the First Principles in his argument, he compares God to “things” time and again. There is no theological argument of which I am aware which declares God to be a “thing” in the sense that God is encapsulated in mass-energy and space-time and subject to those material limitations. So the argument is against a position not held, and is a Category Error.

Fourth, no theology of which I am aware would argue that God is not limited. God is perceived to be limited to coherence, for a start. He can’t make circles square, or other silly requirements. So arguing that infinity leads to the paradoxes of the omni’s is a non-starter. The paradoxical deity is a favorite false argument of Atheists.

Fifth, Atheists like to argue for the many worlds or infinite universes, which means that despite its obvious anthropic characteristics, our universe just happened to be the one out of infinity that is friendly to life. If infinity is impossible, as dhorpatan argues, then the infinite universes is impossible. Which Atheist argument is more plausible, even if false? It is not dhorpatan's.

Sixth, dhorpatan even makes a lengthy claim based on Ockham’s Razor, which he takes as a law of the universe. It is not a law of the universe, and is not even fail-proof, as Einstein famously proved.

Seventh, dhorpatan claims that all things which exist, are contingent upon a cause. He does not address the cause for the universe, the cause for rationality, or the cause for the rational laws that govern the universe (or why there should even be laws at all). For example, why are there First Principles at all, and what are their source?

Eighth, he claims to have proven the non-existence of God empirically as well as logically, yet he offers exactly no hard, empirical evidence whatsoever in support of that claim.

Conclusion:
The use of First Principles and Ockham’s Razor to claim truths about the characteristics of existence outside and beyond our universe is a fail. Most Atheists claim that the nature of the interface between the existence of our universe and the existence beyond that cannot be shown, so it doesn’t even exist. But dhorpatan makes a different claim: he claims implicitly to know that the First Principles, ontologically, apply outside and beyond. But he offers no evidence to support that claim, other than the First Principles themselves. So he is claiming something that he cannot know, something that is an unlikely conjecture, and that renders his proof to be not a proof at all, but rather a faulty speculation based on poor understanding of what the First Principles represent.

Chris said...

Question.

What is the cause of the relatively recent appearance of what has been tagged "Neo-Atheism"? Is it primarily a response to the Christian Evangelical presence in the public square? Is it more connected to 9-11. Or is there a more general shift taking place among the intellectuals?

What's really going on?

Thoughts

Stan said...

The "New Atheism" is not an intellectual movement, although there are PhD's involved. They present no new arguments, and it's hard to think of anything new since Nietzsche, and maybe even Hume.

"New Atheism" is a marketing tool. It has become acceptable to be an unrepentant, irrascible foe of objective ethics, ever since the Greatest Generation came home from war, bred like rabbits, and indulged their precious children into narcissistic pestilences. Not all of them, of course, but enough of them that they could riot in the streets for "peace", and they could infest psychology professional organizations in order to legitimize homosexuality and wanton sex, culminating in unsupervised mixed dorms and televised prime time sex comedies.

The cultural shift away from personal responsibility toward hedonism has allowed the new culture of "omni-tolerance" to suppress the older culture of responsible discrimination in favor of personal character development. The combination of omni-tolerance and hedonism can make Atheism appear favorably to those who wish to have no external limits on themselves.

So now Atheism has taken on a group of press agents to blast the Atheist credo at the world, and those press agents are called the New Atheists. The only thing new is the loudness and obstreperousness of these people.

JFL said...

Do check out my playlist showing some short videos of these popular atheists using Atheist Logic™

Chris said...

Truth be told, I don't have much experience with atheists. From what I gather, they do not seem to be of lower moral stature than non-atheists- the classy "Bullhorn Two Tails" notwithstanding. Moreover, from what I know, the most illustrious of the clan of unbelief have, with some exceptions, exhibited high levels of personal virtue.

Nevertheless, I can't but help to think that the "anti-theology" of atheism has had, overall, a relatively corrosive effect on people's personal ethics. It would appear that folks today are basically more pleasure seeking than truth seeking.

We live in a civilization that is fundamentally commercial. Trade and commerce, in and of itself, is normal and necessary. But, in our times, business has become everything! There is nothing at all that cannot be turned into a product. The predominance of commodification, (even of people) is having a de-humanizing effect on our societies. Do you think that this development is more of a cause or more of a result of atheism?