Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

10 Reasons Why Atheists Are Delusional

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Atheists/materialists/physicalist/naturalists are delusional. Here are 10 reasons why:

1. They dismiss morality as nothing more than strongly felt subjective preference, but admit they act as if morality is objective in nature.

2. They speak, act and hold others responsible for their behaviors as if we all have some metaphysical capacity to transcend and override the deterministic effects of our body’s physical state and causative processing, yet they deny any such metaphysical capacity (like free will) exists.

3. They deny truth can be determined subjectively while necessarily implying that their arguments and evidences are true and expecting others to subjectively determine that their arguments are true.

4. They deny that what is intelligently designed can be reliably identified when virtually every moment of their waking existence requires precisely that capacity.

5. They deny that some abstract concepts are necessarily true and objectively binding on our existence (such as the fundamental principles of math, logic and morality) yet reference them (directly or indirectly) as if they are exactly that.

6. They deny humans are anything other than entirely creatures of nature, yet insist that what humans do is somehow a threat to nature or some supposed natural balance.

7. They insist humans are categorically the same as any other animals, but then decry it when humans treat other humans the same way other animals treat their own kind (alpha male brutality, violence, etc), as if humans have some sort of obligation to “transcend” their “animal” nature.

8. They insist that physical facts are the only meaningful truths that exist, but then want to use force of law to protect subjective concepts that contradict physical facts, like “transgenderism”.

9. They insist spiritual laws that transcend the physical do not exist, but then insist that all humans are equal, when they factually, obviously are not equals at all – either physically or intellectually.

10. They pursue social systems that attempt to force the concept of equality on everyone as if they expect that through ignoring the physical realty of human inequality they can build a sound social system, which would be comparable to ignoring the inequality of building materials and insisting that they all be treated as equal when building a skyscraper.

Comments
WJM @ 142. Yes, we have a name for that on this blog. "Insane Denial," and our opponents engage in it all the time. They seem to be proud of their insanity. See https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/insane-denial-example-2793/Barry Arrington
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Dave @137: You cannot convince people of self-evident truths - or even of definitional truths. People can deny (and have denied) that A=A. You cannot convince anyone out of active denial even when what they deny is fundamentally necessary to their statement of denial. What is of more interest to me is why you characterized your moral knowledge as less certain and more hesitant when, given the moral scenario I outlined, you appear immediately and absolutely certain of the objectively immoral nature of the act.William J Murray
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
mike1962,
Do you believe that this “self-evident” property of “2+3=5” is something that you perceive to be true, or something that merely a function of your intuition, i.e, because your brain happens to be programmed to have confidence that it is true?
I do perceive it to be true. It's not merely a function of my intuition. I believe it would be true even if there were no sentient beings to think about it.daveS
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
daveS, "How does the sun shine?" "Because it does" I was hoping for a bit more depth in your answer. So, I'll try to coax you a little more: Do you believe that this "self-evident" property of "2+3=5" is something that you perceive to be true, or something that merely a function of your intuition, i.e, because your brain happens to be programmed to have confidence that it is true?mike1962
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
mike1962, I doubt that fish or dogs (and obviously rocks) have sufficient capacity for abstract thought to understand that 2 + 3 = 5 is self-evidently true. Humans do, however.daveS
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
daveS: Yes, in fact I believe 2 + 3 = 5 is self-evidently true. Is 2 + 3 = 5 self-evidently true to a fish? Or to a dog? Or to a rock? How do you know this is "self-evidently true" ? What makes you so special?mike1962
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
WJM,
DS: You’ve stated that you are less sure of the objective nature of any moral rule than you are of objective truths arrived at by definition. You’ve stated that you are more hesitant to claim knowledge of the former than you are of the latter. If you observed a person cruelly harming a child (say, deliberately burning their skin with a cigarette), would you be less immediately certain of the moral wrongness of that act than of the wrongness of the equation 1+1=3?
In the moment, they would both seem absolutely wrong. But how can I tell (or convince someone else) that harming the child is in fact objectively morally wrong, and not just my personal preference?daveS
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
KF, Note that I haven't said anything (pro or con) about relativism. 2 + 3 = 5 is true by definition (we agree), but I don't think anyone has stated that "cruelty is immoral" is true by definition. That is the distinction I am raising.daveS
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
DS: You've stated that you are less sure of the objective nature of any moral rule than you are of objective truths arrived at by definition. You've stated that you are more hesitant to claim knowledge of the former than you are of the latter. If you observed a person cruelly harming a child (say, deliberately burning their skin with a cigarette), would you be less immediately certain of the moral wrongness of that act than of the wrongness of the equation 1+1=3?William J Murray
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
F/N: Adler on Little errors in the beginning: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20080402092000/http://radicalacademy.com/adler_little_errors.htm >>The little error in the beginning, made by Locke and Leibniz, perpetuated by Kant, and leading to the repudiation of any non-verbal or non-tautological truth having incorrigible certitude, consists in starting with a dichotomy instead of a trichotomy — a twofold instead of a threefold distinction of types of truth. In addition to merely verbal statements which, as tautologies, are uninstructive and need no support beyond the rules of language, and in addition to instructive statements which need support and certification, either from experience or by reasoning, there is a third class of statements which are non-tautological or instructive, on the one hand, and are also indemonstrable or self-evidently true, on the other. These are the statements that Euclid called “common notions,” that Aristotle called “axioms” or “first principles,” and that mediaeval thinkers called “propositions per se nota.” One example will suffice to make this clear — the axiom or selfevident truth that a finite whole is greater than any of its parts. This proposition states our understanding of the relation between a finite whole and its parts. It is not a statement about the word “whole” or the word “part” but rather about our understanding of wholes and parts and their relation. All of the operative terms in the proposition are indefinable. We cannot express our understanding of a whole without reference to our understanding of its parts and our understanding that it is greater than any of its parts. We cannot express our understanding of parts without reference to our understanding of wholes and our understanding that a part is less than the whole of which it is a part. When our understanding of an object that is indefinable (e.g., a whole) involves our understanding of another object that is indefinable (e.g., a part), and of the relation between them, that understanding is expressed in a self-evident proposition which is not trifling, uninstructive, or analytic, in Locke’s sense or Kant’s, for no definitions are involved. Nor is it a synthetic a priori judgment in Kant’s sense, even though it has incorrigible certitude; and it is certainly not synthetic a posteriori since, being intrinsically indemonstrable, it cannot be supported by statements offering empirical evidence or reasons. The contemporary denial that there are any indisputable statements which are not merely verbal or tautological, together with the contemporary assertion that all non-tautological statements require extrinsic support or certification and that none has incorrigible certitude, is therefore falsified by the existence of a third type of statement, exemplified by the axiom or self-evident truth that a finite whole is greater than any of its parts, or that a part is less than the finite whole to which it belongs. It could as readily be exemplified by the self-evident truth that the good is the desirable, or that the desirable is the good — a statement that is known to be true entirely from an understanding of its terms, both of which are indefinables. One cannot say what the good is except by reference to desire, or what desire is except by reference to the good. The understanding of either involves the understanding of the other, and the understanding of both, each in relation to the other, is expressed in a proposition per se nota, i.e., self-evident or known to be true as soon as its terms are understood. Such propositions are neither analytic nor synthetic in the modern sense of that dichotomy; for the predicate is neither contained in the definition of the subject, nor does it lie entirely outside the meaning of the subject. Axioms or self-evident truths are, furthermore, truths about objects understood, objects that can have instantiation in reality, and so they are not merely verbal. They are not a priori because they are based on experience, as all our knowledge and understanding is; yet they are not empirical or a posteriori in the sense that they can be falsified by experience or require empirical investigation for their confirmation. The little error in the beginning, which consists in a non-exhaustive dichotomy mistakenly regarded as exhaustive, is corrected when we substitute for it a trichotomy that distinguishes (i) merely verbal tautologies, (ii) statements of fact that require empirical support and can be empirically falsified, (iii) axiomatic statements, expressing indemonstrable truths of understanding which, while based upon experience, do not require empirical support and cannot be empirically falsified.>> That's quite a discussion. SETs are so, and are seen to be so once properly understood on our sufficiently mature experience of the world. They are also necessarily so on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial, where that absurdity takes some relevant form. One can fail to understand as a blind man may fail to understand colour and colourlessness. One may reject, even being of sufficient maturity. But in so doing, one is forced to cling to and attempt to justify or suppress some absurdity. Which may then be imposed by might and manipulation. But soon enough it will be clear that the Emperor is leading the parade in his birthday suit. Never mind that history teaches us how often such has happened. Think about error exists or how distinct identity leads to the LOI, LNC and LEM which cannot be proved as the attempt must rely on said principles. KFkairosfocus
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
DS, The truth lieth not in empty definitions we agree to play a game with and call it Math, but in substantial agreement with reality, including the abstract reality of numbers. This is not a sight unseen matter. Second, we have in fact gone through centuries of influence along lines as outlined, and such will have the tendency you pointed to. Wiki is convenient as capturing secularised conventional wisdom:
Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity within themselves, but rather only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.[1] As moral relativism, the term is often used in the context of moral principles, where principles and ethics are regarded as applicable in only limited context. There are many forms of relativism which vary in their degree of controversy.[2] The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture (cultural relativism).[3]
Matt Slick at CARM:
Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid, and that all truth is relative to the individual. This means that all moral positions, all religious systems, all art forms, all political movements, etc., are truths that are relative to the individual. Under the umbrella of relativism, whole groups of perspectives are categorized. In obvious terms, some are: cognitive relativism (truth) - Cognitive relativism affirms that all truth is relative. This would mean that no system of truth is more valid than another one, and that there is no objective standard of truth. It would, naturally, deny that there is a God of absolute truth. moral/ethical relativism - All morals are relative to the social group within which they are constructed. situational relativism - Ethics (right and wrong) are dependent upon the situation. Unfortunately, the philosophy of relativism is pervasive in our culture today. With the rejection of God, and Christianity in particular, absolute truth is being abandoned. Our pluralistic society wants to avoid the idea that there really is a right and wrong. This is evidenced in our deteriorating judicial system that has more and more trouble punishing criminals, in our entertainment media which continues to push the envelope of immorality and indecency, in our schools which teach evolution and "social tolerance," etc. In addition, the plague of moral relativism is encouraging everyone to accept homosexuality, pornography, fornication, and a host of other "sins" that were once considered wrong but are now being accepted and even promoted in society. It is becoming so pervasive that if you speak out against moral relativism and its "anything goes" philosophy, you're labeled as an intolerant bigot. Of course, this is incredibly hypocritical of those who profess that all points of view are true, yet reject those who profess absolutes in morality. It seems that what is really meant by the moral relativists is that all points of view are true except for the views that teach moral absolutes, an absolute God, or absolute right and wrong. Some typical expressions that reveal an underlying presupposition of relativism are comments such as: "That is your truth, not mine;" "It is true for you, but not for me;" and "There are no absolute truths." Of course, these statements are illogical, which I demonstrate in the paper "Refuting relativism." Relativism is invading our society, our economy, our schools, and our homes. Society cannot flourish nor survive in an environment where everyone does what is right in his own eyes, where the situation determines moral truth, and that lying and cheating are okay as long as you don't get caught. Without a common foundation of truth and absolutes, our culture will become weak and fragmented . . .
His paper: https://carm.org/refuting-relativism This seems to be a clear facet of the issue of delusions WJM pointed to in the OP. KFkairosfocus
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, I am not sure what you are saying about 2 + 3 = 5, but presume you accept that it is self-evident as can be seen from || + ||| –> ||||| and the symbolic conventions we use.
I agree with you that it's objectively true. Here's what Hempel says, with which I concur:
The analytic character of mathematical propositions. The statement that 3 + 2 = 5, then, is true for similar reasons as, say, the assertion that no sexagenarian is 45 years of age. Both are true simply by virtue of definitions or of similar stipulations which determine the meaning of the key terms involved.
KF:
That is, I think you acknowledge not merely objectivity but self evidence of key truths.
Yes, in fact I believe 2 + 3 = 5 is self-evidently true.
I can accept that in a world influenced by centuries of advancing relativism, subjectivism/ sentimentalism etc, it is hard to see that some moral truths are as self evident in their own way as such.
I don't know that relativism &etc. is involved here. Really, I'm willing to affirm the objective truth of any proposition which is true by definition, sight unseen. Propositions which are not simply true by definition? As I said, I'm more hesitant to claim knowledge of their objective truth.daveS
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
DS, I am not sure what you are saying about 2 + 3 = 5, but presume you accept that it is self-evident as can be seen from || + ||| --> ||||| and the symbolic conventions we use. That is, I think you acknowledge not merely objectivity but self evidence of key truths. I can accept that in a world influenced by centuries of advancing relativism, subjectivism/ sentimentalism etc, it is hard to see that some moral truths are as self evident in their own way as such. I point to the first cluster of MSETs just cited:
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.
Further, I point to no 9:
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.
I find this surfaces the core issue as the child has not eloquence or strength to fight, and yet undeniably has a right not to be seized, violated and murdered. (The crime is unsolved 30+ years later, there is a monster on the loose somewhere.) KFkairosfocus
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
JAD,the CI is clearly a call to moral coherence in the world. That which would turn the equally quasi infinitely valuable other into a tool or toy to my ends or equivalently would parasite off the fact that a community as a whole cannot sustainably act as a rule on the maxim at work [e.g lying, bad checks etc], is incoherent and absurd. KFkairosfocus
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
KF,
And, such a truth as 2 + 3 = 5 is not merely analytic. In effect true by arbitrary definition that imposes the rules of a game we agree to play by way of so-called inter-subjective agreement.
That's how I interpret the truth of 2 + 3 = 5 as well.
So, no, the attempt to lock us up in Kantian concepts fails.
Please note that I'm not attempting to lock anyone up. I'm just explaining why I'm willing to affirm the objective truth of statements such as 2 + 3 = 5 ("true by definition"), but am more reluctant to claim knowledge of objective moral truths.daveS
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
john_a_designer, Yes, I certainly agree with you that nothing I've said shows that objective moral truths don't exist.daveS
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
”the attempt to lock us up in Kantian concepts fails…” Indeed, not even Kant tried to base his moral theory on his concept of the analytic. While I disagree with Kant’s moral theory at a number of points, I don’t think I would describe his categorical imperative as being “subjectivist.”john_a_designer
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
PS: As a reminder, I again clip regarding moral SETs, starting from a cluster of classical cites:
normally responsive people will at least grudgingly respect the following summary of 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, 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. 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. 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.
I find that, on the whole, kicking against the pricks regarding this or a similar list, is symptomatic. Especially when the issue of the root of oughtness is on the table and the challenge to posit a coherent alternative foundational IS capable of carrying the weight of OUGHT goes a-begging for weeks at a time.kairosfocus
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT
JAD & DS: First, analytic vs synthetic and a priori vs a posteriori are categories that while useful are not exhaustive of possibilities. There are also truths of foundational understanding, that per our experience of the world are seen as self evident. That is, they are true and on pain of absurdity are seen as necessarily true. We can start with, inescapably, we are under the governance of ought. The very fact that we have debates and feel an urgency to the truth and the right speaks to this. This is as undeniably true as 2 + 3 = 5, but on different grounds. And, such a truth as 2 + 3 = 5 is not merely analytic. In effect true by arbitrary definition that imposes the rules of a game we agree to play by way of so-called inter-subjective agreement. (Where, it is relevant to ask: how does one escape the prison of one's skull to know that there is a world including other subjects?) We come to the table with a class of experiences of the world that imposes concepts of quantity and operations on quantities, equivalence and more. Also, of symbolic representation and reasoning that are sound, not merely internal phenomena, they bridge the Kantian ugly gulch to the world of things in themselves, on pain of instant incoherence and so patent absurdity. F H Bradley was right to point out long ago, that he who imagines such an ugly gulch and then derives the notion that one cannot span it, has already asserted to know something about the external world, and so is in incoherence. So, no, the attempt to lock us up in Kantian concepts fails. There is a third way that is not merely synthetic a priori. There are truths of foundational insight rooted in our general experience of the world, that are seen to be so, and to be necessarily so on pain of patent absurdity. They are not "proved" but are the basis on which proofs are obtained. Things like the simultaneous operations of the first principles of right reason pivoting on our experience of distinct identity, and things like manifestly evident core principles of the natural moral law, a law we did not inter-subjectively legislate into being as a game we agree to play, and which we can neither amend nor abolish by some trick of some human legislature or judge's bench. Those who fail to see and acknowledge such have cognitive disabilities, or else are willfully clinging to patent absurdities. Such as, disputing about morals and oughts in particular, while implicitly being based on the oughtness of seeking the truth and the right. Even, if only intending to cynically manipulate that governing oughtness. Going back to the OP's focal point, to cling to a scheme of thought and major worldview component that so strongly tends to undermine rationality and right conduct, is not a sign of inner soundness. Yes, many atheists are material successes, may advance intellectually, and may be generally upright people but one keeps on seeing in these things a struggle between the tendencies of the atheistical worldviews and the cultural memory of the Christendom that is so patently despised.` And, with the issue of self-evident truth regarding right reason and the governance of ought on the table there is a distinct sense of how hard it is to kick against the pricks. KFkairosfocus
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
For some reason I did not get the edit feature. The following should have been block quoted:
That’s why I tend to think that mathematical statements such as 2 + 2 = 4 (which many regard as analytic) are more obviously objectively true than moral propositions. I don’t have to know anything about the world to understand that 2 + 2 = 4 is true, but that’s not the case with “cruelty is immoral”.
That was daveS' quote. What follows is mine Even if mathematical statements like 2 + 2 = 4 “are more obviously objectively true than moral propositions,” it doesn’t follow that moral propositions are not objectively true...john_a_designer
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
daveS @ 118 responded to WMJ (see comments 97, 101, 104, 113): That’s why I tend to think that mathematical statements such as 2 + 2 = 4 (which many regard as analytic) are more obviously objectively true than moral propositions. I don’t have to know anything about the world to understand that 2 + 2 = 4 is true, but that’s not the case with “cruelty is immoral”. Even if mathematical statements like 2 + 2 = 4 “are more obviously objectively true than moral propositions,” it doesn’t follow that moral propositions are not objectively true. However, if you are going use that line of reasoning then please notice that the moral subjectivist cannot “analytically” make the truth claim that all morals are subjective. By the way, as a moral objectivist I do not make the claim that all moral claims are objective. That is because some of the moral claims that people make are false. Therefore, I am really only arguing that some moral claims are objective, but that is all that is needed to refute the subjectivist claim, which is all we really are trying to do here. In other words, his subjective beliefs about morals does not establish that morals are subjective. Indeed, it is self-refuting if you follow the logic out.john_a_designer
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
ellazimm, your comment reflects the completely disingenuous nature of Darwinian debating tactics. I could care less if Chaitin believes Darwinian evolution or not. Science is not about who believes what, it is about what is true from a evidential and mathematical perspective. His own work in mathematics failed to deliver the 'scandolous' mathematical proof that he was looking for for years. Without such a mathematical proof, Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a real science but is more properly classified as a un-falsifiable pseudo-science.
Darwinian Evolution is a Unfalsifiable Pseudo-Science – Mathematics – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater
In fact, Chaitin's refusal to accept Intelligent Design after his own personal failure to find a mathematical basis for Darwinian evolution directly highlights my point that it is the height of hypocrisy for Darwinists to lecture anybody on mathematics, since they, as in this case, refuse to accept even their own results from mathematics showing the complete inadequacy of Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory. The same overall scenario of Darwinists refusing to accept what their own math was telling them played out with neutral theory. The neutral theory of evolution was not the result of any empirical finding in science, but neutral theory was instead born out of the theoretical failure of Natural Selection in regards to the mathematics of population genetics.
Haldane's Dilemma Excerpt: Haldane was the first to recognize there was a cost to selection which limited what it realistically could be expected to do. He did not fully realize that his thinking would create major problems for evolutionary theory. He calculated that in man it would take 6 million years to fix just 1,000 mutations (assuming 20 years per generation).,,, Man and chimp differ by at least 150 million nucleotides representing at least 40 million hypothetical mutations (Britten, 2002). So if man evolved from a chimp-like creature, then during that process there were at least 20 million mutations fixed within the human lineage (40 million divided by 2), yet natural selection could only have selected for 1,000 of those. All the rest would have had to been fixed by random drift - creating millions of nearly-neutral deleterious mutations. This would not just have made us inferior to our chimp-like ancestors - it surely would have killed us. Since Haldane's dilemma there have been a number of efforts to sweep the problem under the rug, but the problem is still exactly the same. ReMine (1993, 2005) has extensively reviewed the problem, and has analyzed it using an entirely different mathematical formulation - but has obtained identical results. John Sanford PhD. - "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome" - pg. 159-160 Kimura's Quandary Excerpt: Kimura realized that Haldane was correct,,, He developed his neutral theory in response to this overwhelming evolutionary problem. Paradoxically, his theory led him to believe that most mutations are unselectable, and therefore,,, most 'evolution' must be independent of selection! Because he was totally committed to the primary axiom (neo-Darwinism), Kimura apparently never considered his cost arguments could most rationally be used to argue against the Axiom's (neo-Darwinism's) very validity. John Sanford PhD. - "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome" - pg. 161 - 162
Thus, evolution by Natural Selection, as Darwin originally envisioned it, was effectively falsified decades ago, but the vast majority of Darwinists today ignore what their own math is telling them and continue to pretend as if Natural Selection has some god-like power to create all life on earth. WJM, Berlinski and Hunter's remarks on neutral theory:
“One wonders what would have become of evolution had Darwin originally claimed that it was simply the accumulation of random, neutral variations that generated all of the deeply complex, organized, interdependent structures we find in biology? Would we even know his name today? What exactly is Darwin really famous for now? Advancing a really popular, disproven idea (of Natural Selection), along the lines of Luminiferous Aether? Without the erroneous but powerful meme of “survival of the fittest” to act as an opiate for the Victorian intelligentsia and as a rationale for 20th century fascism, how might history have proceeded under the influence of the less vitriolic maxim, “Survival of the Happenstance”?” – William J Murray Majestic Ascent: Berlinski on Darwin on Trial – David Berlinski – November 2011 Excerpt: The publication in 1983 of Motoo Kimura’s The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution consolidated ideas that Kimura had introduced in the late 1960s. On the molecular level, evolution is entirely stochastic, and if it proceeds at all, it proceeds by drift along a leaves-and-current model. Kimura’s theories left the emergence of complex biological structures an enigma, but they played an important role in the local economy of belief. They allowed biologists to affirm that they welcomed responsible criticism. “A critique of neo-Darwinism,” the Dutch biologist Gert Korthof boasted, “can be incorporated into neo-Darwinism if there is evidence and a good theory, which contributes to the progress of science.” By this standard, if the Archangel Gabriel were to accept personal responsibility for the Cambrian explosion, his views would be widely described as neo-Darwinian." Here is a Completely Different Way of Doing Science – Cornelius Hunter PhD. – April 2012 Excerpt: But how then could evolution proceed if mutations were just neutral? The idea was that neutral mutations would accrue until finally an earthquake, comet, volcano or some such would cause a major environmental shift which suddenly could make use of all those neutral mutations. Suddenly, those old mutations went from goat-to-hero, providing just the designs that were needed to cope with the new environmental challenge. It was another example of the incredible serendipity that evolutionists call upon. Too good to be true? Not for evolutionists. The neutral theory became quite popular in the literature. The idea that mutations were not brimming with cool innovations but were mostly bad or at best neutral, for some, went from an anathema to orthodoxy. And the idea that those neutral mutations would later magically provide the needed innovations became another evolutionary just-so story, told with conviction as though it was a scientific finding. Another problem with the theory of neutral molecular evolution is that it made even more obvious the awkward question of where these genes came from in the first place."
Of supplemental note:
Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula Excerpt: Virtually all scientists acknowledge that mathematics is the real language of science. Every theory uses words to describe and postulate the theory, but the true test of a theory is numbers and mathematics. It is numbers and mathematical formulae that distinguish true science from hocus-pocus.,,, Every scientific theory that has been promoted to the status of being a scientific law has been quantified and/or embodied into one or more mathematical formulae that make accurate predictions. But no scientist has been able to derive any working formula from the Theory of Evolution and no one has been able to quantify its dictums. Millions of scientists have tried to quantify the Theory of Evolution and they have all failed to do so. http://darwinconspiracy.com/article_1_rev2.php The primary reason why no scientist has been able ‘quantify its dictums’ is because there are no known laws of nature for Darwinists to appeal to to base their math on. In other words, there is no known ‘law of evolution’ in the physical universe: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/consider-the-opossum-the-evidence-for-common-descent/#comment-609503 And whereas Darwinian evolution has no law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such a disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/consider-the-opossum-the-evidence-for-common-descent/#comment-609504
Also of interest is Sanford's peer-reviewed work in population genetics falsifying Darwinian evolution from numerous different angles:
Genetic Entropy – peer reviewed references http://www.geneticentropy.org/#!properties/ctzx
Verse and Music:
John 1 "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" The Logos, is translated to "The Word'. Logos is the root word from which we get our modern word "logic" Brooke Fraser- “C S Lewis Song” http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=DL6LPLNX
bornagain77
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
BA77
Moreover, at the 40:00 minute mark of the video Chaitin readily admits that Intelligent Design is the best possible way to get evolution to take place, and at the 43:30 minute mark Chaitin even tells of one of his friends pointing out to him that his idea Evolutionary computer model, that Chaitin had devised, did not have enough time to work. And Chaitin even agreed that his friend had a point, although Chaitin still ends up just ‘wanting’, and not ever proving that his mathematical model was true!
Your interpretation of Dr Chaitin's address is very narrow. He is talking about the issue of modelling evolution in a very general sense. The video comes from before his book was published. And you quote mine it for snippets that seem to support your view. But if you watch the whole video you get a very different conclusion. Dr Chaitin is NOT a supporter of intelligent design. It's only when you take parts out of context that you get that conclusion.ellazimm
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
HeKS, going back to your comment @74, yes, NZ is definitely part of the west. Although we are also very much a South Pacific country and imbued with Maori and Polynesian culture. And Auckland is 25% Asian now. Politically we were formed as a union between the Crown and Maori and our founding document is the treaty that was signed between the two. So the Maori way of doing things ("tikanga") is as important an influence as the religious traditions of the European settlers. I think we are unique in the colonisation tradition for structuring our community on an equal partnership between the colonists and the indigenous people. In the European culture that I grew up with, yes I am sure many of those values came from Christian traditions. But its complex. And when it comes to things like homosexual law reform (which occurred in the 1980s from memory), the opposition came almost entirely from religious quarters. So I'm not totally convinced of your thesis. All I know is that my experience of growing up here was of a religion free environment and that's the way it still is. Of course we have religious people here, but by and large they practice their religion in private and it is not a subject that crops up much in the public discourse.zeroseven
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
BA77 @81 My firm used to represent Brooke. I have met her and seen her perform several times. Lovely woman.zeroseven
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
WJM,
WRT to the subject of morality, no.
That's why I tend to think that mathematical statements such as 2 + 2 = 4 (which many regard as analytic) are more obviously objectively true than moral propositions. I don't have to know anything about the world to understand that 2 + 2 = 4 is true, but that's not the case with "cruelty is immoral".daveS
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Yes it is the height of hypocrisy! After Chaitin's book was written, Chaitin honestly admitted to Robert Marks, after Marks explained to him where he was smuggling information into his scheme, that his mathematical model failed to deliver the goods. i.e. Failed to provide the much sought after mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution that he was looking for for years. Chaitin is quoted, by Marks, at 10:00 minute mark of following video in regards to Darwinism lack of a mathematical proof – Dr. Marks also comments on the honesty of Chaitin in personally admitting that his long sought after mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution failed to deliver the goods that he thought it had.
On Algorithmic Specified Complexity by Robert J. Marks II - 2014 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No3LZmPcwyg&feature=player_detailpage#t=600
Here is the paper that Marks confronted Chaitin with:
Active Information in Metabiology - Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II - 2013 Excerpt: Introduction: Chaitin’s description of metabiology [3] is casual, clear, compelling, and mind-bending. Yet in the end, although the mathematics is beautiful, our analysis shows that the metabiology model parallels other attempts to illustrate undirected Darwinian evolution using computer models [10–13]. All of these models depend on the principle of conservation of information [14–21], and all have been shown to incorporate knowledge about the search derived from their designers; this knowledge is measurable as active information [14,22–25]. Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 podcast: "Dr. Robert Marks: Active Information in Metabiology" - May 2014 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-05-28T16_06_40-07_00 Dr. Robert Marks: Active Information in Metabiology - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJSJg0IZtfI
Here is what Gregory Chaitin said, in 2011, about the limits of the computer program he was trying to develop to prove that Darwinian evolution was mathematically feasible:
At last, a Darwinist mathematician tells the truth about evolution - VJT - November 2011 Excerpt: In Chaitin’s own words, “You’re allowed to ask God or someone to give you the answer to some question where you can’t compute the answer, and the oracle will immediately give you the answer, and you go on ahead.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-last-a-darwinist-mathematician-tells-the-truth-about-evolution/
Here is the video where, at the 30:00 minute mark, you can hear the preceding quote from Chaitin's own mouth in full context:
Life as Evolving Software, Greg Chaitin at PPGC UFRGS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlYS_GiAnK8
Moreover, at the 40:00 minute mark of the video Chaitin readily admits that Intelligent Design is the best possible way to get evolution to take place, and at the 43:30 minute mark Chaitin even tells of one of his friends pointing out to him that his idea Evolutionary computer model, that Chaitin had devised, did not have enough time to work. And Chaitin even agreed that his friend had a point, although Chaitin still ends up just 'wanting', and not ever proving that his mathematical model was true! Moreover, unlike Darwinian evolution, Intelligent Design does have a mathematical basis in science. i.e. Law of Conservation of Information':
Conservation of information, evolution, etc - Sept. 30, 2014 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution: "The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation]." Gödel - As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995). Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.,,, More recently this led him (Dembski) to postulate a Law of Conservation of Information, or actually to consolidate the idea, first put forward by Nobel-prizewinner Peter Medawar in the 1980s. Medawar had shown, as others before him, that in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms.,,, http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2014/09/30/conservation-of-information-evolution-etc/ Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence - June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search -- unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with "natural evolution." ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab's website states, "The principal theme of the lab's research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems." So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can't prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can't derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html
bornagain77
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
BA77
It is the height of hypocrisy for a Darwinist to try to lecture anybody on the proper use of mathematics when they constantly ignore the math that is against Darwinian evolution:
Is it though? One of the people you referenced, Gregory Chaitin, is quite interesting. In fact, he wrote a book called Proving Darwin: Making Biology Mathematical. From the Amazon summary: For years it has been received wisdom among most scientists that, just as Darwin claimed, all of the Earth’s life-forms evolved by blind chance. But does Darwin’s theory function on a purely mathematical level? Has there been enough time for evolution to produce the remarkable biological diversity we see around us? It’s a question no one has yet answered—in fact, no one has attempted to answer it until now. In this illuminating and provocative book, Gregory Chaitin elucidates the mathematical scheme he’s developed that can explain life itself, and examines the works of mathematical pioneers John von Neumann and Alan Turing through the lens of biology. Fascinating and thought-provoking, Proving Darwin makes clear how biology may have found its greatest ally in mathematics. WJM
When you assert my subjective result “is incorrect”, you are behaving as if the rules of equation under mod 4 are objective and are universally binding wrt arbiting the results. Otherwise, you’d say “well, it’s a matter of personal preference or opinion. It may be the correct answer for you.”
Modular arithmetic is clearly defined and is what it is. You have placed weight on particular terms, 'objective' and 'binding', which are not used by mathematicians. I'll leave it up to you to decide if they are applicable. I would say the rules are agreed upon.
The rest of your post is nothing but hand-waving, an attempt to distract for the fact that mathematicians do indeed treat mathematical principles as if they are, by their nature, objective and universally binding.
Again, mathematicians don't discuss things in those terms. I was just trying to show that, from a mathematics point of view, things can get complicated.
The point is that in mathematics, once you understand the mathematical concept and how it is being expressed symbolically, is not a matter of subjective interpretation or personal preference or else teachers could not grade tests and engineers could not “double-check” calculations and theoreticians could not test theories because there would be no assumed objective methodology for arbiting or measuring results, much less independently verifying the results. The same is true of logical principles.
I guess. It is certainly true that, for example, Cantor has proved that there are different sizes of infinity. Within the axiomatic system of mathematics that we have. What I find confusing is how you use terms and definitions regarding mathematics that are not part of the mathematical canon. Like 'objective' and 'subjective'. This never comes up in mathematics. Either something has been proved or it hasn't. BUT, something that is 'true' in one system, say Euclidean geometry, might not be 'true' in another system, say non-Euclidean geometry. Or 2 + 2 = 4 in mod 10 but not in mod 3. I see that you're trying to make a big argument that there are certain base truths that are always true. And I don't think, in the overall field of mathematics, that that is correct. Or that there are many things you can throw into the 'always true' bucket. I think that it's a bad idea to use mathematics in your moral and ethical argument. It's kind of similar to saying electricity is like water: water pressure is like voltage, volume is like amperage, etc. The analogy always breaks down because the things in comparison are not completely the same. And, as I've continually pointed out, I am only talking about the math NOT your overall argument. Regarding that I have no comment not being competent to make a comment. I know my limitations.ellazimm
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
This thread is awesome.... we are seeing atheists user their free will (as if it is real), objective morality (as if it is real), they are grounding their logic (God knows in what ..) they are using reason (as if there is a reason ), and they are appealing to more than just atoms....... That is exactly what we have been saying all along! Thanks guys you rock!Andre
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
EZ said:
2 + 2 = 2 mod 4 is an incorrect mathematical statement based on consensus of what the symbols mean. Stuff changes sometimes.
When you assert my subjective result "is incorrect", you are behaving as if the rules of equation under mod 4 are objective and are universally binding wrt arbiting the results. Otherwise, you'd say "well, it's a matter of personal preference or opinion. It may be the correct answer for you." The rest of your post is nothing but hand-waving, an attempt to distract for the fact that mathematicians do indeed treat mathematical principles as if they are, by their nature, objective and universally binding. I didn't say that the symbols used to express equations and modes of mathematics were objective; nor did I say that any particular mode or model of mathematics was objectively valid when it came to describing the natural world. The point is that in mathematics, once you understand the mathematical concept and how it is being expressed symbolically, is not a matter of subjective interpretation or personal preference or else teachers could not grade tests and engineers could not "double-check" calculations and theoreticians could not test theories because there would be no assumed objective methodology for arbiting or measuring results, much less independently verifying the results. The same is true of logical principles.William J Murray
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 7

Leave a Reply