FFT: Seversky and the IS-OUGHT gap

_{kairosfocus

May 1, 2017

Atheism, Control vs Anarchy, Food for thought, Politics, rhetoric, worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In the ongoing AJ vs ID discussion thread, major tangential debates have developed. One of these is on the IS-OUGHT gap, and it is worth headlining due to its pivotal worldviews importance (and yes, this is a philosophy issue). Let us start with Seversky, highlighting his key contention — which is commonly asserted:

Sev, 261: >>Origenes @ 258

The matter seems very simple to me: because fermions and bosons are completely indifferent about morality, it is not possible to ground morality for atheists/materialists.

You cannot logically derive “ought” from “is”. No one can, not even God. So, if our morality is God-given, how did He – or, indeed, any other being – derive it? Did He toss a coin?>>

Origines, 262 (to EA but relevant): >>Eric Anderson @259

Thank you for pointing out the typical materialistic response wrt morality.

EA: However, the squirming can eventually follow the direction it does for the rest of the materialist creation story: namely, at some point Characteristic X didn’t exist, and then at some later point Characteristic X “evolved.”

The majority of materialists fails to understand that materialism can only take us to the illusion of effective moral laws. Suppose that by ‘Characteristic X’ is meant organismal behavior which is consistent with the moral law “thou shall not steal”. Now, in a purely material universe, all sorts of physical stuff can contribute to X, but X can never be caused by the moral law “thou shall not steal”. The consistency with a moral law is happenstantial and not an intended result. There cannot be a moral law who is telling atoms how to behave. In a materialistic world the moral law “though shall not steal” has no power to reach down in the brain and rearrange neuronal behavior so as to comply with that moral law.

Illusion.

Given materialism, it can only be the case that it is as if a moral law is being respected. So, no, naturalism cannot get us to morality. It can only get us to the illusion of morality. It can result in behavior which, incidentally, is consistent with a moral law. But noticing this consistency is nothing more than the occasional observation of temporal happenstantial synchronicity between two totally unrelated things.>>

KF, 263: >>Seversky, if you have been keeping track that is not what is at stake. The issue is, we are patently inescapably morally governed, as for instance you implied by trying to correct and by expecting us to have a sense of duty to the truth and the right. Either that speaks truly or mindedness collapses into grand delusion. As, if such is a delusional perception in an actually utterly amoral world then delusion is at the heart of attempts to reason and be responsible — as Rosenberg implies but tries to put a rosy picture on. Absurd. So, we need to ask, what sort of world must we be in for such moral government not to be rooted in grand delusion. This points to world-roots that cannot be infinite regress or a chicken-egg loop. Finitely remote, necessary being root. As, were there ever utter non-being (which can have no causal powers) such would forever obtain. The premise that, on pain of grand delusion and absurdity, we are responsibly and rationally significantly free and morally governed, self-moved creatures then leads to the world root being a necessary being that is at the same time inextricably the root of moral government. Where, if we are not self-moved initiating causal agents, we have no true freedom to draw a LOGICAL, meaningful inference from grounds and/or evidence to the consequent or a warranted conclusion, we would be trapped in a delusion of rationality while actually being the GIGO-limited playthings of our computational substrates and their blind, mechanically driven and/or stochastic cause effect chains. We must be free and self-moved to be rational or responsible. Is and ought are not IS–> OUGHT, but instead that they are inherently inextricably entangled and utterly fused at the world-root. There is one serious candidate (if you doubt, kindly provide a coherent alternative: _____ ) i.e. the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.>>

The immediate context for this is also well worth excerpting as a part of the spark for onward discussion:

HP, 256: >>The [subjective moralists] I have read . . . don’t say that “moral values and obligations are totally subjective.”, they claim that the individual values are subjective. A small distinction I realize, but an important one. And, I apologize in advance for not phrasing this as well as I would like.

My own personal belief is that our system of morality is a combination of objective and subjective. The most obvious objective aspect of our morality system is that the existance of this system appears to be universal amongst humans. Even psychopaths and sociopaths have a morality system. They just happen to be very different than that of the majority of the population. Of the other values (not killing, lying, stealing…) some may be objective and others subjective. Frankly, I don’t know. And I don’t really care. But the one thing that makes logical sense is that if there are objective morals, they are not independent of subjectivity. They are either strengthened by our experiences or they are weakened. Thus explaining the variations that we see in their application amongst different cultures.>>

Origines, 258:>>

hammaspeikko: The ones I have read, which I admit are limited, are more nuanced than that. They don’t say that “moral values and obligations are totally subjective.”, they claim that the individual values are subjective. A small distinction I realize, but an important one.

I have never heard about such a moral system. Individual values are subjective and non-individual values are not? Can you provide some more info?
The matter seems very simple to me: because fermions and bosons are completely indifferent about morality, it is not possible to ground morality for atheists/materialists.

Here is atheistic philosopher Alex Rosenberg:

Scientism can’t avoid nihilism. We need to make the best of it….

First, nihilism can’t condemn Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or those who fomented the Armenian genocide or the Rwandan one. If there is no such thing as “morally forbidden,” then what Mohamed Atta did on September 11, 2001, was not morally forbidden. Of course, it was not permitted either. But still, don’t we want to have grounds to condemn these monsters? Nihilism seems to cut that ground out from under us. …

To avoid these outcomes, people have been searching for scientifically respectable justification of morality for least a century and a half. The trouble is that over the same 150 years or so, the reasons for nihilism have continued to mount. Both the failure to find an ethics that everyone can agree on and the scientific explanation of the origin and persistence of moral norms have made nihilism more and more plausible while remaining just as unappetizing.

[A. Rosenberg, ‘The Atheist’s Guide To Reality’, ch. 5]>>

EA, 259: >>Origenes:

The matter seems very simple to me: because fermions and bosons are completely indifferent about morality, it is not possible to ground morality for atheists/materialists.

I think your point is well made, and should be sufficient to make any materialist squirm.

However, the squirming can eventually follow the direction it does for the rest of the materialist creation story: namely, at some point Characteristic X didn’t exist, and then at some later point Characteristic X “evolved.”

This may not seem very intellectually satisfactory to the objective observer, but the materialist is perfectly happy to argue that morality evolved as a result of [insert made-up reason here]. It isn’t fundamentally different than any other system or characteristic evolving. No details. No particular reason or direction. It just did.

So while I agree with your general point, and Rosenberg’s frank admission, the entire issue becomes lost on the committed materialist. After all, the entire view of history and creation and all that this entails, is just — as you aptly noted — nothing more than a long accidental sequence of particles bumping into each other.

And those particles, so the thinking does, don’t have to ground anything. Not design, not functional complexity, not information. Nothing. Just wait long enough for the particles to bump into each other enough times, and — Ta Da! — here we are. Whether we are talking about molecular machines or morality, it is all the same in the materialist creation story.

Remember, this is all right in line with the Great Evolutionary Explanation for all things:

Stuff Happens.

It is really no more substantive than that.>>

So, how then do we come to be morally governed, and what does this imply about us and the world? END

Comments

It's a Chinese word for "the way". It refers to the ineffable underlying "root-level of reality", to use a term we have been using in recent discussions here. It can also mean, more broadly, "principle" or perhaps "the source of how things happen."jdk_{May 8, 2017
May
05
May
8
08
2017
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

jdk @204: That's interesting what you wrote. Why is it called "Tao"? Where is that name taken from? Perhaps the answer to my questions are in your comment, but maybe I missed it? Thank you.Dionisio_{May 8, 2017
May
05
May
8
08
2017
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Origenes @203:
Maybe our difference has a definitional nature. If person A is “all-rich” and holds all the money there is, and freely enables and gifts me some, and I am not person A, then I would say that, after the transfer, person A no longer holds all the money there is.
That's an interesting situation you present. Please, tell me, is "person A" a mortal creature like you and me?Dionisio_{May 8, 2017
May
05
May
8
08
2017
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

wjm says above that he isn't familiar with Taoism, although I find some of the things he has recently said (179, 188, 192) similar to Taoist thought. Also, in the Worldviews thread I've been in long discussion, I've been offering a s a logical alternative to theism a view based on my understanding of Taoism. And last, I recently met a young lady who has similar philosophic view as mine, and so I wrote a short summary of my interest in Taoism and its basic principles as I understand them. So now might be a good time to share. This is probably much more than most (any?) of you want to read, but someone might be interested in seeing a non-theistic yet non-materialistic way of looking at the world: a different worldveiw, if you will.
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. 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. 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, and, many believed, occasionally intervening to create what the already created natural world could not. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. However, as a metaphysical belief system it makes the most sense to me of all the religious and philosophical perspectives I have studied, 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. But ultimately, I believe in Feynman's statement (paraphrased) that I would rather live with uncertainty than believe things that are not true. Since there is no way to know whether Taoism, or any other metaphysical/religious belief is true, I believe that my "belief in Taoism" is a useful metaphorical story, but not a literal belief about truth. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. From this point of view, all the logical manipulations about religious dogma are antithetical to a true spiritual understanding. 2. Complementary duality: all of the fundamental concepts in the world arise out of the Tao according to the principle of complementary duality. 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. 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. Even existence/non-existence is a complementary dual. The Tao is neither something nor nothing, but that which encompasses both. That which exists has motion towards non-existence, but that which does not exist has motion to come into existence. 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. However the middle represents the balance that comes when the duals commingle. Far too often people exclude the middle and set up a black-and-white battle of the extremes. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. … 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. How the Tao does that gathering is beyond our comprehension, but it doesn’t take a man behind the curtain to make it happen. 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. 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. 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. 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. Taoism is not concerned with dogma, nor with compelling belief, nor with dichotomizing the world. 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. 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. Being conscious is one of the things one does, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. We are not dual creatures - a passive material being empowered by an active immaterial soul. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. Attachment to dogma is an impediment to living well. 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.
jdk_{May 8, 2017
May
05
May
8
08
2017
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

KF: ... that I hold power X is because God enables and gifts me so to do, i.e. has freely acted. This does not stop God from omnipotence ...
Maybe our difference has a definitional nature. If person A is "all-rich" and holds all the money there is, and freely enables and gifts me some, and I am not person A, then I would say that, after the transfer, person A no longer holds all the money there is.
... just describes how he has chosen to use it, i.e. he loves and respects creatures he has given ability to be self moved within creaturely limits, and so to be limitedly free also.
God freely chose not to hold on to all the power there is. He freely chose to give some away to the creatures He loves and respects.
In the end, he will hold me to account for my use of power X, a stewardship from him.
If I acted wrongly, would it help to say: "Dear Lord, how can You say that I held and misused power X, because it is You who hold all power, since, as we all know, You are omnipotent." ?Origenes_{May 8, 2017
May
05
May
8
08
2017
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

PS: Let me add, that the creation of rational, responsible, self-moved creatures opens up a domain of goodness otherwise not accessible, that of love. Which, BTW, is the root of the virtues.kairosfocus_{May 8, 2017
May
05
May
8
08
2017
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

JDK, we can trace from signs, as we routinely do. And, we can trace through the logic of being, as has been done. Beyond, why should we think it incredible that the author of rational, communicative, creative reality [us . . . ] should himself be rational, creative, communicative reality? KFkairosfocus_{May 8, 2017
May
05
May
8
08
2017
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

O, that I hold power X is because God enables and gifts me so to do, i.e. has freely acted. This does not stop God from omnipotence, just describes how he has chosen to use it, i.e. he loves and respects creatures he has given ability to be self moved within creaturely limits, and so to be limitedly free also. In the end, he will hold me to account for my use of power X, a stewardship from him. KFkairosfocus_{May 8, 2017
May
05
May
8
08
2017
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

Kairosfcus @197, Good idea. I would like to comment on each of those, one at a time:
1: Omnipotence: God is the root of being for all possible worlds, and so holds maximal possible power– capability and freedom of action — in any actualisable or actualised world. Actualised worlds with moral, self-moved agency involve limited beings whose intellectual ability, freedom of action and capabilities in general are by contrast infinitesimal though nonetheless real.
(1) If God is omnipotent, then God holds all power. (2) God transferred power X to me. (3) I am self-moved, free, rational and responsible. God is not responsible for what I do with X. (4) If I hold power X then God does not hold power X, which means God does not hold all power. Therefor (5) God is not omnipotent. - - - - A clarification about my postion. When I said, in post #190: “I am also no Christian. I’m also not of any particular faith.”, I should have probably added that, although at a distance, I, nonetheless, feel a strong connection with Christianity — as opposed to other organized religions, such as Atheism and Islam.Origenes_{May 8, 2017
May
05
May
8
08
2017
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT}

jdk, I don't know anything about Taoism, but it wouldn't be the first time my philosophy has run in accordance with something already in existence. Apparently I'm also a Pragmatist, although my category of practical uses for beliefs might stretch farther than most pragmatists.William J Murray_{May 8, 2017
May
05
May
8
08
2017
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT}

Origines, it may be interesting to see the studies across time on what the three actually are understood as in serious scholarship. Two approaches help, that of the idea of God in phil of religion, and that used in serious systematic theologies. In a very simple nutshell, it is easy to generate false paradoxes, failing to hold the terms in due balance, e.g. can the Omnipotent make a rock that it cannot move or the like. (The in a nutshell, quick answer to this challenge is that the demand poses an implicit logical impossibility and such an object is meaningless -- a non-being, like a square circle.) KF PS: I think it may be helpful to start with the following as FFT suggestions: 1: Omnipotence: God is the root of being for all possible worlds, and so holds maximal possible power-- capability and freedom of action -- in any actualisable or actualised world. Actualised worlds with moral, self-moved agency involve limited beings whose intellectual ability, freedom of action and capabilities in general are by contrast infinitesimal though nonetheless real. (E.g. a supposed rock of infinite inertia is inherently a non-being; finitude is inherent in being a rock or any other creature.) 2: Omniscience: God, as world-root in whom all other being subsists, knows all that is know-able in every actual or possible world. This is specifically not to be confused with forcing the future such that no freedom of creatures actually exists. That is, limited, self-moved rational and responsible agency is possible and indeed -- as we manifest -- actual. To a-temporally know an outcome is not to force it. 3: Omnipresence: God, who is the root of being in whom all other being subsists in any given actualised or possible world, is everywhere active and aware in upholding the order and existence of any actual world. On this view, a miracle is a case where God, for good reasons of his own, acts beyond the usual course of a given world. E.g. note Paul asking in Ac 26:8 why should we imagine it impossible or incredible for the author of life from clay thence nothing, to restore life to the dead in fulfillment of prophecy to that specific effect. 4: Omnibenevolence: God is inherently good and maximally great -- possesses any and all great-making properties and no lesser-making properties to maximal possible degree -- as necessary being root of any possible or actualised world. Thus, he is the IS that grounds ought in any possible or actual world. God's freedom to act is self-regulated by his inherent goodness. E.g. this is the sense in which it is impossible for God to lie.kairosfocus_{May 8, 2017
May
05
May
8
08
2017
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT}

I'm finding myself right between Origenes and WJM on this personhood issue. More with Origenes on God being a person, though I think that term has to come with some clarifications and caveats, more with WJM on the O3 issue, though not entirely, and I think those terms need some clarifications and caveats as well. I'll write a little more when I have a few minutes. ----------------- JDK, thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look when I get a chance.HeKS_{May 7, 2017
May
05
May
7
07
2017
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

WJM: O3 means Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent – no individual agent can be such things and still be what we call a “person” in the same way that we think about individual agencies. It’s not logically possible.
You may very well have a point there. I'm not wedded to this O3 concept. Are you? If you are interested, in this post (and further in this thread) I argue that all three properties are incoherent.Origenes_{May 7, 2017
May
05
May
7
07
2017
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Ooops - I meant "I’ve avoided using the term" Taoism, not "avoiding", as obviously I used the term.jdk_{May 7, 2017
May
05
May
7
07
2017
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

wjm writes,
I think those phrases and terms are what we as conscious, sentient separated and thoughtful entities interpret as characteristics from that more primordial demiurge interacting with the primordial psychoplasm which represents the first stage of dualism.
This is similar to what I am saying in my reply to HeKS on the Worldviews thread. I've avoiding using the term, but these ideas are very much like the fundamental ideas of Taoism.jdk_{May 7, 2017
May
05
May
7
07
2017
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Origenes said:
I don’t understand why you object to the phrases I have used.
That's because you don't understand my view of God or my view of the nature of our existence. I think what we normally refer to as "Intelligent Design" is downstream from something far more primordial and more akin to magic than the breakdown phrases and terms you offer. I think those phrases and terms are what we as conscious, sentient separated and thoughtful entities interpret as characteristics from that more primordial demiurge interacting with the primordial psychoplasm which represents the first stage of dualism. O3 means Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent - no individual agent can be such things and still be what we call a "person" in the same way that we think about individual agencies. It's not logically possible.William J Murray_{May 7, 2017
May
05
May
7
07
2017
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

to HeKS. FYI: I finally got around to replying to you in the Worldviews thread.jdk_{May 7, 2017
May
05
May
7
07
2017
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

WJM @188
WJM:
O: How can rational acts, like ‘understanding’ ‘having overview’ ‘having a plan’, be performed by something other than a person? If there is no person, who understands who has overview, how can there be understanding and overview?
I don’t think I’ve ever used such terminology in describing god.
Correct me if I am wrong, but does e.g. the fine-tuning of the universe by an intelligent agent not imply rational acts such as ‘understanding’, ‘having overview’ and ‘having a plan’? Does the term "intelligent" in "intelligent design" not imply "rational acts"?
I actually don’t think you have the vaguest idea what my conception of god is …
Actually I do, that is to say, I know that in your conception God is not a person. For this reason I used “something other than a person” and “no person”.
… so I don’t know what you think you’re addressing using those phrases as if they have something to do with my position.
I don’t understand why you object to the phrases I have used.
But to imply that god must either be an inanimate thing or a personal agent is, IMO, the false dichotomy of a person trying to reconcile logic with certain a priori ideological beliefs.
You are selling Craig short; he considers several categories, which include: inanimate things, unembodied minds and abstract objects.
I think Craig and Dembski do this a lot – use logic (and they are quite good at it) to endorse their a priori ideological worldview.
Very few people are ideologically neutral. BTW you make it sound as if they should not use logic.
I, however, am not a Christian. I’m not of any particular faith, so I’m not at any level trying to reconcile logical implications, facts or evidence with a particular worldview.
I am also no Christian. I’m also not of any particular faith. But a personal God makes good sense to me.
I’m not saying that such apologists are wrong in their conclusions or in their beliefs; what I’m saying is that you are barking up the wrong tree by quoting Craig and responding to me as if I have what you think are standard theistic beliefs.
I was aware of the fact that you, like me, are not a Christian before I wrote my post. Craig’s arguments are nevertheless relevant because they are purely philosophical. Why do you argue against the man and not his arguments?
I will say this: If god is truly the O3 root of all of existence, god cannot be a personal agent like when we think of individual personhood. It’s a logical contradiction. Individual personhood has contextual requirements that are simply not available to an O3 root of all existence.
I am not familiar with the term “O3 root”, but I take it that it means something equivalent to “First Cause”. You make the sweeping claim that a personal God is a logical contradiction, without making a serious attempt of an explanation. What can I say? I am a fan of your writings; I have read, reread, categorized and stored many of your posts. But this time I feel rather disappointed.Origenes_{May 7, 2017
May
05
May
7
07
2017
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

I highly agree with wjm here. I don't think we can know what the root of reality is like, and I think our attempts to ascribe God with qualities extrapolated from our experience as limiting beings in this world are bound to be wrong.jdk_{May 7, 2017
May
05
May
7
07
2017
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

Origenes said:
How can rational acts, like ‘understanding’ ‘having overview’ ‘having a plan’, be performed by something other than a person? If there is no person, who understands who has overview, how can there be understanding and overview?
I don't think I've ever used such terminology in describing god. I actually don't think you have the vaguest idea what my conception of god is, so I don't know what you think you're addressing using those phrases as if they have something to do with my position. I doubt Craig's view of what existence is and what god is is very similar to mine other than that they converge on a few root issues about the characteristics/nature of god necessarily being a certain way. But to imply that god must either be an inanimate thing or a personal agent is, IMO, the false dichotomy of a person trying to reconcile logic with certain a priori ideological beliefs. I think Craig and Dembski do this a lot - use logic (and they are quite good at it) to endorse their a priori ideological worldview. I, however, am not a Christian. I'm not of any particular faith, so I'm not at any level trying to reconcile logical implications, facts or evidence with a particular worldview. I'm not saying that such apologists are wrong in their conclusions or in their beliefs; what I'm saying is that you are barking up the wrong tree by quoting Craig and responding to me as if I have what you think are standard theistic beliefs. I think ascribing to god any of the terms we use to describe subjective personhood as if those terms can mean the same thing about god is a category error. I will say this: If god is truly the O3 root of all of existence, god cannot be a personal agent like when we think of individual personhood. It's a logical contradiction. Individual personhood has contextual requirements that are simply not available to an O3 root of all existence. That's doesn't make god a "thing" or an "inanimate object" like Craig implies; it makes god something else entirely.William J Murray_{May 7, 2017
May
05
May
7
07
2017
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

William J Murray: The concept of god “as a person” makes no sense to me whatsoever, if we’re talking about the fundamental root of existence.
- How can rational acts, like ‘understanding’ ‘having overview’ 'having a plan', be performed by something other than a person? If there is no person, who understands who has overview, how can there be understanding and overview? There must be something that understands, what can that be other than a person? How can there be knowledge without a knower? How can there be a free choice if there is no person? - The First Cause is free, as opposed to having an external cause. Only a person is free. - How do we explain moral laws, tailor-made for persons, if the source of those laws is not a person? - - - - - Here W.L.Craig provides three arguments for a personal God: (1)
The cause of the universe must be an ultramundane being which transcends space and time and is therefore either an unembodied mind or an abstract object; it cannot be the latter; hence, it must be the former, which is to say that this being is personal. We've concluded that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a first cause . . . . Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect which it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why isn't the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect? . . . There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe's beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation "agent causation," and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By "choose" one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.
(2)
In the case of the moral argument, the concept of God involved in the argument is that of a personal being, since moral values, if they exist, reside in persons, not in inanimate things, and since only a personal being can be a source of moral duty by issuing commands to us. This is the failing of Plato's impersonal form of the Good. Justice, for example, is not itself just, being merely an abstract object, nor can it issue imperatives requiring us to be just. Christian theologians like Augustine advanced Plato's ethical theory by identifying Plato's Good with God himself.
(3)
Finally, the ontological argument requires God, as the maximally great being, to be personal, not only because personhood is entailed by the properties that make up maximal excellence such as omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection, but also because being personal is itself a great-making property, which a maximally great being cannot lack.
Origenes_{May 7, 2017
May
05
May
7
07
2017
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT}

Origines: Those kind of statements are called self-evident truths. We have the capacity to subjectively apprehend some absolute truths that form the basis of our fundamental understanding of things. If we reject those truths, then a chain-reaction of self-defeating absurdity follows - like rejecting the existence of the self leads to self-defeating absurdity. As KF said, we subjectively apprehend their absolute nature.William J Murray_{May 6, 2017
May
05
May
6
06
2017
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

KF thank you for the summation of those essential thoughts. One question and one comment:
KF: ... we cannot be in error on perceiving THAT we are conscious.
Do you prefer "I am conscious" to "(I act therefor) I exist"? If so, why exactly?
KF: .... towards the truth .... Third, if our scheme of doubts implies grand delusion, we should set it aside as self-undermining.
Over the years, I have noticed, that the simple credo 'I search for an understandable truth' is an efficient guide through the intellectual landscape. When at a crossroad path X leads unavoidably to total incomprehensibility (e.g. "thoughts arise from a physical base, which is not at all concerned with logic, meaning or anything rational" or "you must understand that you don't exist" or "microtubules orchestrate themselves into consciousness") then my credo guides me by allowing me to set such theories aside as "irrelevant". "Irrelevant" even while the possibility exist that they are true! What happens is that those ideas are compartmentalized in a (probably) permanent waiting room. If path Y, at the crossroad, leads to theories that do have the potential of being understandable, then path Y gets automatic precedence. Yes I admit it: I discriminate on the basis of comprehensibility. I have noticed that not many ppl follow the same path.Origenes_{May 6, 2017
May
05
May
6
06
2017
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

O, we are here looking at conscious, rationally reflective existence, which is self-moved, and prodded by conscience towards the truth and the right. Such existence is a case where we are as subjects incorrigibly aware THAT we are conscious, which is in a sense the first self-evident truth. We may be in error about some contents of consciousness -- I use the brain in a vat illustration here -- but we cannot be in error on perceiving THAT we are conscious. Notice, insofar as we address consciousness as self-moved, rationally contemplative creatures, we are here subjectively aware of the absolute truth THAT we are conscious. That truth takes on objective warrant through what happens should we try to doubt or deny it: who is doubting or denying, please? Is it not "I"? Said warrant is self evident, even undeniable, thus certain. KF PS: Where things get interesting is in looking at others, are they all zombies or figments of a grand delusion? The best answers pivot on what happens when the other shows unexpected, unexpected, situation-responsive creativity beyond the limits of the blind chance and mechanical necessity of the observed cosmos [500 - 1,000 bits]; esp. with a linguistic component, and particularly involving mathematics -- note CAPTCHA at a simplistic level. This shows rational intelligence. Next, when we see others who are as we are, we should be willing to be mutually respectful. Third, if our scheme of doubts implies grand delusion, we should set it aside as self-undermining. Cf the above. PPS: I remind of F H Bradley's rejoinder to the kantians. He who imagines that the external world is unknowable already implies a knowledge claim about that world, its claimed un-know-ability. He is self-referentially incoherent. It is safer to start from error exists which then established both the certain knowledge of some truths, the certain warrant that implies certain knowledge, but humbles us as the first such truth implies the possibility and actuality of error.kairosfocus_{May 6, 2017
May
05
May
6
06
2017
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

HeKS, JAD, KF, Phinehas, WJM .... A question to everyone. Introduction: I act—I do something, for instance, I doubt my existence—therefor I exist. In order for me to do something at all, it is (logically) required that I exist. I do something, therefor I exist. The question(s): What kind of knowledge is this? This knowledge about my existence, is it "subjective" knowledge? The source of the knowledge is me, in the sense that I am the one who understands (holds) the knowledge. Does this knowledge pertains to something "external to my human mind" and is it "baked into the fabric of reality", to use HeKS' phrase? What sayeth you? Would anyone here be tempted to term this knowledge "absolute" or even "objective"? - - - - - WJM @ 179. Don't thank me yet. We are not done. :)Origenes_{May 6, 2017
May
05
May
6
06
2017
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

PS: Here is how I elaborated:
http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#core_mrlz normally responsive people will at least grudgingly respect the following summary of such core, conscience attested morality from the pen of Paul:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong [NIV, "harm"] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV]
Where, John Locke, in grounding modern liberty and what would become democratic self-government of a free people premised on upholding the civil peace of justice, in Ch 2 Sec. 5 of his second treatise on civil Government [c. 1690] cites "the judicious [Anglican canon, Richard] Hooker" from his classic Ecclesiastical Polity of 1594 on, as he explains how the principles of neighbour-love are inscribed in our hearts, becoming evident to the eye of common good sense and reasonableness:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8 and alluding to Justinian's synthesis of Roman Law in Corpus Juris Civilis that also brings these same thoughts to bear:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]
We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles; for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to (a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law. For instance:
1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.) 2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. (That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity.) 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. If a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT -- so that IS and OUGHT are inextricably fused at that level, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare; usurping the sword of justice to impose a ruthless policy agenda in fundamental breach of that civil peace which must ever pivot on manifest justice. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. (In Aristotle's terms as cited by Hooker: "because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like .") Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly. (NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.) 12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia.
But, widespread or even general acknowledgement of many or most of the above as more or less useful rules of conduct is not the same as to further acknowledge that the sort of wrong we are contemplating is bindingly, objectively, universally something that OUGHT not to be done. And indeed, many will boldly assert today that it cannot be proved that it is absurd to reject the notion that core moral principles are objective and universally binding. Indeed an actual argument made is oh, how can you PROVE that such a list of truths is coherent? (My reply was, after several rounds:
"truths must all be so together, a key point of a coherent world: on distinct identity the triple first principles obtain and so no x is both A and not-A, and so too no two truths x and y can be such that y = NOT-x. In this context, each of the 12 being in turn directly credibly true on grounds of patent absurdities on attempted denial, they are immediately credibly coherent. Next, it so happens that the principles are in fact linked together in a chain so they are mutually supportive and relevant, in fact framing the basis for moral principles in governance."
The onward question was absolute certainty regarding coherence, to which I responded that not even Mathematics -- the logical study of structure and quantity -- post Godel is absolutely certain, and that the relevant degree of certainty is moral, where I would be confidently willing to cast the weight of my soul on the above, and would be prepared to bet the future of civilisation on them. [Indeed, whatever moral view we take, we are casting the weight of our souls and the future of civilisation on it. The ethical component of our worldviews is awesomely momentous.]) So in the view of too many today, we are left to the feelings of revulsion and the community consensus backed up by police and courts on this. Not so. Compare a fish, that we lure to bite on a hook, then land, kill and eat for lunch without compunction. And even for those who object, they will do so by extension of the protective sense we have about say the young child -- not the other way around. But, unless there is a material difference between a young child and a fish, that sense of wrong is frankly delusional, it is just a disguised preference, one that we are simply willing to back up with force. So, already, once we let radical relativism and subjectivism loose, we are looking at the absurdity and chaos of the nihilist abyss, might (and manipulation) makes for 'right.' Oops. At the pivot of the skeptical objections to objective moral truth, notwithstanding persistent reduction to absurdity, is the pose that since we may err and since famously there are disagreements on morality, we can reduce moral feelings to subjective perceptions tastes and preferences, dismissing any and all claims of objectivity much less self evidence. So, the objector triumphantly announces: there is an unbridgeable IS-OUGHT gap, game over. Not so fast, as there is no better reason to imagine that we live in a moral Plato’s Cave world, than that we live in a physical or intellectual Plato’s Cave world. That is, we consider the imagined world of Plato where the denizens, having been imprisoned from childhood, all imagine that the shadow shows portrayed for their benefit are reality. Until, one is loosed, sees the apparatus of manipulation, then is led outside and learns of the reality that is there to be discovered. Then he tries to rescue his fellows, only to be ridiculed and attacked: Video: . . . Now, the skeptical question is, do we live in such a delusional world (maybe in another form such as the brains in vats or the Matrix's pods . . . ), and can we reliably tell the difference? The best answer to such is, that such a scenario implies general delusion and the general un-trustworthiness of our senses and reasoning powers. So, it undercuts itself in a turtles all the way down chain of possible delusions -- an infinite regress of Plato's cave delusions. Common good sense then tells us that the skeptic has caught himself up in his own web, his argument is self referentially incoherent. This may seem so outlandish that a live example will help, here on from a real blog discussion thread exchange:
CS, 176: . . . you see, it’s not that I don’t perceive other individuals “out there. It’s that I’m not sure about what the external world “really is.” It could be an illusion. Or it could have a reality close to what I’m perceiving. There’s no way to know for sure. In the end, I’m only sure that I’m conscious and experiencing “the external world.” But I don’t have a surety about the nature of “the external world.” Pragmatically, I assume it exists, because I really have no choice, unless I want to just lie down and do nothing. WJM, 183: . . . You [CS] have stated that your epistemological solipsism means that you cannot be sure of what exists outside of your mind – or even if there is an existence outside of you mind. My question to you, then, is: can you be sure of what does not exist outside of your mind? CS, 184: . . . No. Can you? WJM, 185: So, you cannot be sure that morality is not a commodity that exists objectively outside of your mind? CS, 189: Correct. It may very well be. But I can’t be sure of it. Neither do I perceive anything that would make me think it is true . . .
The onward cascade of doubts and/or delusional worlds, though implicit, is painfully patent. This participant is neither confident of the external nor the internal worlds, and ends up in an arbitrary and confessedly blind faith that something is "out there" and "in here" nonetheless. Which boils down to, s/he cannot live consistent with his or her view. So also, the proper stance in response to such is that this sort of appeal to general doubt or general delusion about major aspects of reality and the mind reduces to absurdity. In response, we should hold that it is senseless to assume or imply the general dubiousness or delusion of any major faculty of mind, precisely because of that absurd result. Including, of course, conscience as that candle of the Lord within, shining a sometimes painful light into some very dark corners of our thoughts, words and deeds. Instead, until and unless we can find evidence of specific error, we will confidently hold to what seems to be reliable, common sense reality; beginning with the bench-mark truths that are self-evident and foundational (e.g. first truths and first principles of right reason . . . ), which we will use as plumb-lines to test the systems of thought we hold. Yes, as finite, fallible, intellectually and morally struggling creatures, we must live by faith, but there is no reason why such faith should be blind, hopeless and/or absurdly irrational. Thus, we proceed on common good sense and solid first principles, until and unless we see specific good evidence and reason to acknowledge and turn from specific error. Which, we pledge to promptly do, out of our sense of a duty of care to seek and follow the truth through good reasoning on credible evidence. H'mm -- isn't that an OUGHT? Yes it is. No surprise. And, a big hint on the nature of the underlying foundational IS that grounds OUGHT. So also, we see the absurdities implied by attempted denial of moral reality through reducing it to mere [potentially] delusional subjective perceptions. Even the much prized or even vaunted rationality is in the stakes! For, if our minds are that delusional on so important a matter, we have decisively undercut the mind, period. Which should be patent, once we give it a moment’s thought in light of our experience and understanding of the world we live in. It is reasonable to hold and accept instead that: just as we have minds that allow us to make sense of the signals of our external world accessed through seeing and hearing, forming a coherent picture of the world, we have a generally [as opposed to absolutely] trustworthy sense -- conscience -- that is detecting and responding to duty in light of the value of those we interact with. Or, as John Locke so tellingly put it in the Introduction, Section 5, of his essay on human understanding (again, c. 1690):
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] 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. Paragraphing added.]
Now, too, we have already seen grounds for understanding and acknowledging that there are objective truths that we subjects can access and know using our senses and faculties of conscious thought, even to undeniable certainty in certain key cases. The question behind this thread of thought, now, is whether this extends to the domain of OUGHT. And, a specific (and unfortunately, real world) candidate has been put: that it is self evident that it is wrong to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child. The peculiar thing is that for all the skeptical arguments that have so often been raised in reply to this case [which, unfortunately, is based on real world events and the sad fate of a real child], we consistently find very little evidence of open direct denial. Instinctively, objectors realise that to deny this truth plainly is to admit to moral deficiency, to be morally defective in an absurd way. So, consistently the challenges raised in various fora have been indirect; intended to undermine and redefine morality in ways that — while such is not usually openly admitted — amount to might and manipulation make ‘right.’ Where, of course: the child is a proverbial example of one who is not able to appeal to strength or persuasive ability, especially in the face of a kidnapper. That is, might makes 'right' would rob children of their rights -- as arguably has already been happening with children still in the womb. Where, too, all of us here to read and discuss this once were children in the womb and then growing children walking around in a world where there are such things as predators like this. And so the hesitation to be brazenly direct and dismissive is easily explained as hesitation to openly embrace moral absurdity; and, the widespread attempts to instead seek to undermine the general objectivity and binding nature of OUGHT therefore stand exposed as little more than irresponsible evasions and obfuscations. So also, we see indirect inadvertent evidence that even those who deny objectivity to morality recognise it. Thus, objectors are inadvertently testifying against interests that they too are quite aware of an inner sense — usually termed conscience — that senses, makes sense of and responds strongly to morality even as eyes sense light and ears sound thence minds manifest an awareness of the world based on such sight and sound. The conscience speaks. That brings up the root issue: conscience is invisible, as conscious mind is invisible, and in a materialism-influenced age, seeing is believing. Oops, seeing the physical world depends on that invisible, familiar but mysterious consciousness, and rocks — whether fancy bits of silicon or peculiar cells that pass ion currents and thus signals in networks similar to solid state electronic logic gates -- have no dreams. Yet another sign of the irretrievable incoherence and factual inadequacy of materialism and its fellow travellers. So, we have no good reason to reject the objectivity of being bound by OUGHT. And, just by observing the pattern of human quarrels -- we habitually appeal to fairness that is binding upon us all, we find that the sense of ought is near universal and forms a core consensus that we ought to be treated fairly in light of simply being human, the exceptions being accountable for on much the same grounds as that some people have become blind. (I will never forget the videotaped last words cry of a man in a gas chamber, even as the gases were being released: I am a human being! [How this was allowed out on news way back when, I don't know.]) We recognise that we have quasi-infinite worth, which should not be violated. Thus, we see our sense of justice and of the difference between luring and catching a fish to become lunch and luring and despoiling then destroying a child. (Where, that some take pity on the fish and will go out of their way to eat only vegetables is itself further eloquent testimony on the point. [Notice, there is no "people for the ethical treatment of fruit, root starches, grains and vegetables" movement.]) As the ghost of that child tells us, OUGHT, then, is credibly real -- objective and binding; which then points onward to a foundational IS that properly bears the weight of OUGHT. Notoriously, there is but one level of reality where that can enter, the foundation. Namely, the best explanation for the binding nature of core morality leading to our being under moral government, is a Moral Governor. This Governor would be the inherently good creator God who has endowed us with minds, hearts, consciences and rights; thus also, duties. In a world where God is the foundation, OUGHT makes sense, and is grounded in a foundational IS. Refuse to acknowledge God in light of evidence that he is real -- including that of finding ourselves under the binding force of the moral government of OUGHT -- and we lose anchorage for morality, rights, fairness, justice, law and civilisation. Opening the door to absurd chaos. That is, if evil is real and objectionable, OUGHT is real. This, we face the challenge to bridge the IS-OUGHT gap, which can only be done at world-foundation level. For which, after many centuries of debates, there is but one serious candidate: the inherently good Creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being. Hence, the force of the American Declaration of Independence of 1776, when it confidently asserts:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . .
This is of course historically pivotal in the rise of modern liberty and democratic self government guided -- however inevitably imperfect and struggling the reality! -- by the twin stars of liberty and justice for all.
kairosfocus_{May 6, 2017
May
05
May
6
06
2017
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

F/N: Perhaps, Clarke and Rakestraw can give us a context:
Principles are broad general guidelines that all persons ought to follow. Morality is the dimension of life related to right conduct. It includes virtuous character and honorable intentions as well as the decisions and actions that grow out of them. Ethics on the other hand, is the [philosophical and theological] study of morality . . . [that is,] a higher order discipline that examines moral living in all its facets . . . . on three levels. The first level, descriptive ethics, simply portrays moral actions or virtues. A second level, normative ethics (also called prescriptive ethics), examines the first level, evaluating actions or virtues as morally right or wrong. A third level, metaethics, analyses the second . . . It clarifies the meaning of ethical terms and assesses the principles of ethical argument . . . . Some think, without reflecting on it, that . . . what people actually do is the standard of what is morally right . . . [But, what] actually happens and what ought to happen are quite different . . . . A half century ago, defenders of positivism routinely argued that descriptive statements are meaningful, but prescriptive statements (including all moral claims) are meaningless . . . In other words, ethical claims give no information about the world; they only reveal something about the emotions of the speaker . . . . Yet ethical statements do seem to say something about the realities to which they point. “That’s unfair!” encourages us to attend to circumstances, events, actions, or relationships in the world. We look for a certain quality in the world (not just the speaker’s mind) that we could properly call unfair. [ Readings in Christian Ethics, Vol. 1: Theory and Method. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), pp. 18 – 19.]
Also, Holmes:
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. [ Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions (Downers Grove, IL: 1984), pp. 70 – 72 & p. 81. Holmes goes on to point out that certain duties arise from our particular relationships, commitments and roles in the family and wider community. We may also face situations in which we are forced to choose the lesser of evils, especially where delay or inaction is in effect to make a worse choice.]
KFkairosfocus_{May 6, 2017
May
05
May
6
06
2017
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

O, moral subjectivism is not the same as relativism, esp. insofar as the latter is tied to community or culture rather than the individual. KFkairosfocus_{May 6, 2017
May
05
May
6
06
2017
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

Origenes said:
Perhaps by using the term “objective morality”, WJM informs us about his ontological view, but I doubt that…
That is exactly what I am doing, and how I am using the term "objective morality"; I'm referring to an objective real aspect of universal existence, something sewn into the fabric of reality because it is an innate aspect of the grounding root of everything that is created. You and I just disagree about the fundamental nature of god. I hold that god as god is not a subject/person at all, but rather the ground upon which subjectivity/personhood/individuality itself exists in relation to. God is the "objective", individuals are the "subjective", individualized creations ***of*** god that exist within an objective framework. I really do appreciate the conversation Origenes, because I hadn't ever actually been able to express this dualistic nature quite so well before. Thank you!William J Murray_{May 6, 2017
May
05
May
6
06
2017
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

HeKS @175
No, this is not correct. The terms are being used in the context of ontology, not epistemology.
You are saying that the term “subjective morality” simply indicates that morality contingently exists on a subject. The usage of the term “subjective morality” informs us only about the ontology of morality and is neutral on its epistemological status. If that is the case, then I adhere to subjective morality, since I hold that all existence, morality included, is ultimately grounded in a person/subject — see post #114. William J Murray, who holds that God is not a person/subject, does not agree with me. Perhaps by using the term “objective morality”, WJM informs us about his ontological view, but I doubt that...
As I have been saying in several different ways, morality exists, one way or the other. Even if morality doesn’t have objective existence as an aspect of the world external to human minds and baked into the fabric of reality, there are nonetheless moral systems of various sorts that people create and try to adhere to in varying numbers which categorize actions into moral categories as per the dictates of those systems.
By what reason would it be the case that morality ‘exists, one way or the other’? If we are not rational free responsible persons then morality does not exist. We all know that there is no point whatsoever in discussing morality with ppl who deny free will.
So the question is, What is the ultimate nature of morality? Is it something that ONLY has subjective existence in the minds of humans, such that whatever moral pronouncements they make or systems they create are MERELY the product of their own minds and feeling …
Let’s see … “subjective” would indicate that moral system X is fully produced by human subjects. And I take it that the term “objective” is used when a divine subject is causally involved …. This usage of terms does not appeal to me. I posed some questions about that in post #114.
… and so CANNOT be either right or wrong in any ultimate sense because there is no ultimate moral truth for them to reflect?
Given those circumstances, it cannot be right but it can certainly be wrong. Consider the claim “everyone has a right to X”. If there is no morality baked into the fabric of reality, then that claim is obviously wrong.
Or does morality ALSO have objective existence as a real phenomenon in the world …
I can translate your question like this: Or has the existence of morality also a non-human (divine / evolutionary processes) ground? Again, in my view, God is a person/subject, so ‘divine ground’ would mean ‘subjective ground’. - - - - A final thought: I may prefer the term moral relativism over ‘moral subjectivism’.Origenes_{May 6, 2017
May
05
May
6
06
2017
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply