Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FFT*: Charles unmasks the anti-ID trollish tactic of attacking God, Christian values and worldview themes

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a current thread on SJW invasions in engineering education,  in which yet another anti-ID commenter crosses over into troll territory, Charles does a very important worldviews and cultural agendas dissection. One, that is well worth headlining as *food for thought (as opposed to a point by point across-the-board endorsement):

Charles, 51>>The point of the original post was that Engineering was being contaminated with Social Justice Warrior values & viewpoints. As any engineer knows, what makes engineering “Engineering” is the rigorous adherence to physical reality, analysis, and testing to design something that is reliably fit for purpose. As the author’s article at American Conservative elaborates, Prof. Riley’s SJW viewpoint is the antithesis of sound Engineering. kairosfocus summarized this point with his comment that:

“Bridges gotta stand up under load.”

[Troll X’s]  snide and dismissive comment that

”How’s that [bridges needing to stand up under load] working out for ID?”

juxtaposed civil engineering with ID, impugning that ID was not Engineering. That is a fallacious comparison on several levels, not least of which is Engineering’s maturity born of hundreds of years of applied science, advancing technology, and development of best practices, contrasted with ID in its relative infancy, as well as engineering being all about “how to design” versus ID which endeavors to reduce to practice the “recognition of design”.

Implicit in [Troll X’s] comment is the presumption that evolution (or materialism or atheism) has a laudable track record over ID similar to engineering. As if to say “evolution” is a successful, testable, reliable theory like “engineering”, whereas ID is an engineering failure.

But evolution has no such track record of theoretical success. Modern evolution doesn’t even have a theory that makes testable predictions, and moreover, all of Darwinian evolution’s predictions (such as transition forms will be found in the geologic record)) have all failed, which I likened to engineering failures in my response to [Troll X]:

As compared to Darwinian Evolution’s collapsed bridges, toppled buildings, crashed airplanes and lack of repeatable, testable theory?

john_a_designer then affirms that [Troll X] hadn’t thought through the implications of his atheism, namely that atheism is bankrupt and contributes nothing intellectually, summed up as

“Haven’t we been told that atheism is “just disbelief”?”

Indeed.

At which point, I elaborated that while atheists claim they “just disbelieve”, atheists are not content with just disbelieving. That in fact, atheists fear and worry they are wrong as evidenced by the effort they put out to convince “believers” that there is no evidence for their belief in God or Jesus Christ.

When someone “just disbelieves” there is little or no concern attached to the disbelief. I gave the example of disbelieving in a flat earth. When someone argues the earth is flat, the atheist might criticize that belief and show a space station picture of our spherical green, blue and white “marble”, but they don’t define themselves by their disbelief – they don’t call themselves “aflatearthers”, they don’t write volumes on the philosophy of aflatearthism, they don’t dedicate websites to flatearth skepticism, they don’t spend countless man-years holding flatearthers up to ridicule. No. They shrug, and move on.

As wrong headed as flatearthers are, why don’t disbelievers define themselves as “aflatearthers” and lobby for flatearth beliefs to be eliminated from society? Because they don’t care, because they have a confidence born of evidence and experience that the earth is round, and flatearth arguments just don’t matter.

But atheists define themselves as A-Theists – against, without, absent, sans, theism. They invariably in social or political gatherings are self-compelled to declare, to signal, their atheistic world view and how it is self-evident to be intellectually superior over Christians in specific and over religionists in general (cowards that they are, they rarely take specific exception with Muslims or Islam). And atheists write volumes about their self-labeled viewpoint, they fill libraries, they write textbooks, they lobby legislatures, they put signs on buses, all to advance their self-defined atheistic world view. They are very concerned and discontent about their disbelief.

Why?

Because they are intellectually threatened. Because “The Enlightenment” and atheism’s ascendancy is over. Back in the day, when we didn’t know about the Big Bang, when we didn’t know how the universe was fine-tuned for our life, when we didn’t know how exquisitely mechanized are cellular functions, when we didn’t know that DNA and RNA were actually huge complex information programs densely encoded in precisely folded chemical molecules that have no natural tendency to otherwise so organize themselves (let alone replicate and error correct), and then there is the little matter of human consciousness. Back then being an atheist was easy, almost automatic. It was easy to say “random chance did it” – but that was an ignorant and arrogant presumption.

Today, the materialist, the atheist, has no answer for any of that. They have a multitude of speculations, yes, but no engineering-like understanding or scientific theories that make testable predictions. Evolutionary “theory” in all its claims (setting aside its failures) has nothing like our level of understanding of relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry, or information theory. In fact the scientists who are expert in those subjects [—> will often] acknowledge that “chance” could not have begun our fine-tuned universe or life.

The modern atheist is forced into special pleading for a multi-verse, that free-will is imaginary and then piggyback on Christian morality as they have no basis in their own materialism to justify good or evil other than personal preference in any particular situation. About all of which, they could be complacent if it weren’t for Christian theists.

While the atheist has no defense against the failure of science to prove a multiverse or that life arose from inert chemicals, the Christian has an affirmative argument for what the atheist can’t prove. The Bible records that God made the Heavens and Earth, ex nihilo (the Big Bang), created life with consciousness and morality, and gave us free will to love and obey God, or not. Only the Christian is so audacious as to confront atheism directly.

Hence the atheist or materialist drive to remove Christian prayer from schools, thought from universities, and gatherings from public places. And the atheist was not content to merely suppress Christian viewpoints, but now seeks to impose atheist behavior on Christians; Christians must bake cakes for homosexual weddings, Christian chaplains must teach Islam, Christian schools must hire atheists and allow them to teach “diversity”. What the atheist can not achieve by intellectual persuasion, they seek to impose by legislation and force of confiscation and imprisonment.

All the foregoing while atheists cloak themselves in a false morality that they hijacked from aspects of Christianity. Atheists talk of being opposed to murder, except when Muslims murder homosexuals and then it’s abject silence. Atheists talk of being for equal rights for women, except unborn women or Muslim women. Atheists talk of doing good for mankind, but atheists don’t start hospitals, didn’t start universities (like Harvard or Princeton), and you don’t see atheists organizing charities or feeding the homeless. [–> NB: There are exceptions to this, we don’t have to endorse every claim to think something is worth headlining.]

The atheist argues that religious views have no justification in society’s laws, yet declaring bankruptcy has its roots in Judeo “jubilee” forgiveness of debt and servitude, marriage is a Judeo Christian sacrament, and the legal prohibitions on murder, theft, and lying all are millennia’s old Judeo-Christian teachings.

To Christian arguments against the atheist, the atheist in variably responds with a) “science will some day prove _____” and b) “there is no evidence for God (and the Bible doesn’t count as evidence)”

The problem for the atheist is that a) science is further away than ever of proving “chance” underlay the big bang and our information-based life. In fact, information may also underlie the laws of physics and the hence the fine-tuned universe in which we live, and b) there is evidence for the existence of God, some of it logical, philosophical arguments, some of it forensic proofs.

And now we come to the atheists’ discomfort with their own disbelief. So, not only is materialistic evolution a theoretical failure and scientific near impossibility, the atheist has no alternative proven scientific explanation for what the Bible plainly declares were creative acts of God. The atheist is forced to borrow and impose biblical concepts just to maintain a civil society (while banning Christian beliefs the atheist dislikes). Lastly the atheist is further confronted with evidence for God’s existence and that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. That forensic evidence is fulfilled biblical prophecy in which God supernaturally declares to Daniel several hundred years in advance that the Messiah would appear, and forensic evidence further shows that prophecy to have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ.>>

Let’s “embed” a highly relevant video that we need to be reminded of:

[vimeo 17960119]

Food for thought, let us ponder and let us discuss responsibly, noting that we are not here endorsing every point or claim but rather think it is well worth pondering together. END

Comments
Origenes
StephenB, Can you explain what ‘objective’ means in ‘objective morality’? Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that by ‘objective morality’ is meant morality according to God. If so, why the use of the term ‘objective’? Morality according to God is not stemming from (and/or upheld by) an object, since God is not an object. And if we mean to say that we are talking about a perfect morality, then why not call it just that — a ‘perfect morality’?
Origenes, subjective morality refers to a standard that comes from inside the person, which can change from one day to the next, while objective morality, the true morality, refers to a standard that comes from outside the individual and is not subject to change. The true morality can be described either philosophically, as the “natural moral law,”-- the morality proper to human nature--or it can be described theologically as God’s law, which would include such things as Ten Commandments, The Sermon on the Mount, or the Golden Rule. It depends on whether the writer wants to emphasize revealed truths, which must be taken on faith, such as the Sermon on the Mount, or natural truths, which can be known through the use of unaided reason, such as the natural moral law. Some people like to point out that each is consistent with the other, that is, faith and reason are compatible if each is properly understood. The word “object” can sometimes be confusing because, as you indicated, it can mean a “material thing,” but it can also mean something “outside of the subject.” For example, philosophers often say things like, “the object of thought,” which is a short-cut description of something the individual is thinking about or relating to that exists outside of him, such as another person. In that context, if person A is the subject, person B is the object; and if person B is the subject, then person A is the object.StephenB
May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
Origines, nope. Truth is that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not, that it is not. Absolute truth is proverbially the truth, the whole truth and nought but the truth on a matter. Objective truth is what is credibly true on a warrant, not merely a matter of someone's perception. In this case, a key example is that it is self-evidently true that it is wrong to kidnap, bind, torture, rape and murder a young child for one's pleasure and entertainment. (Unfortunately, this is not just a hypothetical.) To see the force of it put up a denial, or suggest that this reduces to simply being a preference backed by willingness to use force. Either of these attempted counters will be simply absurd, in other words, sometimes conscience speaks truly. We can tease out why we have such a strong intuition, and that will give us yardstick principles by which we may evaluate many moral truths, cumulatively yielding the sort of system of moral insights that built our civilisation, a system that ever so many are eager to undermine today. They do not realise the consequences of the effective replacement, might and manipulation make 'truth' 'right' 'rights,' 'knowledge,' 'law,' 'justice,' etc. 2350+ years ago, Plato knew better. the dupes and cultural marxist cannon fodder of today may well only realise their error when they wake up at 4:00 am to the proverbial Chekist knock on the door. KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
JDK, unless you are the person who was trying a stunt -- most ill advised BTW -- with my bro in law, you are not who I am talking about. I assume you know about the penumbra of hate sites and the like we have had to deal with for years. In short, there are some VERY hostile eyes watching UD, as a simple matter of fact. That affects how we have to view and respond to things. KF PS: Pardon a bit of fair comment from someone who cut his eye-teeth on Havana and Moscow school agit prop operators: fellow travellers are (usually without fully realising it) supporting the partyline, still. PPS: I simply note the upshot "definition" of Science put up by the Kansas folks, in 2007: "Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. " Ideological loading with evolutionary materialism, plain as day. Scientism is a concomitant commitment to evolutionary materialism. Science sources all or effectively all reliable knowledge, never mind window dressing. The definition just cited is neither epistemologically sound nor historically sound. The 2001 initial radicalised definition was: Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations of the world around us A sounder definition is this: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990. As in before the radicals got in to work their newspeak games. Resemblance of OED to the 2005 definitions targetted for mobbing and smearing is NOT coincidental. Namely, "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."] PPPS: While I am at it, Lewontin as annotated:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
kairosfocus
May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
kf writes, "Confirms role as a champion of evolutionary materialistic scientism," Baloney. I consistently represented religious supporters of evolution, and wrote the line in the standards that specifically was against scientism. You don't know what you're talking about.jdk
May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
kf, you're saying that I'm stalking you by having a discussion on threads and topics you started? Weird.jdk
May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
StephenB, Can you explain what 'objective' means in 'objective morality'? Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that by 'objective morality' is meant morality according to God. If so, why the use of the term 'objective'? Morality according to God is not stemming from (and/or upheld by) an object, since God is not an object. And if we mean to say that we are talking about a perfect morality, then why not call it just that — a 'perfect morality'?Origenes
May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
jdk:
But I’v responded to all your points (including the ones Stephen brings up)
No, you have not responded to any of the following points: *You deny any objective morality that could provide unity for the endless diversity of personal or subjective moralities. Any “principle” of moral unity is, by definition, objective. *A community of cannibals can create a common normative system to live by. So can a community of terrorists. So can a community of thieves. The challenge to establish a well ordered community, which must be based on the principles of objective morality. *How would you resolve those tensions in the absence of objective morality? How, for example, would you resolve the tension between slaves and slave owners, or pro-lifers and pro-abortionists? In the United States, there was a time when these matters were usually settled by principles inherent in reason and the natural moral law. Now they are often settled by mob rule and the whims of the ruling class. Why do you seem to prefer the latter solution?StephenB
May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
JDK, as you must know from say events in Kansas c 2000 on and from the general situation at and around UD, there is always a hostile context. This has gone up to the level of stalking. KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
F/N: I here fwd from 204 in the is-ought gap thread and 286 in the worldviews thread, and comment: 204 IS-OUGHT: >> My interest in Taoism began with being introduced to the I Ching in the late 60’s when I was college. It fit in well with the counter-culture times, especially the part about living in harmony with natural forces. It fit in well with other influences I had: the study of comparative religions; books by Alan Watts about Zen Buddhism; two books books by Paul Goodman, Gestalt Therapy and The Empire City, and the general dissatisfaction with Western culture of the times.>> 1 --> Background, the rise of Eastern thought in the West as there was a breakdown of the West's confidence in itself. Evolutionary materialistic scientism, the myth of secularist progress, the onward disintegration of coherent worldviews, leading to ultramodernism, typically seen as post modernism. 2 --> The era in which Christendom of old expired in North America, as it had long since in Europe due to the great apostasy. But the soul has hungers this world cannot feed. >>Fast forward to 2000 or so. I became involved in defending the teaching of evolution in public schools, and as a corollary got re-interested in philosophical and religious views about the nature of the universe and the nature of man.>> 3 --> Confirms role as a champion of evolutionary materialistic scientism, emerging in a fellow traveller postmodern, Eastern thought influenced view. >>In particular, I got involved in discussing/arguing with Christians theists who believed many things that I did not, especially that a omni-everything, conscious, willful divine entity not only had actively created the universe, but was actively guiding the world at every moment,>> 4 --> In him we live and move and have our being, he upholds all things by his powerful world, he is Creator and Lord. These views excited rejection. >> and, many believed, occasionally intervening to create what the already created natural world could not.>> 5 --> Distortion. Why should it seem strange to you that the author of life could also restore it by raising the man he has ordained from the dead, and doing so with 500 witnesses leading to an unstoppable movement of positive spiritual transformation? 6 --> As a matter of induction, no inductive generalisation is capable of in principle ruling out rare exceptions to a typical pattern. What happens here is back-door insertion of a controlling a priori, the closed universe. >> So I sometimes tried to explain that there was an alternative view to consider, one very much on the other end of the spectrum: the concept of yin/yang in Taoism, in which an underlying set of impersonal principles, so to speak, provide both the nurturing ground of existence and the creative urges which cause that ground to be constantly changing.>> 7 --> This brings to bear the issue of the one and the many. An ultimate dualism lacks unifying power, but will appeal to the sense of diversity. 8 --> Principles are inherently passive, they lack power to be more than descriptions of patterns and forces, but many influenced by secularism have come to see law as a shadowy quasi-agent. >> I find that Taoism, in the non-scholarly way in which I understand it, resonates with me more than any other metaphysical or religious perspective.>> 9 --> Spirituality by the back door that leads to a sense of autonomy (note, centrality of change). >> A disclaimer: On the other hand, I am a strong agnostic. I don’t think that human beings, individually or collectively, can actually know what is behind/beyond the material world.>> 10 --> In short, denial of signs leads to doubts on the signified, and here to the concretisation of dismissal. This is likely the engine on the reaction to the analysis on being, temporal-causal order calling for finitely remote world root and on the import of moral government. >> Therefore, when I describe, and even advocate for, a Taoist perspective, I’m not saying that I “believe” Taoism is true, because (and this is a tenet of Taoism), I don’t think we can know whether it is true or not.>> 11 --> Utter relativisation of knowledge on the roots of reality and linked themes. This instantly locks in the framework of issues as already pointed out. 12 --> This also energises selective hyperskeptical dismissal of adequate warrant that would ground responsible, reasonable confidence in truths unwelcome to the underlying mindset. Already, a red warning flag. 13 --> This is astonishingly like the circumstances of Ac 17, with agnosticism enthroned. In reply the concrete, Christian answer in a 101 level approach is more or less as is here on, i/l/o evidence accessible to us. 14 --> On modern versions of Pilate's cynical what is truth, cf here on. 15 --> On worldviews, cf here on. 17 --> Such should be a useful start-point for someone hungry to escape the ultra-modern morass. It is worth citing Thomas Oden:
Postmodernity in my meaning is simply that historical formation that will follow the era of spent modernity – the time span from 1789 [fall of Bastille, start of French Revolution] to 1989 [fall of Berlin Wall, end of Communist revolutionary era] which characteristically embraced an enlightenment worldview that cast an ideological spell over our times, now in grave moral spinout . . . We could call what is passing the era of French Enlightenment, German Idealism, and British Empiricism, but those influences are just more complicated ways of saying modern consciousness . . . . Experience teaches that when avant-garde academics bandy about the term “postmodern,” it is usually more accurate to strike post and insert ultra. For guild scholars, postmodern simply means hypermodern, where the value assumptions of modernity are nostalgically recollected and ancient wisdoms compulsively disregarded. Meanwhile the emergent actual postmodernity that is being suffered through outside the ivory tower is not yet grasped or rightly appraised by those in it. We do not at all mean by post modernity what many academics mean – deconstructionist literary criticism and relativistic nihilism . . . Richard Rorty and Jacques Derrida are ultra-modern writers according to this definition, rather than postmodern . . . . what is named post is actually a desperate extension of despairing modernity that imagines by calling itself another name (postmodern), it can extend the ideology of modernity into the period following modernity . . . . My use of the term “postmodern” began in 1969 . . . in seeking to describe spiritual wanderers searching for roots, before Derrida and Foucalt popularized it, and just before the Architectural world began to shanghai the idea. When philosophers and literary critics got around to using the term postmodernity in the 80’s to be applied to what we are calling ultramodernity, my thought was that the term was being misapplied then, and it still is now . . . . We can defiantly sit on the term postmodern with a paleo-orthodox spin . . . on the grounds that its earlier meaning is preferable to its later meaning, and the logic of a Christian understanding of modern history demands it. The logic of modernity demands something to follow it, even when the myth of modernity lives in denial of that possiblity. [“The Death of Modernity and Postmodern Evangelical Spirituality,” in The Challenge of Postmodernism, Ed. David S. Dockery (Wheaton, IL: Bridgepoint/Victor, 1995), pp. 25 – 27.]
18 --> Withering, and a reminder of just where relativism on morals leads: nihilistic spinout and crash. As we are seeing on our streets, TV screens and in our parliaments etc, as well as of course on free speech campuses roamed by black shirt fascist thugs -- even the colour is that of Mussolini's thugs -- projecting their fascism to their opponents and taking excuse to impose anarchistic, riotous chaos to hasten the arrival of the Nietzschean Superman political messiah. 19 --> So, yes, this stuff is a bit more relevant to present circumstances and marches of folly than we would like to imagine. >>But as a metaphor of what might be true, it seems to fit the world as I see it. My beliefs about Taoism are a framework for metaphysically understanding our experience of, and in, this world, but they are not provable, logically necessary, or even testable in the empirical sense.>> 20 --> Translation, locked in ideology with worldview and socio cultural agenda aspirations, energised by relativism. >> However, as a metaphysical belief system it makes the most sense to me of all the religious and philosophical perspectives I have studied,>> 21 --> With all due respect, a bare statement of faith, and notice the tendency to impose one's subjective perception on reality and on others, rather than recognise that one is prone to error and needs to be open to the process of comparative difficulties and to warrant of even unwelcome truth. >> and it has provided me with many meaningful principles about what the universe and human beings are, and how to live effectively in the world.>> 22 --> We have already seen the problems of incoherence that directly derive from any relativist scheme, and we have therefore excellent reason to see why such a scheme refutes itself. However, that does not prevent it from becoming a powerful ideology. 23 --> The caution here is that a crooked yardstick set up as standard, then will dismiss the real truth as the truth being already in accurate conformity to reality will not align with such a yardstick. So that is why plumbline, self evident truths are so important in elaborating and testing a worldview. 24 --> I already linked details, but in outline, error exists is undeniably and self evidently true. It is a case of utterly certain truth. It is warranted to certainty and is certain knowledge. Any scheme of thought that denies knowable truth on ultimate claims is thereby instantly shattered. This includes every species of relativism or subjectivism. 25 --> On the moral side, I start with a moral SET that is undeniable on pain of exposing oneself as a monster and/or utter coward in the face of patent duty:
ASSERTION: it is self-evidently wrong, bad and evil to kidnap, torture, sexually violate and murder a young child. Likewise, by corollary: if we come across such a case in progress, it is our duty to try to intervene to save the child from such a monster.
26 --> Such a child has neither strength nor eloquence and simply has no BATNA walkaway option to negotiate a settlement. The moral value of the child is either intrinsic and inherently worth respecting, or it is non-existent. Which is precisely the driving force behind the ongoing mass slaughter of 800+ million unborn children, mounting up at a million per week. 27 --> The dangers and absurdities of systems boiling down to might and/or manipulation make 'truth,' 'right,' 'rights,' etc becomes instantly manifest. As the ghosts of over 100 million victims of the failed secularist or neo-pagan utopias of the past 100 years grimly warn us. >>But ultimately, I believe in Feynman’s statement (paraphrased) that I would rather live with uncertainty than believe things that are not true.>> 28 --> The inadvertent pivot, as this dismisses without serious consideration the issue that there are self-evident truths including moral ones, and so exerts selective hyperskpeticism and fails the plumb-line truth test. 29 --> Yes, there are many uncertainties in our world, but that error exists or that we are conscious or that in all our mental life we find ourselves morally governed are not among these. 30 --> And so, what happens is by using a handy slogan from an eminent voice, selective hyperskeptical fallacies lead to establishing a crooked yardstick. The prophet Isaiah is withering:
Isa 5:18 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who drag along wickedness with cords of falsehood, And sin as if with cart ropes [towing their own punishment]; 19 Who say, “Let Him move speedily, let Him expedite His work [His promised vengeance], so that we may see it; And let the purpose of the Holy One of Israel approach And come to pass, so that we may know it!” 20 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever and shrewd in their own sight! [AMP]
. . . as is Jeremiah's judgement, now extended to our whole civilisation:
Jere 2:12 “Be appalled, O heavens, at this; Be shocked and shudder with horror [at the behavior of the people],” says the Lord. 13 “For My people have committed two evils: They have abandoned (rejected) Me, The fountain of living water, And they have carved out their own cisterns, Broken cisterns That cannot hold water.[AMP]
31 --> We are like the dog in the fable that envious of the bone in the watery reflection, dropped the real bone in his teeth, then came up empty. 32 --> Locke has a word for us, in his introduction to the essay on human understanding, which I endorse and call attention to:
Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2 & 13, Ac 17, Jn 3:19 - 21, Eph 4:17 - 24, Isaiah 5:18 & 20 - 21, Jer. 2:13, Titus 2:11 - 14 etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27 -- light of conscience-guided reason . . . ] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly. [Text references added to document the sources of Locke's allusions and citations.]
33 --> No, this is not a mere text chunk to be flipped off and dismissed, it is a statement of hard-bought wisdom about worldviews and ethics i/l/o issues of warrant and trust, by one of the top 20 all time philosophers. >> Since there is no way to know whether Taoism, or any other metaphysical/religious belief is true,>> 34 --> A neat rhetorical trick that implicitly side-steps the issue of plumb-line, self-evident truth, and rejects out of hand the historical foundations of the gospel, which I suggest actually have better empirical warrant than most fashionable scientific theories and linked ideologies or policy agendas, which are of course never treated like this. 35 --> FYI, JDK, no scientific theory -- an explanatory framework warranted by empirical tests so far [if so much] -- rises to the level of moral certainty. The gospel's historical foundations do. 36 --> This hyperpskepticism also readily explains resistance to a serious exposition to students on the inherent strengths and weaknesses of scientific methods in general, especially as addresses origins, even while utterly unfounded dismissiveness confronts those who argue that we do have self-evident truths, including moral ones, and that we would be well advised to readjust our worldviews in that light. >> I believe that my “belief in Taoism” is a useful metaphorical story, but not a literal belief about truth.>> 37 --> In short, the hyperskepticism game continues. >> However, “living with uncertainty”–knowing when you can’t know–fits in well with Taoist principles anyway, so there is a certain resonance between Feynman’s principle and the ineffable nature of Taoism, with its emphasis on right action rather than on dogmatic belief.>> 38 --> repeating an error does not establish it any more than the first time around. >> Another disclaimer: I’m not a scholarly expert, by any means, on this subject. Also, many of my thoughts have been influenced by other sources, so it would be hard to sort out what exactly is an accurate description of Taoism and what is added on.>> 39 --> Remember, you are betting your soul on this. >> This needs to be considered, perhaps, my idiosyncratic, personal version. I also think some of this sounds pretty vague, woo-woo-ey, and pretentious, but I’ll let that stand.>> 40 --> In other words, everything being relativised, let me now present something that would otherwise face serious challenge as at the same level as any other worldview. And, no proper comparative difficulties analysis is in sight. >> 1. The Tao is the undifferentiated One out of which all that is arises. It is the ultimate ground of all characteristics, yet it has no characteristics itself.>> 41 --> Incoherent, you gave claimed characteristics, then said that it has none. In the first assertion we are already under ex falso quodlibet. >>The Tao is ineffable. As the saying goes, “The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.” Words by their nature segment and specify, and the Tao cannot be segmented or specified. Trying to capture the Tao in words is not only fruitless, it squeezes the spirit out of our understanding of it.>> 42 --> Appeal to knowing something very critical, the alleged un-knowability. Ex falso again. >>In Eastern traditions, to the extent that we can approach understanding the Tao, we must quiet the mind, give up attachment to our verbalizations, and find a sense of Oneness in a state of pure consciousness.>> 43 --> Switch off rationality and bring up no plumb-line truths. >> From this point of view, all the logical manipulations about religious dogma are antithetical to a true spiritual understanding.>> 44 --> Ex falso, quodlibet. >>2. Complementary duality: all of the fundamental concepts in the world arise out of the Tao according to the principle of complementary duality.>> 45 --> An assertion of a knowledge claim on the unknowable, i.e. we are back to the ex falso problem again. >> Complementary duals are not opposites in the Western sense – antagonistic and exclusionary concepts defined by being not the other – but rather two facets of one whole which interact with each other as they manifest themselves.>> 46 --> A groping after unity in diversity. >> The two little circles in the yin-yang symbol (black inside white and white inside black) represent the idea that inside each one of the pair is the potential and the impetus to move to the other. Because of this complementary interplay, these “opposites” work to create dynamic balance, not antagonistic tension.>> 47 --> Yes, antagonistic forces in balance are commonly seen in dynamical situations e.g. inertia and force. >> Even existence/non-existence is a complementary dual. The Tao is neither something nor nothing, but that which encompasses both.>> 48 --> Existence and potential existence are not opposites, but impossible being is inherently non-existent and is a literal nothing, cannot be in any possible world. precisely, due to mutual contradiction of core characgteristics, leading to not being feasible of being, e.g. a square circle. Cf the discussion on worldviews as already linked. >> That which exists has motion towards non-existence, but that which does not exist has motion to come into existence.>> 49 --> Contingent beings (esp composite ones, e.g. made of atoms and/or subsystems) are inherently prone to disintegration and disorder leading to cessation of function. Necessary being is of no such character, e.g. try to imagine a world in which distinct identity/two-ness [ = A, with ~A] does not exist, or can cease from being, or had a beginning before which it did not exist. 50 --> In short, the logic of being is not being properly drawn out. (And yes, all that boring stuff has relevance in that discussion, here we see it in action.) >>Another related symbol from Western mathematics for this principle is the bell-shaped curve. The ends of the spectrum represent the two opposites when separated from their complementary nature – the ends represent antagonistic opposites.>> 51 --> Nope. Yes, the statistical distributions represent spectra and patterns with extremities, but this is not the same as what was just discussed. >> However the middle represents the balance that comes when the duals commingle.>> 52 --> Nope, it is the middle or most common part of a spectral range. >> Far too often people exclude the middle and set up a black-and-white battle of the extremes.>> 53 --> Only in cases where there is a spectrum with effective continuum, in many things there are sharp distinctions, e.g. between a possible and an impossible being, or the distinct identity we must rely on even to communicate using symbols, as here in this thread. 54 --> Factual inadequacy tied to want of explanatory scope and power. >> Such a perspective is out of balance and will inevitably be less effective than being aware of the value and interplay of the whole spectrum. Such an interplay is dynamic and fluid – truth is never solidified but always demands to be understood in context.>> 55 --> You recognise spectrum but not the rest of the picture. >> 3. The Creative and the Receptive The most fundamental dual is the yang/yin concept of the Creative and the Receptive, for it is the interplay of these two that sets and keeps the world in motion – that creates the “restless multiplicity” (a phrase from the yin/yangish song by Joni Mitchell, “Don Juan’s Reckess daughter”) of the world we experience.>> 54 --> A pattern that is real enough but not the whole story. >> The Receptive is the ground upon which the world is built. It is passive and does what it is impelled to do, but it provides the nourishment of material for the activity that is imparted to it. The Creative is active, and impels the world to move and change. The Creative desires to bring forth what is new, and the Receptive desires to nourish what is old. Together they bring growth to the world.>> 55 --> real enough as an agricultural community would recognise form the way the earth supports life. >> 4. Synchronicity Because of our nature as creatures in the physical world, we necessarily experience time as flowing from moment to moment and space flowing from point to point. As the world thus changes we notice the regularities of cause-and-effect that are manifested. This causal relationship is the heart of our empirical understanding of how the world works.>> 55 --> We do live in a spatial-tempoiral/causal order. >> However just because that is all we can experience doesn’t mean that is all there is. The principle of synchronicity posits that there are other connections between non-contiguous points of time and space such that at times changes are coordinated in ways that are beyond normal causality and yet do not violate normal causality.>> 56 --> In him we live, move and have our being, as some of your own poets have said. >> From Carl Jung’s introduction to the Wilhelm version of the I Ching: Synchronicity takes the coincidence of events in space and time as meaning something more than mere chance, namely, a peculiar interdependence of objective events among themselves as well as with the subjective (psychic) states of the observer or observers.>> 57 --> We live in an orderly world which is not a chaos >> … Just as causality describes the sequence of events, so synchronicity to the Chinese mind deals with the coincidence of events. The causal point of view tells us a dramatic story about how D came into existence: it took its origin from C, which existed before D, and C in its turn had a father, B, etc. The synchronistic view on the other hand tries to produce an equally meaningful picture of coincidence. How does it happen that A’, B’, C’, D’, etc., appear all in the same moment and in the same place?>> 58 --> In him, we live . . . >> So when things happen “by coincidence”, or things turn out “just right”, or a dark cloud has a silver lining, it is not just pure random chance that might be involved, but rather a “behind the scenes” arrangement of events arising from the balancing of various complementary duals. Such events are the product of the Creative principle at work striving to bring disparate parts together into a new, meaningful whole.>> 59 --> In him . . . >>4. Spontaneity: one of my favorite Taoist sayings is that “the wise man is he who does spontaneously exactly that which he would do after great deliberation.” Spontaneity and deliberation are a complementary dual.>> 60 --> Depth of knowledge and insight can lead to being quickly and soundly active in a situation, it is not a product of ignorance but of wisdom. >> However, when one is in harmony with the overall nature of a situation, the next right action often will rise all of a piece – both what to do and why to do it will be just presented to us, as if (and this is what happens) our larger organic self has grasped the whole without our active engagement.>> 61 --> Wisdom. >> The world as a whole works like this also: at times the Creative and the Receptive interact to suddenly bring something new into existence – not in a poof-like way that violates normal causality but in a synchronous type of way that brings otherwise disparate parts together to truly produce something new.>> 61 --> there are cases of genuine emergence, including of a new order, However, this does not justify the imagined creation of vast quantities of functionally specific complex information and associated organisation out of lucky noise or a hoped for blind mechanical necessity. 62 --> Intelligently directed configuration is the only empirically tested, analytically credible means to such FSCO/I. >>From this perspective, as opposed to a theistic one, our universe was a spontaneous creation of the Tao. There was no person behind it, acting with foresight and purpose, but there was a creative gathering of forces to produce something that had the wherewithal to keep on keeping on in an interesting way.>> 63 --> A semi-personalisation of evolutionism, here cosmic evolutionism. The description is tantamount to a sub-cosmos emerging out of a confluence of chance and necessity. Kindly contrast this from Newton in his General Scholium to Principia:
It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where. [i.e accepts the cosmological argument to God.] Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. [Cites Exod 20.] We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause [i.e from his designs]: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. [i.e necessity does not produce contingency] All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. [That is, implicitly rejects chance, Plato's third alternative and explicitly infers to the Designer of the Cosmos.]
>> How the Tao does that gathering is beyond our comprehension, but it doesn’t take a man behind the curtain to make it happen.>> 64 --> Strawman caricature and dismissal of the fine tuning evidence without even allowing it to speak for itself. >>A standard metaphor in Eastern thought is that the world is a web – a vast inter-connected lattice of events. Taoism says that the world is a web that has no weaver – that the design has no designer.>> 65 --> Again . . . >> Law and chance may be what we see when we examine the world empirically, but Taoism says that underlying our experience is the ever-present Tao – a deeper layer of synchronous creative causality which brings about the bigger patterns we see unfold around us.>> 66 --> Chance and necessity at another level, again without allowing the fine tuning evidence to speak for itself. >> 5. The world is fractal (although of course Taoism doesn’t use this word.) The principles of the Tao apply to every little moment of the world – our lives and all the events around us, down to the quantum level of every elementary particle at every moment – just as much as they apply to the creation of the universe as a whole.>> 67 --> Again, in him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets say. 68 --> The Christian faith is not committed to every insight or view of every person not in the fold being an error, that is opposite to the vision that we are created as rationally and responsibly free, morally governed creatures. hence, Paul's citations at Athens. >>6. Living well: The main purpose of adopting a Taoist philosophy is to learn how to live well – to learn to act so as to maximize health and harmony in the world around us.>> 69 --> Moral considerations come in by the back door: why is health or harmony desirable, in effect an ought? We have had is-is, now we see ought-ought without an adequate bridge. >>Taoism is not concerned with dogma,>> 70 --> Little more than a rhetorical plastering of being concerned to be true, coherently systematic and sound. >> nor with compelling belief,>> 71 --> Note the subtle projection? What part of "rationally and responsibly FREE" is it that is not clear? >> nor with dichotomizing the world.>> 72 --> Just to communicate in symbols you had to resort to dichotomies: [n | ~n] + [o| ~o] + [r | ~r ] etc. 73 --> In short, distinct identity and its imme3diate corollary first principles of right reason, LOI, LEM, LNC, are undeniable. So to dismiss dichotomy when it does not suit but would be otherwise applicable, is simply selective hyperskepticism and appeal to prejudice in an era dominated by relativism and in key quarters, by hostility to the Christian faith. >> It is concerned with always doing “the next right thing” in a way that both contributes to and is receptive of the larger synchronous forces around us in a situation.>> 74 --> See that little world, "right" and all the issues of ought that it brings to bear? And, of truth, etc? In short, the is-ought gap appears again, without adequate foundation for bridging it. >> Central to this is understanding that the Western view of a conscious “I” striving to be in control of one’s being and actions is wrong.>> 75 --> Without responsible, rational freedom, this discussion and ability to understand truth or credibly assess wrong vanish, poof. So, the incoherence on morality is again underscored. >> Being conscious is one of the things one does,>> 76 --> In fact, being conscious is a key, plum-bline, undeniable self-evident truth. This is being distracted from. >> but consciousness is not the center of who one is. A goal of living is to be attuned to the larger underlying biological self, and to be able to let thoughts and actions arise from the being within.>> 77 --> And who said merely being conscious is the centre of humanity? Then of course, purpose and linked morality are glided in again, manifesting the is-ought gap. >> If one develops such a larger self to be in touch with the situations one finds one in, then one can learn to trust one’s spontaneity – to let one’s self flow out naturally.>> 78 --> Perilously close to subjectivism and nihilism. Naturally like a Mao, a Stalin or a Hitler? (As opposed to a righteous man or woman like a Wilberforce or a Mother Teresa?) This fails to reckon with moral struggle. To say the least. >>The I Ching puts great emphasis on adjusting one’s actions to the state of the moment – knowing when to forcefully act and when to withdraw, when to lead and when to follow, when to act as if one is certain he is right and when to know that one indeed doesn’t know.>> 79 --> Proverbs 1:
1 The proverbs (truths obscurely expressed, maxims) of Solomon son of David, king of Israel: 2 To know [skillful and godly] wisdom and instruction; To discern and comprehend the words of understanding and insight, 3 To receive instruction in wise behavior and the discipline of wise thoughtfulness, Righteousness, justice, and integrity; 4 That prudence (good judgment, astute common sense) may be given to the naive or inexperienced [who are easily misled], And knowledge and discretion (intelligent discernment) to the youth, 5 The wise will hear and increase their learning, And the person of understanding will acquire wise counsel and the skill [to steer his course wisely and lead others to the truth], 6 To understand a proverb and a figure [of speech] or an enigma with its interpretation, And the words of the wise and their riddles [that require reflection]. 7 The [reverent] fear of the Lord [that is, worshiping Him and regarding Him as truly awesome] is the beginning and the preeminent part of knowledge [its starting point and its essence]; But arrogant [a]fools despise [skillful and godly] wisdom and instruction and self-discipline. [AMP]
. . . and Prov 3:
5 rust in and rely confidently on the Lord with all your heart And do not rely on your own insight or understanding. 6 In all your ways know and acknowledge and recognize Him, And He will make your paths straight and smooth [removing obstacles that block your way]. 7 Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the Lord [with reverent awe and obedience] and turn [entirely] away from evil. 8 It will be health to your body [your marrow, your nerves, your sinews, your muscles—all your inner parts] And refreshment (physical well-being) to your bones. [AMP]
>> The other famous metaphor is that “the wise man knows how to ride the whirlwind” – how to remain calm and centered in the midst of activity. I think all the Eastern practices emphasize being able to step back from the outer edge of our awareness, so to speak, and somewhat dispassionately watch what we are doing without being attached to what we are doing. If one can remain calm in the midst of activity, then one can more easily be open to the spontaneous wisdom of the larger self.>> 80 --> Again, wisdom involves discernment and doing the right, which needs to be founded. As fair comment, nothing so far even begins to get away from the challenge of rooting moral government at world-root level. >>7. Intelligence and agency: The Western theistic view is that that intelligence and agency–the mind of God– precede the material world. An omniscient, omnipotent deity created the world, and that same deity empowers every person’s material body with an immaterial soul which is the source of our consciousness and our will. I think this is wrong.>> 81 --> yes, as you are not an ethical theist. Let us hear from a pagan on this general subject, Plato in The Laws Bk X:
Athenian Stranger: [[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . They say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny.)] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . . . [[I]f impious discourses were not scattered, as I may say, throughout the world, there would have been no need for any vindication of the existence of the Gods-but seeing that they are spread far and wide, such arguments are needed; and who should come to the rescue of the greatest laws, when they are being undermined by bad men, but the legislator himself? . . . . Ath. Then, by Heaven, we have discovered the source of this vain opinion of all those physical investigators; and I would have you examine their arguments with the utmost care, for their impiety is a very serious matter; they not only make a bad and mistaken use of argument, but they lead away the minds of others: that is my opinion of them. Cle. You are right; but I should like to know how this happens. Ath. I fear that the argument may seem singular. Cle. Do not hesitate, Stranger; I see that you are afraid of such a discussion carrying you beyond the limits of legislation. But if there be no other way of showing our agreement in the belief that there are Gods, of whom the law is said now to approve, let us take this way, my good sir. Ath. Then I suppose that I must repeat the singular argument of those who manufacture the soul according to their own impious notions; they affirm that which is the first cause of the generation and destruction of all things, to be not first, but last, and that which is last to be first, and hence they have fallen into error about the true nature of the Gods. Cle. Still I do not understand you. Ath. Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [[ = psuche], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? Cle. Certainly. Ath. Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light; and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art; they will be the first, and after them will come nature and works of nature, which however is a wrong term for men to apply to them; these will follow, and will be under the government of art and mind. Cle. But why is the word "nature" wrong? Ath. Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power; but if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. [[ . . . .] Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]
82 --> Do you see why Plato went there? (And this is well before we get to the actual core warrant offered by the gospel, as is linked on above. >>I believe that humans are embedded in the physical and biological world, and that intelligence and agency is an emergent property of the world: intelligence and agency come out of the world, but the world need not have overriding intelligence and agency itself to make that happen.>> 83 --> A creedal declaration, a dogma. 84 --> Do you have a means by which blind chance and mechanical necessity can give rise to self-aware, self-moved, initiating agency, responsibly and rationally free being? 85 --> It seems you have here simply assumed a spiritual element as emerging, poof from the world. Which, poof, subtly has that dimension at its root. >> We are not dual creatures – a passive material being empowered by an active immaterial soul.>> 86 --> Creedal declaration again. >> In Taoist terms, both the nurturing material world (yin) and the energetic creative energy which empowers it (yang) are part of a complementary duality that is itself one. We partake of the same creative and nurturing aspects of the Tao as the universe does, but when consolidated it a limited biological body, these properties coalesce to appear as human intelligence and agency.>> 87 --> In short matter is somehow spiritual in its roots. >> Another favorite saying, from Alan Watts: “We don’t come into this world, we come out of the world, like a leaf comes out of a tree.” There doesn’t need to be anything outside the world to have created the world>> 88 --> On one sense, emergence from nothing, or ultimate chicken-egg circular causation, or possibly infinite traverse in stages, none of which is nearly satisfactory. 89 --> On the other, pantheism or panentheism. >>, or to be the place where we come from, and there doesn’t need to be any little god inside of us to provide us with intelligence and will. Everything unfolds within the world we know.>> 90 --> Further creedal declarations, and caricature of being ensouled. Needs to engage the problem of the inherent non-rationality of computational substrates vs the reality of rational contemplation. >> 8. Individuality: Another favorite from Watts, which highlights the distinction between Western and Eastern views: in respect to whatever the “soul” may be, he wrote, “When we die, it’s like throwing a drop of water back into the ocean.” Individuality, whoever “I” am, is a temporary, local event associated with my existing as a biological being. When I’m dead, I’m dead. To the extent that the creative power of the universe helped uphold my existence, as it upholds the existence of everything, when I die that creative power sinks back into the universal ocean of the Tao. There is no “me” which lives after death.>> 91 --> Creedal declarations. Need to address the One who came back, with 500 witnesses. The only known expert on the subject. >>9. On thinking, philosophy, and abstract thought: In “The Yoga Matrix” by Richard Freeman, he remarks that the goal of yoga is to come to an immediate experience of the true nature of reality and of the human condition within reality. Being analytical and philosophical may be useful as ideas to get one started, but the goal is to go beyond the ideas: to get to the point where one understands that dwelling on the ideas and being attached to them is an impediment to the actual goal of truly experiencing what the ideas are about.>> 92 --> Living encounter with God in the face of the risen Christ is a life transforming event, as millions demonstrate. >>That is one reason why practices such as meditation, yoga and tai chi are useful – they move one’s attention and mind out of the abstract and into the physical, with one’s relationship with one’s own body becoming a microcosm of one’s relationship with the world as a whole.>> 93 --> There's a surprising amount of dismissiveness to the rational. A true view of reality will seek to unify mindedness and the physical etc. >> Attachment to dogma is an impediment to living well.>> 94 --> You have asserted many dogmas above, a better balance is that presuppositions, truth claims and controversial stances are inevitable, so one's view should be a responsible, reasonable faith, open to plumb-line tests and to correction i/l/o further learning of truth. >> Philosophy and abstract thought, such as all I’ve written here, can be fun, satisfying, and even useful. But it is a mistake to think that it is “true”. All abstract thought is an overlay on top of the real world, and it’s important to not confuse the two.>> 95 --> Worldviews are inevitable, as are their first plausible commitments. The issue is to be reasonable and responsible i/l/o plumb-line tests. 286, w/v: >>I am not attempting to offer a materialistic view, so all the “wetware” comments are irrelevant to this discussion.>> 96 --> I repeatedly noted, there is a wider context. Also, the above shows how that factor is quite relevant. >>You write, As has been pointed out several times, our rationality is pervaded with responsibility and requires genuine freedom, on pain of reduction to absurdity. I accept that humans are free and rational, but I believe the sense of responsibility comes from us, not from the IS of the universe.>> 97 --> Grossly inadequate, ending up in relativism, with moral commitments slid in without correlating to a grounding framework. >>At 83, I wrote, But I can easily imagine a coherent and possible world where a supreme being created our universe, with all the qualities necessary to produce the physics, chemistry, and biology that we see (that is, is the ground of IS), but who is supremely indifferent to the details of how the world goes, including the actions of the life forms within it (that is, is supremely indifferent to OUGHT).>> 98 --> Our being responsibly and rationally free as in effect a condition of logical discussion constrains the nature of the necessary being world root. That root must be capable of grounding ought, or we are back to the issues of relativism etc. >> I see no incoherent impossibility, no self-refutation, in believing, or at least being able to imagine, that this is the type of supreme IS-ness that underlies the world.>> 99 --> The logic of the case goes beyond our perceptions or desires or feelings of comfort or otherwise. >>Later someplace, I further wrote that what this means is that we are truly free to figure out out to best live, with ourselves and others, in ways that are in harmony with both our natures and the nature of the world we live in.>> 100 --> See how oughts held to be binding keep slipping in? >>You write, Indeed, your own arguments just now directly imply appeals to our persistent sense of a duty of care towards the truth and the right, including coherence. True: I am committed to these things as freely chosen principles, but not because they are manifestations of any aspect of the IS of being. Caring for these things is something humans do, but that doesn’t mean the universe cares.>> 101 --> The issue of binding, objectively founded oughts is not cogently addressed in your attempt to relativise. And, again you imply that we are bound by rational, truthful etc principles. >>I’ve resisted labeling my views, especially since I believe that we can’t really know the truth about metaphysics, but I’ll do so now in order to summarize. I might consider myself a: *** strong agnostic – we can’t really know the truth about the roots of reality. All of our metaphysical speculations are stories that we invent to structure our understanding, but they are never “true” in any literal sense. *** atheist – despite the above paragraph, I believe it is a rational, considered conclusion that all beliefs about non-material beings which conscious and willfully relate to us (“gods” of all sorts) are false. Santayana called such religious beliefs “sacred literature”, embodying key elements of a culture’s worldview, but nevertheless stories, and not literally true. *** Taoist – there is an effable IS (the Tao) beyond/behind/before the universe we experience that provides an underlying, pervasive creative impulse to the world, making possible all the fine-tuning we see, and making possible the consolidation and localization of consciousness, rationality, and true freedom, in various degrees, in living things. Thus, as human beings, we are able to use those qualities to choose and act. *** existentialist – we are truly free to choose, and the responsibility for creating meaning, value, and morals lies with us, both collectively and individually. *** humanist – our freedom, rationality, and consciousness are part of our larger biological nature, including our social nature, our emotions, our curiosity, our creative use of language, and so on. Being human means creating a life that is in harmony with both our natures and the nature of the world we live in. That’s my offered alternative to theism.>> 102 --> Creedal summaries. 103 --> Yes, you offered an alternative, which is commendable. However, it fails on multiple grounds, as an attempt to coherently ground morality etc at the human-relative level. Indeed, at points, it hints at just what you would displace. >>>>>> KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
Hmmm. I goofed. Only the bottom part of 475 is a new post.jdk
May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
re 468
Your moral standard promotes diversity at the expense of unity. That is why it is both inadequate and incoherent. It is impossible to build a well ordered society on diversity alone.
I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion that the worldview I am describing "promotes diversity at the expense of unity" and especially that I think we should have "diversity alone." I believe that for lots of reasons the tendency is for people to create common normative systems to live by. There may be tensions between unity and diversity, in all sorts of normative areas, including morals, but tensions between two aspects of any complementary duality are always present, and we are always faced with the challenges of balancing those tensions. === re 473: You write, "Given extremely hostile context, ..." Well, I don't think I've been "extremely" hostile, but if you do, then there isn't much sense in further discussion. re Taoism: I've made it clear that my attraction to and knowledge of Taoism is idiosyncratic , and I've outlined the ideas from Taoism that I like. I've also emphasized existentialism and engaged judgment, and responded to the "might makes right" claim. Arguing that your sense of dire consequences is evidence that a human-based existential morality is self-refuting is not convincing. As I have said before, if in fact OUGHT doesn't exist at the root-level, then that's what we have to live with whether we like it or not. But I'v responded to all your points (including the ones Stephen brings up) in various posts scattered over three threads. This is all been useful to me, but I think any further discussion on my part would just be a repeat of what I've said before. So thanks for the discussion, and carry on with your way of looking at the world.jdk
May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
SB, great to see you, thanks for the intervention. Sobering reminder that we are seeing nihilist factionism playing out on the streets now and in the media studios and on the judges' benches, or even parliaments and cabinet rooms. All of this we could have averted if we had simply heeded Plato and Cicero, much less Jesus, Moshe and Paul or Isaiah (woe to those who call good evil and evil good . . .) et al. KF PS: Please see inbox.kairosfocus
May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT
JDK, 466:
there are a couple of reasons I don’t pay attention to long quotes. The first is that I want to be in a discussion with people, and since those people aren’t here, I can’t communicate with them.
This comes across as little more than an excuse to avoid well stated or even classic summaries of a case or point or telling admission; where quite often the key statements more than speak for themselves. Given extremely hostile context, it can also readily become part of a 1-2 punch and dilemma: use classic key statements, they will be ignored. Do not use them, you will be accused of being some ignoramus IDiot crank out there, and who of consequence ever said such a thing. We can add a third horn, use short clips and you will be accused of "quote mining," or the like from now till the cows come home. That is the rhetorical bed of nails I refuse to lie in. Further to this, I point out that evolutionary materialism is one of several ways to get to radical relativism. But once one is there, such has its own dynamics. Dynamics long since known as Plato noted in The Laws Bk X, c 360 BC. In particular, if "rules" are imposed by power concerns in social situations, their force extends only so far as the force, threats, manipulation and ruthless power faction games have an effect. Namely, might and manipulation make 'right,' 'truth,' 'reasonableness,' 'responsibility,' 'rights' etc. Nihilism has thus been offered an open door, by way of perverting even the word morality to be equivalent to amorality and the arbitrariness of dirty power games. The further implication is the rules are more or less how to survive in the face of the power blocks [or worse, demonic dictators]. This leads to the implication -- and the pervasive perception -- that such rules are only delusionally perceived binding as duties, instead of the "reality" -- oops, sez who??? and why should we care???? -- of being little more than merely fears disguised as rules of goodness; in a manner analogous to Freud's de-moralisation by narrative of personal development (overly strict potty training my dear!), or Marx's class conditioning (so, Charlie, what about your dysfunctional family and society?), or Skinner's puzzled rat in a maze (Burrus, are you not just another puzzled rat?) etc. But, every one of these thinkers is within the matrix of a socio-cultural and psychological setting too, and is subject to the same forces that constrain thought and press on cases and their conclusions. That is the fatal self-referential step. And it applies whenever radical relativisation of moral governance is let loose. The question, is the avant garde narrative any more or less a GIGO-driven manipulative computation on a substrate, imposed by manipulation or outright fraud or naked intimidation readily obtains. In radical relativism there are no inherently priviliged narratives, and every argument is relativised and deconstructed into incoherence by the hermeneutic of suspicion. Including the radical critic himself. No, this is not error exists, self evidently so and we need to be humble. It is the suicidal road of mutually assured intellectual destruction. Utterly incoherent, self-referentially self-defeating, self-falsifying. So, so soon as I see you or any other person arguing for relativism, the cascade and avalanche to absurdity obtains. Grand, general delusion is let loose on mindedness. (Including, what was formerly imagined to be responsible, reasonable discussion driven by duties to truth in the context of Cicero's highest reason that guides towards that which by our rational and responsible nature ought/ ought not to be done.) A fatal step too far. And, I notice from SEP, that Taoism has this as background:
Daoism[1] stands alongside Confucianism as one of the two great religious/philosophical systems of China. Traditionally traced to the mythical Laozi “Old Philosopher,” Philosophical Daoism owes more to “philosopher Zhuang” (Zhuangzi) (4th Century BCE). Daoism is an umbrella that covers a range of similarly motivated doctrines. The term “Daoism” is also associated with assorted naturalistic or mystical religions. Sometimes the term “Lao-Zhuang Philosophy” is used to distinguish the philosophical from the more religious “Huang-Lao” (Yellow Emperor-Laozi) strain of Daoist thought. Both the Daode Jing and the Zhuangzi are composite texts written and rewritten over centuries with varied input from multiple anonymous writers. Each has a distinctive rhetorical style, the Daode Jing terse and poetic, the Zhuangzi prolix, funny, elusive and filled with fantasy dialogues. Both texts flow from reflections on the nature of dao (way) and related concepts that were central to the ethical disputes of Ancient China. The concept of “Daoism” as a theme or group did not exist at the time of the Classical Daoists, but we have some reasons to suspect the communities focusing on the Zhuangzi and Laozi texts were in contact with each other. The texts share some figurative expressions and themes, an ironic detachment from the first order moral issues so hotly debated by the Mohists and Confucians preferring a reflective, metaethical focus on the nature and development of ways. Their metaethics vaguely favored different first-order normative theories (anarchism, pluralism, laissez faire government. The meta-ethical focus and the related less demanding first order ethics mostly distinguishes “Daoists” from other thinkers of the period. The meta-ethical reflections were by turns skeptical then relativist [--> a familiar, tellingly diagnostic pattern of thought, with a well-known, not very happy prognosis] , here naturalist and there mystical. Daoism per se has no “constant dao.” However, it does have a common spirit. Dao-centered philosophical reflection engendered a distinctive ambivalence in advocacy—manifested in their indirect, non-argumentative style, their use of poetry and parable. In ancient China, the political implication of this Dao-ism was mainly an opposition to authority, government, coercion, and even to normal socialization in values.
[--> the pattern surfaces again, and no I will not set aside the point that once one arrives at radical relativism, the dynamics of moral-rational incoherence and amorality dressing itself up as superior morality then opening the door to soft or hard nihilism obtain. Here, we already see undermining of normal broughtupcy, as Caribbean English gives us a useful term]
Daoist “spontaneity” was contrasted with subtle or overt indoctrination in any specific or social dao.
So, inherently, the concern I have put on the table applies. No, the grounding of morals in the IS-IS of human relationships, factions and history of the community etc fails, in many ways. At the heart of that failure is the want of an effective basis for ought, other than GIGO-driven might and manipulation. We must needs go to the necessary being world-root to find a level of reality where there is a hope that ought and is can be fused, baked in to reality in ways that do not fall to the Euthyphro dilemma. Human power relations form, roughly:
Is the cluster of "rules" in a social setting "right" because it is accepted by the dominant powers, or do these powers accept such because they are right to them? [So, is ought little more than preference backed up by manipulative or intimidatory power factions or is it something over the power factions, in which case they inherently are not its root? And, remember, this includes rules of reasoning on alleged duties of care to truth, right, etc. There are no fire walls in mindedness.]
Only a world root being who fuses the IS and the OUGHT through an inherent cluster of morally infused core characteristics will be a serious candidate. Which brings us full circle to the force of the candidacy of:
a -- the inherently good creator God, b -- being as to core nature a necessary [thus world framing . . . this is an ontological issue, similar to how two-ness is inevitable in any possile world, as a facet of distinct identity, A and ~ A] and maximally great being, c -- one thus worthy of loyalty [his commands will be for our good backed by flawless and comprehensive knowledge and utterly pure loving, just character], d -- and of the reasonable, responsible, free [morally governed] service e -- rationally identified as being to do the good, f -- the good being in accord with our evident [transparent to the eye of conscience guided, well instructed reason] nature.
In short, we see above an outline on why nothing at the level of human society (even more than the gods of pagan polytheism) can properly frame and ground morality, fusing is and ought. Either morality goes all the way down to a world root that inherently both necessarily is and is the good, or it fails the Euthyphro challenge. In so failing, it falls to might and manipulation being seen as the in the end source of moral government, which then collapses in incoherence. KF PS: Kindly, look again at those quotes, on what has happened to moral reasoning in our civilisation, and why it has gone wrong, including Anscombe's powerful insight that morality must go all the way down to what I have termed world roots or it has no proper rootedness in reality, what IS. I put them up because I find them to be powerfully relevant -- even, almost prophetically diagnostic -- and I am not inclined to change that view absent a serious argument on substance by you that shows otherwise. Finding what seem to be rather flimsy rhetorical excuses to brush such aside without consideration, comes across as very fallaciously convenient tactics. Surely, we can go beyond that sort of deadlock.kairosfocus
May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT
jdk
I’m not sure how you draw the conclusion that the worldview I am describing “promotes diversity at the expense of unity” and especially that I think we should have “diversity alone.”
I refer to the fact that you deny any objective morality that could provide unity for the endless diversity of personal or subjective moralities. Any "principle" of moral unity is, by definition, objective.
I believe that for lots of reasons the tendency is for people to create common normative systems to live by.
A community of cannibals can create a common normative system to live by. So can a community of terrorists. So can a community of thieves. The challenge to establish a well ordered community, which must be based on the principles of objective morality.
There may be tensions between unity and diversity, in all sorts of normative areas, including morals, but tensions between two aspects of any complementary duality are always present, and we are always faced with the challenges of balancing those tensions.
How would you resolve those tensions in the absence of objective morality? How, for example, would you resolve the tension between slaves and slave owners, or pro-lifers and pro-abortionists? In the United States, there was a time when these matters were usually settled by principles inherent in reason and the natural moral law. Now they are often settled by mob rule and the whims of the ruling class. Why do you seem to prefer the latter solution?StephenB
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
Here's a slight edit of 470, for clarity. I was edited it, called away from the computer, and my editing time ran out: re 468
Your moral standard promotes diversity at the expense of unity. That is why it is both inadequate and incoherent. It is impossible to build a well ordered society on diversity alone.
I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion that the worldview I am describing "promotes diversity at the expense of unity" and especially that I think we should have "diversity alone." I believe that for lots of reasons the tendency is for people to create common normative systems to live by. There may be tensions between unity and diversity, in all sorts of normative areas, including morals, but tensions between two aspects of any complementary duality are always present, and we are always faced with the challenges of balancing those tensions.jdk
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT
re 468
Your moral standard promotes diversity at the expense of unity. That is why it is both inadequate and incoherent. It is impossible to build a well ordered society on diversity alone.
I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion that the worldview I am describing "promotes diversity at the expense of unity." I believe that for lots of reasons the tendency is for people to create common normative systems to live by. There may be tensions between unity and diversity, but tensions between two aspects of any complementary duality are always present, and we are always faced with the challenges of balancing those tensions. Society needs both unity and diversity.jdk
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
re 467: I think by "natural moral law" you are referring to a transcendent moral law, which is what I am positing need not exist. By human nature I mean the totality of what we experience human beings to be, such as, at least at times, caring, desiring social approval, etc: things which don't require a transcendent counterpart. By human nature I don't mean to imply a connection to any transcendent human nature. I have no idea whether you've read the context for all this discussion, or know much about the overall argument I am making, though. re 468: You write, "A coherent worldview is one in which diversity is blended into unity." That is an assertion of yours that I don't agree with. You might define "coherent" that way because your worldview assumes such a unity, but the worldview I am describing assumes a "restless multiplicity" in which complementary duality pervades all aspects of existence. Again, I have no idea whether you have kept up with our discussion (I think maybe you haven't because I haven't seen your name in any comments for a while.) Two main posts are here on my interest in Taoism and here on a summary of the worldview I am describing. And, to be clear, the key issue is not to argue for or against any worldview, but to argue that it is logically possible that an IS without an OUGHT accounts for our world. See the last part of 468 if you haven't already.jdk
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
jdk
I am not arguing that such a being that fuses IS and OUGHT is logically impossible, I am arguing that such as being is not logically necessary by presenting a worldview that I think is equally logically possible, and which can be defended as applying to our world on the basis of “factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power.
A coherent moral standard embraces diversity in unity. Your moral standard promotes diversity at the expense of unity. That is why it is both inadequate and incoherent. It is impossible to build a well ordered society on diversity alone.StephenB
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
jdk
And the fact that there are similarities across cultures is quite explainable by the fact that there are basic human characteristics that underlie the large diversity of cultures. For instance, in virtually all (I believe) cultures, people demonstrate pleasure and show affection towards others with a smile. That’s part of our nature.
If you think humans have a "nature," then why do you not accept and embrace the natural moral law, which is the morality proper to human nature. Or is it the case that you really don't think humans have a nature after all?StephenB
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
kf, there are a couple of reasons I don't pay attention to long quotes. The first is that I want to be in a discussion with people, and since those people aren't here, I can't communicate with them. If you have a small snippet that you particularly like, and then follow up with a comment of your own, that is one thing, but just reading long quotes from others really isn't very appealing to me. Second, I sometimes don't know who the authors are, or what their perspective and credentials are, and I'm not interested in researching because, again, those are not people I can actually communicate with. Also, you are quoting people that support your view, but their statements don't themself add to the evidence that you are right. I know many people are ethical theists. Repetitive statements to that effect doesn't really further the discussion I am having with you. So, you write,
If all you see are blanket, evidently content-free or at least relevance-free “quotes” and do not notice a deeply consequential discussion on ethics and the roots of duty ...
I didn't say any of those things. Yes, your quotes have relevant content to the issues we are discussing. I do notice we are having a deeply consequential discussion on ethics and the roots of duty. I just would rather be in a discussion with real people then read quotes from people who aren't in the discussion. Most importantly, all of the quotes you offer don't address the specific issue that we are discussing. Let me describe the situation again: I am not arguing against theism: it is a logical possibility. What I disagree with is your claim that a worldview such as I have presented is not a logically possible description of our world. I am taking your up on your challenge for someone to
propose an alternative that is coherent and adequately accounts for our world: ________ That consistently empty blank, so for years, speaks eloquent volumes.
As I have said,
I am not arguing that such a being that fuses IS and OUGHT is logically impossible, I am arguing that such as being is not logically necessary by presenting a worldview that I think is equally logically possible, and which can be defended as applying to our world on the basis of “factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power.
jdk
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
JDK, on a brief break in editing. If all you see are blanket, evidently content-free or at least relevance-free "quotes" and do not notice a deeply consequential discussion on ethics and the roots of duty [one that calls on thoughts by some fairly serious thinkers -- esp. Anscombe], you are missing a vital, focal cluster of issues. KFkairosfocus
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
P.S. I wrote 462 before I saw your P.S. to 461, but the additional material was just quotes from other people.jdk
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
JDK, you clip off how I get to that point, leaving the matter hanging as though questions were begged and issues brushed aside. That is not how the discipline of addressing hard questions can be tackled effectively. Why did I seek a worldviews level root for oughtness? Why did I point out that even in arguing we cannot escape the force of appealing to oughtness, to duties towards truth, right, reason and more? Why did I suggest that to deny that our sense of moral government points to a reality that is at world root level is to put ourselves into grand, general delusion? Why did I put up a list of self-evident moral truths, leading with a case of a kidnapped, indecently assaulted and murdered child? Can someone reject this truth without ending in some form or other of might and/or manipulation make 'right,' 'truth,' 'rights' etc? What is the flaw in the perspective behind the commonly heard assertion 'my truth'? What is a self-evident truth? How is it connected to the logic of coherence vs incoherence? And so forth. Again, later. KF PS: Looks like I should add, what are impossible/possible beings, contingent and necessary ones, and how is that related to the issue of a world-root? What is a genuine nothing?kairosfocus
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
kf, I am familiar with the material you link to. It is not clear what "over-compressing a point" might mean. Here you write,
What I have argued is that there is, after centuries of debate, one serious world-root candidate on the table that inherently fuses is and ought.
That may be, but that is not what I am contesting, What I am claiming is that there is a worldview that does not fuse is and ought and is not incoherent and self-refuting, which I believe is the point of contention. You have written,
So, now, we are at a very important threshold, the God of ethical theism is on the table as a serious candidate necessary being, root of reality that grounds a world in which responsibly and rationally free creatures such as ourselves are possible and indeed actual. ... That is a momentous turning-point, and it would be interesting to see if we will hear of the viable alternatives, including reasons why such a God is an impossible being. [and later] It would be amusing, if it were not so sad, to see how these objectors dodge the challenge of comparative difficulties: propose an alternative that is coherent and adequately accounts for our world: ________ That consistently empty blank, so for years, speaks eloquent volumes.
This is the context of repeated claims you have made. I am offering an alternative to discuss, filling in your blank, so to speak. Note: I am not arguing that such a being that fuses IS and OUGHT is logically impossible, I am arguing that such as being is not logically necessary by presenting a worldview that I think is equally logically possible, and which can be defended as applying to our world on the basis of "factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power." And another quote from you, to substantiate and clarify the context:
There is no world where we are not governed by OUGHT, and the IS and OUGHT are and must [my emphasis] be fused at world root level. There are many worldviews that try to imply that such a root is not there but inevitably end in implying grand delusion, revealing themselves to be self-referentially incoherent and self-falsifying.
The worldview I propose does not imply grand delusion, nor is it "self-referentially incoherent and self-falsifying." It grounds morality in human nature and human rationality, but it denies that some moral aspects of the root-level of reality exists to interface or manifest with that human nature and rationality. If you wish to respond, I think you should address specifics of what I have written. So, to repeat, the core issue is, quoting myself above,
I am not arguing that such a being that fuses IS and OUGHT is logically impossible, I am arguing that such as being is not logically necessary by presenting a worldview that I think is equally logically possible, and which can be defended as applying to our world on the basis of "factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power."
jdk
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
JDK, again, in looking at worldviews, I raise the triple worldviews comparative difficulties test, which addresses factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power, in a context where all worldviews face difficulties. After all, philosophy is the study of hard fundamental questions, where hardness is convincingly shown by there being no easy, good answers on offer. I suspect, you are over-compressing a point I make on the roots of a world in which IS and OUGHT are joined at world-root level, given the need to account for responsibly and rationally free creatures. While there is stuff above, I suggest this OP. What I have argued is that there is, after centuries of debate, one serious world-root candidate on the table that inherently fuses is and ought. Later, we will look at the view you put up, as I have time. I have already pointed out that you seem to be embracing relativism, which is inherently problematic; whatever the general case of Taoist thought is. KF PS: Once one tries to root morality in humans and/or their relations, one runs into Hume's challenge of the leap from IS-IS to OUGHT-OUGHT. This is the context for the tendency to see the gap as irreconcilable . . . tantamount to a gulch of incoherence in one's worldview. I clip Arthur Holmes as offering food for thought:
However we may define the good, however well we may calculate consequences, to whatever extent we may or may not desire certain consequences, none of this of itself implies any obligation of command. That something is or will be does not imply that we ought to seek it. We can never derive an “ought” from a premised “is” unless the ought is somehow already contained in the premise . . . . R. M. Hare . . . raises the same point. Most theories, he argues, simply fail to account for the ought that commands us: subjectivism reduces imperatives to statements about subjective states, egoism and utilitarianism reduce them to statements about consequences, emotivism simply rejects them because they are not empirically verifiable, and determinism reduces them to causes rather than commands . . . . Elizabeth Anscombe’s point is well made. We have a problem introducing the ought into ethics unless, as she argues, we are morally obligated by law – not a socially imposed law, ultimately, but divine law . . . . This is precisely the problem with modern ethical theory in the West . . . it has lost the binding force of divine commandments . . . . If we admit that we all equally have the right to be treated as persons, then it follows that we have the duty to respect one another accordingly. Rights bring correlative duties: my rights . . . imply that you ought to respect these rights.
Clarke and Rakestraw add:
Many people today think relativistically. “We live in a pluralistic society,” they say, apparently thinking this proves normative ethical relativism [that is, the theory that contradictory ethical beliefs may both be right, as such beliefs are viewed as only relative to the culture, situation, or individual: perception and feeling, not objective reality]. Others hold that . . . it is necessary to a tolerant society. Absolutists, they argue, encourage intolerance of other views, and this erodes social harmony. Tolerance in society is a benefit produced when people adopt relativism. Is this inference right? Philosopher J. P. Moreland[4] . . . [argues that] Relativism is true descriptively, but consistently holding to both normative and metaethical[5] relativism is difficult. [That is, it tends to fall into logical inconsistency: arguing that all people ought to become relativists!] Further . . . [true] tolerance is entirely consistent with absolutism. Those who defend tolerance hold that everyone ought to practice tolerance!
Just a thought-sparker in the meanwhile.kairosfocus
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
re 458: I am responding to your frequent claim that the only logically valid worldview is ethical theism, and your challenge for anyone to offer an alternative that is not incoherent and self-refuting. I am also quite willing to discuss your statement "that worldviews need to be compared on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power." I don't see how thus focusing on assertions that are frequently the heart of your position is "shoe-horning" you into "a pigeonhole you don't fit in." You've issued a challenge, and I've responded. There are logically coherent alternatives to theism in which morality arises from human beings but is not connected to any OUGHT at the root-level of reality, and I've offered one. If you want to defend your assertion above, this is your opportunity. re 459: not relevant to me: I'm discussing neither of those subjects,jdk
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Please, look around you in our civilisation and then come back and tell us that evolutionary materialistic scientism is not the dominant ideological and sociocultural agenda out there, especially in contexts where origins and linked scientific issues come up. This is why I speak of fellow travellers instead of major, separate schools of thought.kairosfocus
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
PS: I suggest that you need to actually look to see the argument I have actually made, that worldviews need to be compared on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. You are shoe-horning me into a pigeonhole I don't fit in.kairosfocus
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
The context is your claim that there is only one worldview that is logically valid - theism, and that no other worldview is. You have issued that as a challenge often. I am responding to that challenge. For instance, at 450 you wrote,
There is a serious candidate on the table [ethical theism], the challenge is to put up another that does not fall into incoherence etc
This seems to me like an overriding context of much of what you write.jdk
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
this is not a private exchange of emails, it is necessary to discuss on context.kairosfocus
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 18

Leave a Reply