You may comment here unimpeded, at least for awhile (a week I think). Comment away.
Please Note: If you place a word in all Capital Letters, the message will go to the spam folder and await moderation. All Caps is either shouting or advertisment. Google rules, not mine. For emphasis, use bold or italics.
43 comments:
Subjective morality can be improved, whereas objective morality is static.
If we uncover "objective morals" what is to say that what we uncover is not just the latest "subjective morals". That is to say, what means the latest and greatest moral lesson we uncover is not objective, but just the latest subjective.
Sorta like tasting milk chocolate and proclaiming it 'better' than semi-sweet, when previously it was unimaginable that anything could taste better than semi-sweet.
Look, if the external world is real, then why don't we all agree on what interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct?
Great question. I think the answer is because no one claims to have an internal compass pointing us in the direction towards the truth claim of QM, yet we all seem to have a conscience (although we agree that many people conscience is horribly skewed). Everyone claims to have some understand of morality. Theist argue this is a case for God. My question is why did God give psychopaths such a twisted view of what I consider moral? Free will doesn't seem to cover that.
The key term is "necessary" existence
What makes a god necessary? By the logic of the argument, if I can imagine a universe without a god, logically there must exist a universe without a god.
You are reciting the first cause argument. Some obvious objections? Who says the universe did not always exist? Why is a god exempt from the same standards of cause and effect? Plus all the same dilemma I posed to Stan.
1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
Yeah I totally am not arguing your response. That line was cut & pasted from the Ontological Argument. We seem to have reached a very similar conclusion.
Re: Link
Not exactly the question I thought you were referencing. I thought it would be a straight objective/subjective question.
Interesting survey to say the least. I think I agree that there must be a "best morality".
I've been reading some of Sam Harris' latest work and he does an excellent job of arguing for an objective morality. I just don't think it is the sort of objective morality most theists would argue for.
Accept or lean toward: atheism 109 / 139 (78.4%)
Just a result from the same survey that caught my eye. It wouldn't convince me at all, but you seem to put some stock in that survey.
This is true of anything. You might as well be a solipsist. All you have are your internal sensations. This was Descartes' problem.
Definitely not a solipsist. I think there is a better and worse morality. I just don't see how it is dictated by anything except that what we humans agree is better and worse.
If we take Harris' viewpoint and consider morality analogous to health, it stand to argue that we could uncover some ideal moral truths. I think it might open up a giant host of moral/philosophical issues as well though. Like is it okay to brutally murder an infant, in order to save the world? Sounds abhorrent to me, but at the same time, surely the health of the world must be considered a priority to the health of a single infant. At the least though, hopefully we could uncover some better, if not ultimate moral truths.
Free will is not a sufficient response that an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing god permits the existence of suffering, especially the gratuitous suffering we witness.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for sharing your p.o.v.
"The absolute can "contain" the relative, but the relative cannot "contain" the absolute. "
You seem to be saying that since we only perceive a fraction of reality, that there must therefore be a greater reality outside of our perception?
Well, yes of course.
However I would argue that human morality is only really applies to humans. Or perhaps other sentient beings.
Which implies that morality is relative (which it of course is), and that although there may be better moral answers, there is not necessarily an "objective morality".
Consider; if there are no humans, (or other sentients) does morality even apply?
If morality only exists through the perception of sentients, then is it not necessarily subjective?
In response to your statement about God and suffering: Its because libertarian free will doesn't exist. While William Craig, Alvin Plantinga, etc. are brilliant philosophers, logicians, etc.. it doesn't automatically equate to brilliant theology. As you have pointed out, saying we have libertarian free will with God makes the evil and suffering in our existence pointless and has no reason. This is especially bad seeing how God knew such evils were going to occur beforehand and still created and just permits it to happen without stopping it. This puts an unnecessary limit on God.
God decrees all things that come to pass. Evil and suffering in the world exists because it has a purpose. Both statements can be backed with scriptural references if we are arguing about Christianity and suffering. Of course I dont know the mind of God so I can't explain the purpose for every evil act. The reason why people get choked up on this is mainly emotional reasons and human reasoning. Two things that are not the standard for truth and are not trustworthy being fallible imperfect humans. This notion of "responsibility presupposes freedom" is not found in the Bible. This of course brings the objection that Paul refutes in Romans 9 specifically verses 18-21.
"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
Jerr,
I appreciate your gracious tone. OK, back to this morality business. I'd like to tango here, but its late so i need to be brief. Yes, the very nature of consciousness (the capacity for experience) is indeed subjective and therefore relative. But, I hope you can see why the claim "that man can never pass beyond human subjectivity is the most gratuitous and contradictory of hypotheses. If no one can transcend the conditions of his environment or go beyond the attitudes, biases, preconceptions, moods, and other refracting elements of his individual soul, who then defines this subjectivity as such?" - Cutsinger Univ S. Carolina
Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but that doesn't mean that beauty doesn't exist. Philosophical materialism essentially abolishes the human estate because it convinces us that our intellectual, aesthetic, and moral nature is no different than a fang or a colored feather. The scientistic understanding of reality really does "disqualify" the universe- at least for us.
"A dogmatic belief in objective VALUE is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery."
One more
"In other living creatures ignorance of self is nature, in man it is vice."
"Evil and suffering in the world exists because it has a purpose."
Yeah .. this is the theistic mindset I find repulsive.. that you can look a a picture of horrid suffering and think 'Yes, this is the will of my God, this is ultimately good.'
If God is all powerful, there is no 'other purpose' that necessitates the gratuitous suffering we witness.
If God 'hardens hearts' he removes our free will.
"Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
Sure, but don't tell me the potter is all-good and all-powerful when he makes some clay into children so they can be raped by his clerics.
Chris. I would not claim that beauty does not exist.
"Philosophical materialism essentially abolishes the human estate because it convinces us that our intellectual, aesthetic, and moral nature is no different than a fang or a colored feather."
I do not reach that conclusion. I find actually understanding the world increases its (subjective to me) value.
Flowers are pretty, but looking at a flower with the understanding of the history and biology involved seems to transcend "pretty" and leap towards "magnificent, fascinating, and remarkable."
Science can begin to explain HOW our moral, aesthetic and intellectual natures are different than a fang or coloured feather. It does not abolish these concepts.
Good thing the validity of a proposition isn't based off rather you like it or not subjectively.
Jeremy said "I do not reach that conclusion. i find actually understanding the world increases its (subjective to me) value. This is precisely the sticky point and it goes back to the point of this ENTIRE blog. You made reference to the magnificence of biology.And we could go on to chemistry and physics. Naturalism and evolution are rooted in philosophical materialism. This means that EVERYTHING is reducible to matter/energy space/time. Logically this forces us to conclude that truth, love, beauty, value, morality and even own precious selfhoods are, in truth, an illusion! This whole exchange is actually delusional because self aware autonomous entities are simply not possible if you regard mankind as essentially material.
Good thing my emotion revulsion towards your God concept wasn't my argument attempting to invalidate it then.
"If God is all powerful, there is no 'other purpose' that necessitates the gratuitous suffering we witness."
Must be that 'human reasoning' that is clouding my judgement.
Sorry Chris, you lost me. If everything is matter/energy then how does that make everything an illusion? Seems to reason that if everything is matter/energy, then everything is matter/energy.
How, if mankind is essentially material, does it follow that self-awareness is a delusion?
Continuing on Anonymouse's point that God already has a plan, hardens some hearts and softens others .. does that not actually do more to invalidate the concept of god-given free will than a materialistic viewpoint?
If there is no true free will, than how is free will an answer to the problem of evil?
I'm not wedded to philosophical materialism (science), it merely seems the best method (and only one with a consistent track record) of producing results.
In no way does it seem (subjectively to me) to make reality any less truthful, lovely, beautiful or precious. To the contrary, I have found it increases these emotions.
Which was exactly my point, that understanding increases the capacity for wonder, beauty, truth, etc.
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,'—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
Jeremy,
If we uncover "objective morals" what is to say that what we uncover is not just the latest "subjective morals".
Because then it would be like fashion. Fedoras are out, but they may come back in at some point. There is no sense that today's fashion is "better" than 1940. Just different. Change.
But we are slowly improving morality. Civil rights gained for blacks in the 1960s. Hopefully soon the same for homosexuals. Slavery is long gone. Anti-semitism is on the way out. Things are continually getting "better." If morality were subjective, then slavery would be like the fedoras of the 1940s: might come back into style again, because it's not really wrong.
What makes a god necessary? By the logic of the argument, if I can imagine a universe without a god, logically there must exist a universe without a god.
Perhaps you're not really imagining that, though. Can you imagine a tree that exists without having been produced by the pollen of two other trees? Can you imagine a lava rock that exists without having been formed by a volcano?
If the universe is contingent, and thus contingent upon something, then you can't imagine it existing without that cause because without the cause there would be no universe at all.
That line was cut & pasted from the Ontological Argument.
I'm not familiar with that version of the ontological argument. There are many variations. Plantinga's modal form is, I think, the most interesting and difficult to refute.
I presented and abbreviated version of it below.
I've been reading some of Sam Harris' latest work and he does an excellent job of arguing for an objective morality.
Sam Harris just presumes utilitarinism is true, with no argument. There are problems with his viewpoint, and he received quite a bit of criticism even from atheists: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=12020
Just a result from the same survey that caught my eye. It wouldn't convince me at all, but you seem to put some stock in that survey.
Most knowledge in your head is from experts. Did you actually go out and perform experiments that show common descent to be true, or do you believe it because that's what biologists tell you?
For that philosophy survey, you have to narrow it down to field. It was set on ethicists because I wanted to show how people who work in the field of ethical theory are mostly moral objectivists. If you want to know about God, switch it over to philosophers of religion. You'll find that 72% are theists, compared with 19% as atheists. These are the people most familiar with the arguments for God.
While I'm not a theist, this does tell me that there is a much better case for theism than you may think and their arguments are worthy of consideration. If you are familiar with the history of Western philosophy, you'll find that there has been a tremendous flip flop from atheism to theism within philosophy since about 1960.
Free will is not a sufficient response that an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing god permits the existence of suffering, especially the gratuitous suffering we witness.
I already said that you misunderstand the free will defense. The purpose of the free will defense is to resolve a logical contradiction. To do this it does not have to be plausible or even agreeable. It just needs to be conceivable. And it is conceivable that God would have a morally outweighing purpose in permitting some evil, thus, there is no logical contradiction between God and evil.
Martin,
While I agree that slavery is horrible and wrong, you seem to be saying that if it arises again, it would validate subjective morality.
It may therefore interest you to know that despite the mass realization and zeitgeist shift, human trafficking is still a very real problem in the modern world.
You also hear people constantly bemoaning the moral failings of the modern world. Kids these days. Really. No respect for their elders. They just want to do drugs and fuck.
On the other hand I would agree that overall morality is improving. But I still fail to see how without sentient beings, morality obviously exists. (ie: it is objective)
Perhaps you're not really imagining that, though.
But I am. I can imagine a volcanic rock magically forming from the ether at the whim of a wizard too, (I have a fantastic imagination) it in no way validates the claim that this is true.
Even if the universe is contingent, what makes the contingency the will of God? What makes a god necessary and not the contingent upon the will of a super-god?
Yeah, I can be critical of Harris too, it doesn't mean that he doesn't make some excellent points. It seems most of the criticism is because morality is such a loosely defined term. He does address this by comparison of 'health' which is also a loosely defined term, yet few would argue that we have no scientific basis to argue that one health choice my be superior to another.
I think if you are a religious philosopher you would be rather predisposed towards theism rather than atheism.
You are not a theist? So you agree that you find all these arguments for theism unconvincing?
Free will is not a logical escape from the paradox of an omniscient, omnipotent, all-good deity.
Plantinga's defense completely ignores the gratuitous amount of suffering that arises from causes other than the intentioned actions of sentient creatures.
It ignores the concept of 'heaven' which the theist pictures as a realm of pure good. Thus it is possible for good to exist without evil.
It also presupposes that suffering is preferable to determinism.
Sorry, if God has some morally outweighing purpose in permitting some evil, he cannot be all-good, for then evil would also arise from him. He also cannot be all-powerful, because then he could create good without creating evil. Also he would have no need of suffering for the 'greater good', being all-powerful.
And so I think it does fail both logically and plausibly.
Jeremy said "If man is essentially material, how does it follow that self awareness is an illusion." Evolutionist materialism tells us that non-consciousness gives rise to consciousness. Consciousness and intelligence is "emergent." To me, that's like pulling a rabbit out of an empty hat. It's illogical to believe that the greater can proceed from the lesser. The acorn gives rise to the oak tree because it already "is" an oak tree. The acorn is not some nondescript "unicellular organ" or an amoeba.
"Karl Stern, a psychiatrist with great insight, has commented thus: If we present, for the sake of argument, the theory of evolution in a most scientific formulation, we have to say something like this: At a certain moment of time the temperature of the Earth was such that it became most favorable for the aggregation of carbon atoms and oxygen with nitrogen-hydrogen combination, and that from random occurrences of large clusters molecules occurred which were most favorably structured for the coming about of life , and from that point it went on through vast stretches of time, until through processes of natural selection a being finally occurred which is capable of choosing love over hate and justice over injustice, of writing poetry like that of Dante, composing music like Mozart, and making drawings like those of Leonardo." Of course, such a view of cosmogenesis is crazy. And I do not at all mean crazy in the sense of slangy invective but rather in the technical meaning of psychotic. Indeed such a view has much in common with certain aspects of schizophrenic thinking."
You see, "evolutionism, turns scientific methodology into a faith which excludes, ex hypothesi, the possibility of all higher grades of significance. The whole of nature , which obviously includes mankind, is taken as the product of chance and necessity and NOTHING ELSE; there is neither meaning nor purpose nor intelligence in it- " a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing." This is THE FAITH, and all contradicting observations have to be either ignored or interpreted in such a way that The Faith is upheld" - EF Schumacher
That survey response is pretty cool. I've been flipping through it .. it seems the responses from every field are overwhelmingly atheistic, apart from philosophy of religion.
Even from categories like Metaphysics and Metaphilosophy.
Probability: 69.4%
Physical Science: 70.3%
Mathematics: 67.6%
Overall:
God: theism or atheism?
Accept or lean toward: atheism 2136 / 3226 (66.2%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 599 / 3226 (18.5%)
Other 491 / 3226 (15.2%)
Anywho, I don't find surveys to be convincing arguments, but interesting reading.
Chris, I see a massive difference between an emergent property and an illusion.
An acorn is not an oak tree. Although it has the potential to be one. If an oak tree is 'greater' than an acorn, then we see the greater emerging from the lesser all the time.
Stern seems to basically be saying "If God isn't real, I don't want to live!" Sorry, not an argument.
Are you implying that you don't accept evolutionary theory?
I don't think I want to get into attempting to demonstrate the truth value of evolution. Maybe google "Project Steve"?
Check out "observed instances of speciation"?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Also, Schumacher's main argument against evolution seems to be that abiogenesis hasn't been proven. Abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary theory. Even Schumacher concedes that evolution as a descriptive science has been established beyond any doubt whatsoever.
If you could falsify evolution, you'd win the Nobel Prize hands down.
... Sigh, and here I am arguing for the truth claim of evolution.
Here check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Emergence actually seems a fairly common phenomenon.
Back to being 'self aware' .. Decartes. "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am." No god required.
btw its a bit hard to read your posts. Could you break up the paragraphs a bit? Thanks.
Jeremy and/or To whom it may concern,
Help me out here. Being neither a scientist nor a logician, here's the problem as i see it.
According to philosophical materialism, consciousness has its source in the brain. (No matter, no consciousness.) The brain, being material, can be explained in terms of biology...chemistry... and ultimately physics.
How can a true free agent actually exist in this fundamentally deterministic worldview? That's what i meant when i said that "self-awareness" is, in truth, an illusion.
Cheers
Chris,
This is a common argument of Philosophical Materialists. There must be a cause for every effect. So the effects of consciousness, free will, self-awareness etc. must have a physical cause. Presumably the physical cause comes from activity of the neurons, which precedes any mental realization of that activity. So consciousness, free will, self-awareness, etc. are effects which are second order to the cause, which again, is neural activity.
If free will, for example, existed, then the non-physical mind would produce a cause which pre-exists the neural activity, making the neural activity the effect, rather than the cause.
This would make the non-physical mind an "uncaused causer", which by definition is not allowed. The "uncaused causer" also violates entropy in a somewhat oblique fashion.
Because the mind cannot be allowed to exist as a non-physical entity, the materialist conclusions reached are paradoxical and non-coherent: Their claims are made under conditions of total determinism without any free will; this means that there is no rational meaning attached to them because rationality is a free will dependent concept.
The obvious existence of free will is explained as an illusion. If this is the case, and we believe the illusion, then it is a delusion, one that is shared by nearly everyone.
The delusion idea is easily defeated; purposeful actions due to bioelelectric discharges are not observed anywhere else in nature, and are not expected in the brain/mind either. The belief in totally predetermined mind is a failed concept which derives necessarily from Materialist Atheism.
The ancillary concept that massive physical complexity breeds emergent non-physical properties is unproven and unfalsifiable, so it is not an empirically justifiable claim. Under those limitations it is seen to be a belief system that is not justified with fact, but is justified with fables.
Stan,
"physical complexity breeds emergent non-physical properties."
These are the kind of claims that make my jaw drop. "Emergence" offers zero explanatory power. To me, the law of sufficient reason is blatantly violated. It seems that when something cannot be effectively explained the "experts" just say "this is what 'naturally' happens.
I'm just flabbergasted that the best and brightest can seriously be OK with this stance. I would say that there are four (4) ontological leaps that the scientific community are no where close to explaining .
First, nothing.....something
Second, dead matter......life
Third, life.......consciousness
Fourth, cosciousness......Self-consciousness.
The project of developing a TOE within a PM framework, is like trying to explain night and day without reference to the sun. I often wonder, who are the folks that really hold magical and credulous beliefs.
How can a theist trust his own judgments if his mind is completely unconstrained by any rules? Doesn't this necessitate that all of his thoughts are random disconnected nonsense? How then can such a person trust that his conclusions about the universe are accurate, since what he believes and interprets is NOT governed by any laws? How does such unconstrained rambling produce truth and proper logical inference? If the theist cannot answer this, then it demonstrates his worldview has serious problems.
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/
Brains actually are explained in physical terms. To my knowledge, no neuroscientist has proclaimed that God is necessary for the brain to work.
No one is a "true free agent". Like it or not, we are actually bound by physical laws, and the choices we make are restricted by them. To reject this is to reject reality.
But of course we have free will - we have no other choice.
Chris, these concepts can become extremely complicated and layered. If you are genuinely interested I would suggest googling such terms as:
"How can something come from nothing"
"Life from chemicals"
"Nature of consciousness"
And actually find out what the scientists in those fields have to say on the subject.
I suspect you will find their opinions grounded in observable reality and are completely lacking in magical thinking.
Chris- and others-
You would probably like Berlinski's book "The Devil's Delusion- Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions". It covers cosmology and biology very well.
Shoot- more to say - interruption...
Jeremy said,
”Brains actually are explained in physical terms.”
Brains are not yet actually explained. They are a constantly changing aggregate of billions of neurons, transferring bioelectric ionic charges amongst themselves, while constantly rewiring themselves.
Like the hardware on the mother board in your computer, the physical construct does not explain the operation of the software, much less the meaning content of the information being transferred through the hardware by the software. Nor does it explain the source of the software: the mind.
Monitoring blood flow to various areas of the brain is like saying that “information is being processed in processor “ 487D”. It does not address the actuality of the mind, nor does it eliminate the need to address the mind as a non-physical entity.
”No one is a "true free agent". Like it or not, we are actually bound by physical laws, and the choices we make are restricted by them. To reject this is to reject reality.”
No one that I have read has ever made the claim that they are free of their environment, their genes, etc. The argument from “physical laws” is an argument against a proposition that is not being made. Free will does not state that today I shall disobey gravity. The concept of free will states that I am free to cause a great many things to happen, within the boundaries of physical natural law and, to some extent, common law. This is the free will that also allows rational thought, decisions about what is valid and non-valid, ethical and non-ethical, true and false, as well as how to build a more reliable tractor or more comprehensive computer system.
The fight against free will of the sort that denies the boundaries of natural law is a Red Herring. This is the position of some of the "New Atheists", who claim that all free will is an illusion due to total determinism of cause and effect. Free Will cannot be allowed, philosophically, if it means that a person is an uncaused causer due to the possession of a mind that is not physically caused. Humans are obviously causers: skyscrapers and ipods do not cause themselves. So the claim must be made that the human mind and its consequences are fully caused, but the argument itself restricts to boundary conditions of natural law. The argument is superfluous to the idea that the human mind is an uncaused causer.
Now if the argument is made that every decision is a predetermined physical collision of the four forces of nature, or that the mind-illusion of free will is a predetermined physical collision of the four forces of nature, then we have something to discuss that would actually be pertinent to the subject. But I have yet to see that case being made.
”But of course we have free will - we have no other choice.”
We do not “choose” to have free will.
”Chris, these concepts can become extremely complicated and layered. If you are genuinely interested I would suggest googling such terms as:
…
And actually find out what the scientists in those fields have to say on the subject.
I suspect you will find their opinions grounded in observable reality and are completely lacking in magical thinking.”
This is not an argument, it is a blatant Appeal to Authority Fallacy, in this case faceless scientists: an exercise in Scientism where the actual science, its range, its limits, and the probability of the validity of specific findings are not referenced. Rather, it is a religious sort of reference to the presumed authority of science over logic which is used. Science is not the final word… ever; science produces only contingent factoids which are subject to change. The history of science shows this conclusively, as we can discuss if you wish.
The term “magical thinking” is a pejorative (Ad Hominem) with no actual meaning within an argument. An actual statement of false thinking would include the statement, an analysis of its meaning, its logical basis, and whatever fallacy might apply. In the manner which it is used here, it appears to be a general term of deprecation applied to any non-physical entity or interaction which science agrees that is non-measurable. I.e. it is another assertion of the Scientism fallacy.
It should be noted that science is more open and honest than is scientism, in that science admits to unmeasurable unknowns as a boundary condition to its purview (falsification); scientism does not.
"The Darwinian theory of evolution reflects in various ways, and as considered in its several particulars, each of the more or less typical tendencies of modern critical thinking: it is by turns empiricistic, materialistic, reductionistic, historicistic, nominalistic, and relativistic.....
Let us be clear. The evolutionism which must be repudiated is in no sense the claim that there has been a sequence in the appearance of the forms of life on this planet, nor that changes have occurred and continue to occurr in the physical constitution of the various species of plants and animals, for these facts, to the degree that the data of sense can provide us with "facts", are amply attested to....
What must be rejected instead is the attempt to explain such changes in strictly physical terms as if that explanation accounted not only for intra- specific differences between individual organisms, but for the existence and variety of species as such, and as if those species had developed ex nihilo from the simple to the complex, with the inanimate giving rise to the animate, the animate to the sentient, and the sentient to the self-conscious- the last of which must clearly be first in any intelligible causational series.
Efforts to desribe physical phenomena at the level of empirically observable causes alone are one thing, and are as useful in certain limited cases as they are unobjectionable. But it is quite another to insist, as the more hyperbolic of Darwinians often do, that an empirical explanation renders all other accounts of the same phenomena impossible, or that it can account in addition for the origin of non-empirical realities, or (worst of all) that it somehow proves that only such things exist as can be empirically measured..."
-James Cutsinger
cutsinger.net/pdf/earth_as_it_is_in_heaven.pdf
OK-
The idea that there is no free will is a remnant from the days before quantum mechanics. In the Newtonian universe everything was determined (including the future). Therefore it is clear that there could be no free will (as it could not effect the outcome of anything--Occam's razor). With the advent of quantum mechanics it was realized that the universe was not completely determined- the door was open for free will.
Here is a short version of the change in thinking--
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1954/born-speech.html
Since that time there have been a great many brilliant mathematicians and scientists who have tried to find a deterministic description that fits our experience (Literally billions of 'genius man-hours' have been spent). What they have come up with is the multiverse and the landscape and string theory- all of which need enumerable unseeable, immeasurable entities. None of which answer the question, "Why do I experience this?"
I would call this a failure myself, but I'm not wedded to the idea that the universe must be determined by the physical facts.
So science has not found there is free will, but science has not found there isn't free will. Currently, when an experiment is done that includes the choice of the experimenter (a delayed choice experiment, fro example) the choices are considered free because there is no math that will predict it. So the default position is that there is free choice.
To deny this is to deny factual scientific practice.
The book I mentioned (Berlinski's Devil's Delusion) does a fine job with pointing out the faults in current cosmology and evolution-- I'm sure you would enjoy the read.
Stan, I suspect you know as much about the workings of the brain as you do your computer.
Computers do indeed operate on a physical principal. The data and operations of them are completely physical in nature. 1s & 0s. Plastic and metal.
Point out a neuroscientist that says otherwise. You back up your assertions. Show me a single example of a non-physical mind.
The concept of free will states that I am free to cause a great many things to happen, within the boundaries of physical natural law and, to some extent, common law.
And just who is disputing this? Not I.
We do not “choose” to have free will.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. What are you arguing here?
This is not an argument, it is a blatant Appeal to Authority Fallacy, in this case faceless scientists:
Blah blah blah. It was not an argument, it was an encouragement for him to actually look into the arguments that experts in the field are making. I did NOT say "scientists say this, therefore its right."
I'm quite aware the answer to some of these questions may simply be "I do not know." I'm also quite certain none of the answers will be "goddidit".
The term “magical thinking” is a pejorative (Ad Hominem) with no actual meaning within an argument.
I'm assuming you are directing this at me, although it was Chris who first leveled the charge of magical thinking. I did not accuse theists of magical thinking, I said science is not guilty of such.
Have you ever correctly identified a fallacy?
Obviously theists use magical thinking all the time. For example the believe that an incantation, in the form of a prayer, allows them to create a physical change. ie: "God please feed the hungry and bring about world peace."
The very definition of magical thinking.
Stan, you are literally making up positions no one holds to argue against.
Chris,
Your quote basically says "yeah evolution is true, but it still can't explain abiogenesis, continental drift, the creation of the universe or the nature of consciousness."
Evolution never makes the claim it can explain these mysteries. It's like smugly pointing out the theory of gravity is wrong because it doesn't explain how hurricanes form.
Furthermore, it does not render other explanations impossible simply on the basis that evolution is true, but because these other explanations are contrary to observable evidence. For instance the claim of a garden of eden, the earth being 6-10 thousand years old, etc etc.
Jeremy/Stan,
I did make the magical thinking Ad Hominen remark. Apologies.
Regarding evolution-
Here are two specific problems--
1) The 'ring species' is supposed to be a perfect example of evolution -- Richard Dawkins- ring species "are only showing us in the spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time dimension."
But in each case of the examples found on Earth, the creatures that close the ring can and do mate. (The fact they couldn't was the proof of evolution when I was taught the subject- the fact they can and do does not falsify the theory--as nothing could)
So the best example of my youth is not an example at all--hummm.
Next test- junk DNA. Of course DNA produced by Darwinian means would include many false starts, trial and error junk. So the prediction was there was Lots of junk DNA.
The "design" people thought that there should be little or no junk.
The more we know, the less junk there is. Hummmm.
I could go on, but why?
Sonic,
I said I thought we do have free will. I believe this based completely on personal experience and anecdotal evidence. I have no idea who you are attempting to refute.
Berlinski says he is skeptical of evolution for a number of reasons, including the appearance "at once" of an astonishing number of novel biological structures in the Cambrian explosion, the lack of major transitional fossils transitional sequences, the lack of recent significant evolution in sharks, the evolution of the eye, and (in his view) the failure of evolutionary biology to explain a range of phenomena ranging from the sexual cannibalism of redback spiders to why women are not born with a tail.
Holy hell, this guy is an idiot.
The Cambrian Explosion is 10 millions years. Not 'at once'. And it's because cyanobacteria cranked up the oxygen which is like rocket fuel for life.
There are MILLIONS of transitional fossils, including hominid ones. Not to mention the genetic evidence.
There are excellent examples of how the eye evolves (it is not irreducibly complex).
To be honest, I know nothing about redback spiders, current shark evolution or why women don't have tails. Must be god, eyeroll.
Chris,
No apology required. I'd just genuinely suggest that you look into what the experts say and draw your objections and conclusions based off that.
Sonic,
It sounds like you don't understand the nature of 'ring species'. Of course the specimens found next to each other can mate, it is the species at opposite ends of the ring which cannot. Thus providing an observable example of speciation.
Junk DNA was a label applied to portions of a genome sequence with no discernible function. The more we know, the less junk there is because we know what it does.
There are an infinite number of things which could falsify evolution. The most famous of which is "rabbits in the pre-Cambrian". Also a monkey giving birth to a human. A bull crossed with a frog. Pretty much any creationist parody of evolution would actually falsify evolution if true.
What do we see instead? A consistent fossil record, a consistent genetic record. Observed instances of speciation. Modern biology and medicines that without evolutionary theory make no sense.
Need I go on? I can, and the reason would be to reduce the amount of ignorance in the world just a tiny bit more.
Might I ask what would falsify theism to your standard of evidence?
I'd also like to address at this point that I feel I've rebutted about a dozen different arguments for god. We are now back to evolution. If god is real, some burden of proof must rest on the person making this claim. I've yet to hear a single even mildly convincing argument to validate this claim. To his credit, Stan's First Cause Argument was the best. But it's been around since Aquinas in the 13th century. I think our understanding of reality has improved considerably since then.
Jeremy said,
” Stan, I suspect you know as much about the workings of the brain as you do your computer.”
An unwarranted and false insult. Ad Hominem. I must warn you here that I will not tolerate any more of your usual fare of arrogant insults.
” Computers do indeed operate on a physical principal. The data and operations of them are completely physical in nature. 1s & 0s. Plastic and metal.”
Computers transfer information in the form of ones and zeros, information which the computer has no understanding, information which is embedded within the code and requires an external intelligence to understand, not to mention to put in the information queue in the first place. The computer is physical; the information and the utility of the computer are not.
” Point out a neuroscientist that says otherwise. You back up your assertions. Show me a single example of a non-physical mind.”
The assertion being made is that minds are physical. It is up the owner of that assertion to show an actual physical mind, in a physical fashion: extract a thought for examination.
Ordering me to do something is a tedious example of an arrogance that is not acceptable here.
” I did NOT say "scientists say this, therefore its right."
What you said implied that any other concept is “magical thinking”, which is a definition of not right.
” Have you ever correctly identified a fallacy?”
Another baseless insult. If an incorrect fallacy has been shown, then show why it is not a fallacy.
” Obviously theists use magical thinking all the time. For example the believe that an incantation, in the form of a prayer, allows them to create a physical change. ie: "God please feed the hungry and bring about world peace."
The very definition of magical thinking.”
The subject at hand is Free Will, not what some Theists might or might not think or do. You have changed the goal posts, deflected the argument. Red Herring; Tu Quoque.
” Stan, you are literally making up positions no one holds to argue against.”
Daniel Dennett does hold the arguments I argued against, one that you seemed to defend in your open ended defense of Free Will and Reality. The argument comes from not only the New Atheists, but from philosophers who deny acausal free will along with the existence of a “self”, the value of consciousness as anything but a repository for already accomplished thoughts prior to storage in memory. You are dodging issues by making false charges, just as you have always done. If you cannot argue without insults and arrogance, then your time here is very limited.
p.s. apology noted re: magical thinking.
I'd also like to address at this point that I feel I've rebutted about a dozen different arguments for god.
You have, huh?
The First Cause Argument is not an argument for God. It is an argument against Atheism.
I do not make arguments for a deity because it is clear that the ideologically constricted mind will never, ever accept any theodological argument. The closed mind can always construct rationalized arguments against any possible theodological argument, and will by far prefer to believe the rationalization.
Stan,
An Ad Hom is when you insult the person rather than addressing the argument. If you insult someone AND address their argument, it is simply an insult and not an Ad Hom fallacy. This is an example of you incorrectly identifying a fallacy.
The computer is physical; the information and the utility of the computer are not.
The information is physical. It is 1s and 0s. It can be physically copied, transfer, read, etc.
extract a thought for examination.
My thoughts are all over this thread. Which of course you won't accept because ....? Is it my thought? Yes. Can you examine it? Yes. Seems to meet the criteria.
What you said implied that any other concept is “magical thinking”, which is a definition of not right.
No I did not. I was responding to Chris' comment that "who's doing the magical thinking" with "I suspect you will find their opinions grounded in observable reality and are completely lacking in magical thinking." Is my writing so unclear?
^^ Free will not mentioned there. Subject was magical thinking.
All that has been said about free will is that atheist claim it is an illusion (your assertion) and my repeated claim that I believe in free will. There is no argument regarding free will occurring whatsoever.
Daniel Dennett does hold the arguments I argued against, one that you seemed to defend in your open ended defense of Free Will and Reality
I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven't read much Dennet at all.
Also, pretty much every theist prays. You want to use Dennet's position against me but want to reject the theistic concept of prayer? Real consistent.
p.s. apology noted re: magical thinking.
It's okay, we all make mistakes. To err is human, to forgive divine.
You are dodging issues by making false charges, just as you have always done.
Make a numbered list of each point you think I've dodged and will address each in turn.
Martin,
Oh burn.
I thought you weren't coming back. We left it:
Can morality exist without sentient beings? Ie Is it objective?
Can God truly be Omniscience, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent?
I'm pretty sure I shredded both arguments. Nothing saying you can't object.
Oh, also this
You are not a theist? So you agree that you find all these arguments for theism unconvincing?
Can God truly be Omniscience, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent?
All right, this is a good starting point, as it's in line with Stan's basic thesis that atheists need to justify their position.
But it needs to be in the form of a formal argument. What is the argument?
Jeremy said,
”An Ad Hom is when you insult the person rather than addressing the argument. If you insult someone AND address their argument, it is simply an insult and not an Ad Hom fallacy. This is an example of you incorrectly identifying a fallacy.”
Your position is incorrect. From the Fallacy Files (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html):
“A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.”
” The information is physical. It is 1s and 0s. It can be physically copied, transfer, read, etc.”
If information is the meaning that is being transferred using ones and zeroes as states within a medium, the information (meaning) is non-physical.
” extract a thought for examination.
My thoughts are all over this thread. Which of course you won't accept because ....? Is it my thought? Yes. Can you examine it? Yes. Seems to meet the criteria.”
Tokens and symbols which are used to represent a thought are not the thought itself. If the mind is physical, then the actual primary thought must also be physical and able to be observed in a primary fashion.
” ^^ Free will not mentioned there. Subject was magical thinking.
All that has been said about free will is that atheist claim it is an illusion (your assertion) and my repeated claim that I believe in free will. There is no argument regarding free will occurring whatsoever.”
Here is what you said and what I responded to:
”No one is a "true free agent". Like it or not, we are actually bound by physical laws, and the choices we make are restricted by them. To reject this is to reject reality.
But of course we have free will - we have no other choice.”
Now you claim not to have made an argument.
” I have no idea what you are talking about.”
Then arguing Free Will is probably not your forte’.
” Also, pretty much every theist prays. You want to use Dennet's position against me but want to reject the theistic concept of prayer? Real consistent.”
This has no basis in fact. I did not reject theist praying. I rejected your use of that in an argument that had no reason to address praying.
”Make a numbered list of each point you think I've dodged and will address each in turn.”
Put numbers on the false charges and statements which I have written above.
I caution against the use of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence in arguing for or against a deity. Here's why: Theist scholars argue first for a coherent deity. Any characteristics that are attributed to a deity must be coherent first, and if the characteristics can be shown to be non-coherent (internally contradictory), then they do not apply to the deity in a manner that is "omni" in nature.
For example, there is a tension between benevolence and justice, as concepts. An omnibenevolent being might be considered one which grants every wish, while a just being would not. And the common paradox, "can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it", is another non-coherence.
Defeating the three O's does not constitute a defeat for the existence of a deity; it does mean the defeat of ecclesiasts who insist on their application to a deity. Not all ecclesiastical dogma can be valid, and perhaps none of it is - certainly in the sense of comprehending the composition and characteristics of a being living in dimensions foreign and incomprehensible to us.
Theist scholars which I have read do not claim omni- anything; rather they point to a very powerful, very knowledgeable, very benevolent and very just entity, rather than omni.
Martin,
Why does the argument need to be in a formal format? You have expressed the argument and are aware of my objections as expressed above.
An all powerful, all loving, all knowing god is a paradox. My specific objections to Plantinga are above.
Really Martin, I would like to hear an argument you find convincing. If these arguments do not convince you, why should they convince anyone else?
Stan,
Noting that you know about as much of brains as computers is directly related to the topic at hand. It was not an attempt to avoid the argument, and in fact I addressed it directly. If you insist on being distracted by this perceived insult then I suggest you ignore it and focus on the actual relevant points.
If information is the meaning that is being transferred using ones and zeroes as states within a medium, the information (meaning) is non-physical.
What? Did you write that accurately? The information is in the form of 1s and 0s. The 1s and 0s are physically present on a physical storage medium. Where (and when) does meaning enter into it? Yes it might mean something to a sentient being who reads it ... I have no idea what your point is.
Then arguing Free Will is probably not your forte’.
No its not my forte. I also have no objections to the concept of free will as you have described. You are insisting on arguing about it because??
Prayer is directly related to magical thinking. That is what I was addressing.
Put numbers on the false charges and statements which I have written above.
Now who's dodging?
The First Cause Argument is not an argument for God. It is an argument against Atheism.
This makes no sense. Nice though that you admit there is no argument that will convince anyone with a rational mind.
Jeremy,
Right now I'm talking only about arguments against theism, not arguments for it. You say that there is a paradox in the idea of God. I want to hear your argument.
The reason it needs to be formal is to check for the two ingredients of a successful argument: logical validity, and true premises.
If it's buried in language, it's too difficult to tell if it is successful or not.
Martin,
I'll lay it out but I don't think it's quite possible to do so without multiple subclauses which may just bury it language anyways.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
The reply is the 'free will' escape clause. My objects to that reply are above.
Free will is not a logical escape from the paradox of an omniscient, omnipotent, all-good deity.
Plantinga's defense completely ignores the gratuitous amount of suffering that arises from causes other than the intentioned actions of sentient creatures.
It ignores the concept of 'heaven' which the theist pictures as a realm of pure good. Thus it is possible for good to exist without evil.
It also presupposes that suffering is preferable to determinism.
Sorry, if God has some morally outweighing purpose in permitting some evil, he cannot be all-good, for then evil would also arise from him. He also cannot be all-powerful, because then he could create good without creating evil. Also he would have no need of suffering for the 'greater good', being all-powerful.
And so I think it does fail both logically and plausibly.
February 4, 2011 12:50 PM
Jeremy said,
"This makes no sense. Nice though that you admit there is no argument that will convince anyone with a rational mind."
That is not what I said, of course. This is your last insult, and your last misrepresentation.
You are banned from this blog. Your remarks will be removed.
Folks,
I am removing Jeremy from this blog. Jeremy is unable to make direct arguments without insults and arrogant projections accompanied by total misrepresentations of what has been said. This is indicative of a dishonesty that is too deep to reach through in a forum of civilized discourse. Such a person has the intent of disrupting without making any real attempt at rational analysis. In this case, the disruption ceases now. All comments will be monitored for awhile.
Stan
Sorry- I wrote this before I read the ban (not a bad idea).
Jeremy-
So don't read Berlinski's his book, read a strawman review and comment on that. What is the point of that?
You are making up evidence that does not exist. If you can give me a reference that claims a million transitional fossils please do.
If you can give a reference that shows how the eye evolved- please do.
What genetic evidence are you referring to?
If you don't think the fossil record is a problem for theories of evolution why this?--
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21
Jeremy- the claim is that the species at the joining of the ring would not be able to mate. Please read some of this stuff before making obviously incorrect statements.
Have you ever looked at the definition of 'ghost lineage'? This is how the fact that many fossils are found out of order is dealt with in practice.
Yes, it was Aquinas who suggested that it was logical that the universe had a beginning (this is based on the premise of a creator) You might notice that the philosophy of materialism suggested that the universe had no beginning.
Please review the work of Hoyle and his feeling about the Big Bang (a name he coined).
Post a Comment