Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What If Only Seversky Believed The Holocaust Was Wrong? So Far He Refuses to Say.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Seversky wrote:

The psychopath may decide that he is morally justified in satisfying his appetite for rape and murder but all his potential victims are equally justified in deciding that they don’t want to be actual victims. Given that the potential victims greatly outnumber the psychopaths the will of the majority is likely to prevail. What’s wrong with that? The Nazis may have believed that they were morally justified in believing that the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and mentally disabled were corrupting society and should be exterminated. If they had been asked, those groups would almost certainly have disagreed, as would at least part of the German people. As did much of the rest of the world. The Nazi regime was overthrown at great cost. Was that wrong?

I responded:

“The Nazi regime was overthrown at great cost. Was that wrong?”

Under your theory of morality, the most powerful prevailed. And the mere fact of their prevailing makes their actions right.

The more interesting question Sev is what about the opposite. Suppose the Nazis had won WWII and eradicated the Jews and homosexuals and then taken over the school systems of the world and taught everyone to believe that the eradication of every Jew and homosexual on the face of the earth was a good thing. Suppose further that you came along and bucked the system, so that you were literally the only person on the face of the earth who says killing all the Jews and homosexuals was wrong.

Would you be right and everyone else wrong?

I predict you will dodge that question. And why will you dodge it? Because if you give the only obviously correct response, the entire materialist edifice you have constructed for yourself will come tumbling down. And you will never allow that. Better to avert your eyes from the glaringly obvious truth than abandon the comforts of your materialist worldview.

So far my prediction has been confirmed.

 

Comments
William J Murray @ 79
1. What does “ultimately prevailing” mean? Wins every battle? Every war? Wins the fight for top-down implementation in a particular country? Stands as the moral system for that particular country for hundreds of years? Thousands? Forever? Will, in some future, become the accepted morality of the entire world?
"Ultimately prevailing" meaning eventually prevailing, not immediately prevailing. Meaning that, as the world's populations become aware of their common interests, moralities will converge on that which offers the greatest protection for the common interests and agreed rights of all. I don't expect this to happen any time soon. I suspect it will take a long time for people to get past parochial thinking or concern only for the interests of their "tribe" or in-group. There's no guarantee that this will happen but neither is it impossible. The advantage it has over any so-called objective morality is that these objective moralities are always somehow the personal moralities of the proponents of such a concept. When Christians propose an objective morality it almost invariably turns out to be Christian morality. There is no way they are going to recognize Muslim or Hindu moralities as the objective one. The same, in reverse, is going to apply to Muslims and Hindus concerning Christian claims to objective morality.
2. “Broadest guarantees” .. of what? 3. “Protections” … of or from what?
Guarantees and protection of common human rights and interests. Human beings - the vast majority, anyway - have a common interest in personal survival, which means water, food, shelter and a secure environment in which to raise and provide for a family. Any morality which requires respect for those and other interests and protects against violations of the rights and interests of all by other members of society should have the broadest appeal to potential adherents.
Again, on what evidence do you base this view? I don’t understand your reasoning. What constitutes and ‘exclusivist, extreme” ideology? Who decides what is exclusivist or extreme?
Extreme and exclusivist ideologies or theologies are those which only protect the rights of the few. Those who swear fealty to IS enjoy the protections of the extreme form of Islam they espouse. IS morality permits them to commit almost any form of atrocity against any who are infidels or apostate by their beliefs. That theology is hardly likely to endear them or appeal to the far greater number of non-IS members. As Barry Arrington argued in the parallel case of the Nazis, in principle, if such a group were able to wipe out all its enemies then their morality would prevail, which is true. In practice, all the non-Nazi or non-IS people in the world are hardly going to sit still and allow themselves to be annihilated by these groups. They are going to defend themselves and should prevail through their much greater numbers.
Unfortunately for seversky, though, the actual state of the world both currently and historically would be the factual evidence that shows exactly what such a mechanistic process in fact delivers. What you see is what you get out of the mechanistic numbers game. Terrorism on the rise. Belief in a fanatical system which degrades women and children and horribly kills off non-believers on the rise throughout the world. Governments that are entirely corrupt and use and manipulate populations for the personal gain of elite cartels. In other words, what you actually “ultimately get” out of mechanistic processes over tens of thousands of years is what you see: the vast numbers being used and abused by a powerful, elite few for their own personal gain. Worldwide slavery even in countries that outlaw it. Giant corporations that harm entire populations and take advantage of workers for the sake of shareholder profit
I wasn't arguing that we are there yet or anywhere near it. There is no question that the world faces all the problems listed above and more. The scale of the problems have grown as the human population has grown but I don't think they are any worse than they were before because I don't think basic human nature has changed much over the last few thousand years. There are still those who are capable of great good and great evil and the great majority who just want to get along the best they can. I still believe that the solution ultimately lies in our hands not some god or alien super-intelligence or designer.Seversky
August 21, 2016
August
08
Aug
21
21
2016
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
Rex @83 Of course. But fortunately I am able to live in a community where most people I know share them. Not you apparently.Pindi
August 21, 2016
August
08
Aug
21
21
2016
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Pindi @ 66 Those beliefs you find abhorrent are just your personal opinion. Right?RexTugwell
August 20, 2016
August
08
Aug
20
20
2016
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
F/N: It is clear from the above that we do find ourselves morally obligated, i.e. under moral government, even in the context of argument as to what is true . . . oh, you OUGHT to be right fairly reeks out of the arguments. It is further clear that those who argue against our being significantly responsibly and rationally true - directly or by implication -- let grand delusion loose and end in self referential incoherence. But that is going to be hard to acknowledge. Instead of making shipwreck of rationality and responsibility, it seems much better to start there as a clear first datum, then look at schemes of thought that imply such is illusion, delusion or non-existent -- in fact, we sense the obligation so the worst it can be is delusional -- as being clearly in error. To use the gift of responsible, rational, conscience-guided freedom to argue that such is delusional, is futile by way of being self-defeating. As, we see ever so often. KFkairosfocus
August 19, 2016
August
08
Aug
19
19
2016
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
In #79, "The moral code that will ultimately prevail will be the one that offers the broadest guarantees and protections to the greatest numbers of people." is a quote from Seversky's post.William J Murray
August 19, 2016
August
08
Aug
19
19
2016
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
I have a question for Seversky: How does it feel to live in a universe where Love doesn't exist? Andrewasauber
August 19, 2016
August
08
Aug
19
19
2016
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
The moral code that will ultimately prevail will be the one that offers the broadest guarantees and protections to the greatest numbers of people. 1. What does "ultimately prevailing" mean? Wins every battle? Every war? Wins the fight for top-down implementation in a particular country? Stands as the moral system for that particular country for hundreds of years? Thousands? Forever? Will, in some future, become the accepted morality of the entire world? 2. "Broadest guarantees" .. of what? 3. "Protections" ... of or from what? 4. What happens to those who disagree with that system? 5. On what evidence do you base this view?
Extreme exclusivist ideologies or theologies are ultimately doomed in the same way that the Nazis were.
Again, on what evidence do you base this view? I don't understand your reasoning. What constitutes and 'exclusivist, extreme" ideology? Who decides what is exclusivist or extreme? Do you think the Nazis were defeated because of their "extremist" moral codes? That it rallied masses of people to the cause to defeat them because most people disliked Nazi morality? If numbers in disagreement is the answer, why didn't the German people rise up and overthrow Hitler? Why did the USA and Soviet Union not get involved substantively until they were directly attacked? Why was there deep division in the USA about whether or not to get involved? IF it is a numbers game, then isn't a morally valid way of achieving a superiority of numbers killing those who disgee? I think seversky is using vague phrasing and terminology, along with historically unsubstantiated and convenient opinions, to express his views with as positive an emotional spin as possible, as if his personal, humanistic moral ideal would somehow be the logical, inevitable outcome of purely mechanistic processes (numbers game or game theory of human social interactions). Unfortunately for seversky, though, the actual state of the world both currently and historically would be the factual evidence that shows exactly what such a mechanistic process in fact delivers. What you see is what you get out of the mechanistic numbers game. Terrorism on the rise. Belief in a fanatical system which degrades women and children and horribly kills off non-believers on the rise throughout the world. Governments that are entirely corrupt and use and manipulate populations for the personal gain of elite cartels. In other words, what you actually "ultimately get" out of mechanistic processes over tens of thousands of years is what you see: the vast numbers being used and abused by a powerful, elite few for their own personal gain. Worldwide slavery even in countries that outlaw it. Giant corporations that harm entire populations and take advantage of workers for the sake of shareholder profits. The facts directly refute seversky's vague, idealistic promise of a mechanistically-delivered humanistic morality.William J Murray
August 19, 2016
August
08
Aug
19
19
2016
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
jdk @72
jdk: I think mind as we know it is grounded and and emergent from the material world.
Freedom of choice is a prerequisite to morality. If people don’t have freedom of choice they cannot be accountable for their actions and morality does not exist. A person must be free from physics and chemistry or a “moral” choice is no different than a stream flowing through a gully.
1. If determinism is true, then all our actions and thoughts are consequences of events and laws of nature in the remote past before we were born. 2. We have no control over circumstances that existed in the remote past before we were born, nor do we have any control over the laws of nature. 3. If A causes B, and we have no control over A, and A is sufficient for B, then we have no control over B. Therefore 4. If determinism is true, then we have no control over our own actions and thoughts. Therefore, assuming that responsibility requires control, 5. If determinism is true, then we are not responsible for anything we do or think. Therefore, assuming that freedom entails responsibility, 6. If determinism is true, then we are not free, which is to say that every form of compatibilism is false. [ Bill Vallicella ]
Origenes
August 19, 2016
August
08
Aug
19
19
2016
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed:
Oh wait. You don’t deal in physical facts; you protect your beliefs from them instead. Nevermind.
Hold on there pardner! jdk loves the physical facts. When they are in his favor.Mung
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis Doodle - animated apologetics (the transcendent nature of the moral law) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow Here is a complete reading of C. S. Lewis's classic book 'Mere Christianity' on youtube. Chapter 3 deals with the reality of the moral law within man. Mere Christianity - C. S. Lewis - Easy to follow playlist: http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/mere-christianity/cs-lewis-mere-christianity-toc.phpbornagain77
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington @ 12
In my view, I would be right and, in the view of the Nazis, I would be wrong. Since the Nazis would somewhat outnumber me, their view would prevail and be the one handed down to history. That is what would happen.
Translation: “I would prefer my view and they would prefer their view. There is no standard to arbitrate between our conflicting views, and the stronger prevails.”
Close, but I would say that ultimately the stronger is the side that has the greatest number of supporters. That is how the Nazis were beaten. They had what even their enemies conceded was the best army in the world at that time. But their exclusivist ideology concerning an Aryan master-race and the atrocious behavior they believed it justified turned most of the rest of the world against them. No matter how good their army was they were never going defeat the overwhelming numbers brought against them. That was always going to be their downfall.
It comes down to this, Sev. You are saying “I personally disagree with the slaughter of every single Jew and homosexual, but that is just my view and if someone has a different view I cannot say their view is objectively bad and mine is objectively good. The only thing that matters is who is stronger.”
Essentially right. I don't believe there are any objective moral standards against which all other moralities can be measured. The moral code that will ultimately prevail will be the one that offers the broadest guarantees and protections to the greatest numbers of people. Extreme exclusivist ideologies or theologies are ultimately doomed in the same way that the Nazis were.Seversky
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
jdk, the question, although it may have perplexed some of the ancients, is not hard to answer. Modern science has definitely decided in favor of Mind preceding matter. i.e. The Theist is more than vindicated in his claims by empirical evidence. I would relist the evidence once again, but you would only ignore it again. i.e. I got better things to do than watch jdk chase his tail around in denial!bornagain77
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
I appreciate kfs short, specific post. Here are some equally short (almost) responses.
why do you think that it is important to be correct (rather than persuasive or powerful) about views on morality?
I want to be correct as best as I can for myself in respect to all the sources of information and opinion that I can gather, but ultimately the only thing I can do in respect to others is try to be persuasive, through my actions and my words.
Does this not speak to the inescapability of our being under moral government, in reasoning as in the rest of life?
No. There is no "moral government" that has governance over human beings.
What then follows if we for argument suppose that this sense is delusional — as ever so many are eager to assert or imply? Does this not land us in undermining our whole inner life by letting grand delusion loose thus pointing to self referential chaos of incoherence?
No. I don't argue that the sense of moral government is delusional. I just don't believe it exists. And no, my whole inner life is not undermined by not believing in this moral governance of which you speak, nor do I suffer from self-referential incoherence. I'm a pretty normal human beings with a strong sense of behaving morally, as I and the people I interact with have determined best exhibits morality.
By the converse we have good reason to accept that our sense of being under moral government reflects reality, just as we have reason to hold that we are capable of rationality and knowledge of the world.
I believe rationality and reason leads us to fairly reliable knowledge about the world. However moral standards aren't real in the sense that the world that we live in is: what is real are various opinions about what is moral from lots of different people, but there is no "real" morality out there any place accessible to my experience.
Subjectivity of conscious experience insofar as we have reason to believe it can be reasonably accurate, points to the objectivity of morality just as other major facets of the life of the mind.
Our conscious experience of the external world is reasonably accurate. However, human beings also create stories about the world that go beyond what we experience, and that form the structure of our relationships with other. Social arrangements are constructions rather than observations of existing things. Systems of religion, including morality, norms of behavior, possible roles within society, etc. (in other word, social culture) are made up and then become entrenched, and the variety of such has been tremendous despite the underlying common human nature. So who we are is a combination of what we know about the external world, which we confirm, and choices we, along with our society, have made about how to live: these latter are affirmations, not confirmations. Religion, morals, social arrangements, etc., exist because we choose for them to exist, not because they exist outside of us in the same sense that physical reality does.jdk
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
BA writes,
The problem arises, for Darwinian materialists, in placing matter first and mind secondary. For them mind must be emergent from a material basis. They simply refuse to even consider the proposition that mind may have preceded matter. And thus the end result is the insane insistence of leading Darwinian proponents saying, for all the world to hear, that mind is an ‘illusion’ of the brain.
This is the great undecided question that has been part of philosophy since the Greeks: which came first, mind or matter. You are wrong, at least in respect to me, that I haven't considered that mind may have preceded matter. I am agnostic on such things at the ultimate metaphysical level. However, I think mind as we know it is grounded and and emergent from the material world. However, this doesn't make mind an illusion. Many things are made of matter (in the very broad way in which this term in now understood in physics) and yet have properties that are far different than those possessed by the basic components of matter. (A very simple example is salt.) As I have explained before, the idea that mind is a non-material something that lives in us and yet is separate from our body is an illusion. That doesn't mean that what we commonly experience as our mind doesn't exist.jdk
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
jdk, The various parts of a person have evolved over time so they work together,: we are biologically integrated.
The specific organization of matter that allows biology to exist is non-integrable. This has been known for abut half a century now. Oh wait. You don't deal in physical facts; you protect your beliefs from them instead. Nevermind.Upright BiPed
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
jdk: I take back calling BA’s questions stupid, and I apologize, BA. Miracles happen all around us, every day.Mung
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
Thank you Mungy. You're welcome. :) It does open a can of worms, doesn't it. Jesus Christ was "the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world." So it would appear that the crucifixion was just a carrying out in time of something timeless. And Jesus even prayed that God forgive them. How did God answer that prayer, I wonder?Mung
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
Jdk @50,
Jdk: HI Origenes. …. you believe some non-material property must exist in organisms in order for them to function in an integrated fashion.
Materialism fails to ground organisms, therefore logic informs us that a complete explanation involves non-materiality. Materialism holds that all of reality consists of impersonal indivisible fundamental elements; fermions and bosons. —Rock. At macro-level a rock may present itself to us as one indivisible thing, however its oneness is an illusion; in fact it is nothing over and beyond fundamental elements. There ‘is’ no rock. What truly, eternally and indivisibly exists are fermions and bosons. Stuff at the macro-level is temporal, composite and can be fully explained bottom-up. —Robot. Similarly a robot, made from Lego blocks, may present itself to us as one indivisible thing which wants to grab something, but in fact there is nothing over and beyond Lego blocks which care about neither the robot nor its apparent urge to grab something. The illusion of an intentional personal robot is fully produced by indifferent impersonal Lego blocks. To be clear, there is in fact no robot, no person and there is no urge to grab something. —Human being. Similarly a human being, made from fermions and bosons, may present itself to us as one indivisible thing with its own intentions, but in fact , according to materialism, there is nothing over and beyond fermions and bosons which care about neither a human being nor intentions. The illusion of an intentional personal human being is produced by unintentional impersonal fermions and bosons. To be clear, according to materialism, there is in fact no person and there are no intentions.
Jdk: The various parts of a person have evolved over time so they work together,: we are biologically integrated.
Those are words without meaning. Given materialism there is nothing that evolves. There is neither a ‘person’ nor a ‘we’.Origenes
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
Barry, "Then why do you condemn them?" I condemn them because it is my personal belief that slavery harms the people involved and it harms society and, as such, it harms me. Whether or not they care about my condemnation is academic. "Why should I care what you personally prefer?" That would depend on whether or not you agree with my "preference". "As WJM says, isn’t it immoral for you to attempt to impose your views on another person if they are based on nothing but your personal preference?" If I am not violating any of my other moral convictions, or the law (which it is my "preference" to obey), then no. However, the person who I attempt to impose my moral conviction on, and you, and many others, may think it is immoral. That is the nature of subjective morality. If you want to mischaracterize it as "might makes right" be my guest.Rationalitys bane
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
Rex @51 Thanks for explaining that. Personally, I would not ever entertain the idea of being friends with someone who considered Jews non-persons, whether it was through them being propagandised or otherwise. I don't maintain friendships with people who have abhorrent beliefs.Pindi
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
RB @ 43:
Barry@41, I say no. they were not objectively wrong.
Then why do you condemn them? The only answer to that question under your moral theory is the same one I gave for you at 24:
I personally disagree with dehumanizing chattel slavery, but that is just my view and if someone has a different view I cannot say their view is objectively bad and mine is objectively good. The only thing that matters is who is stronger.
At the end of the day, RB, your view amounts to whatever happens, happens, and sometimes you personally prefer what happened and sometimes you don't. Why should I care what you personally prefer? As WJM says, isn't it immoral for you to attempt to impose your views on another person if they are based on nothing but your personal preference?Barry Arrington
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Point of View Livecast - April 7, 2015 Nancy Pearcey discusses her book, "Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism and Other God Substitutes," in which she explains five powerful principles that penetrate to the core of any worldview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRtbkN2tx4I
bornagain77
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
jdk, I have no problem knowing that I really am a real person. Nor does anybody else. That we really exist as real persons is the most sure thing we can know about reality. The problem arises, for Darwinian materialists, in placing matter first and mind secondary. For them mind must be emergent from a material basis. They simply refuse to even consider the proposition that mind may have preceded matter. And thus the end result is the insane insistence of leading Darwinian proponents saying, for all the world to hear, that mind is an 'illusion' of the brain.
At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: "consciousness is an illusion" A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s
You, on the other hand, want to disagree with what the leading proponents of Darwinism in the world are saying and instead you want to insist that you really do exist as a real person. And I don't blame you for doing so since you really are a real person. (again, it is the most sure thing you can know), But your beef is not with me, your beef is with the likes of Coyne, Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, and all the other leading atheistic academics who are teaching people that their minds are just illusions: Perhaps instead of trying to 'correct' me, you should instead write all these leading Darwinists in the world, lay out your 'integrated complexity as a person' argument for them, and try to convince them that they are not illusions? That is where the source of trouble is in the first place is it not? Supplemental notes, in the following article, Dawkins himself admits that it would be 'intolerable' for him to live as if his atheistic worldview were actually true:
Who wrote Richard Dawkins's new book? - October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video 37:51 minute mark Quote: "It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren't in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe,, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn't undergone what metaphysicians call a 'substantial change'. So you aren't Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still. You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren't any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That's why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, "You know, I'm not really here". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, "Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get." An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, "The impossibility of free will ... can be proved with complete certainty." Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. "To be honest, I can't really accept it myself," he says. "I can't really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?",,, In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots -- that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one "can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free." We are "constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots." One section in his book is even titled "We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.",,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html [Nancy Pearcey] When Reality Clashes with Your Atheistic Worldview - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Kpn3HBMiQ podcast - Are Humans Simply Robots? Nancy Pearcey on the “Free Will Illusion” http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/08/are-humans-simply-robots-nancy-pearcey-on-the-free-will-illusion/#more-30001 In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on fantasy. Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
bornagain77
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
REW
Perhaps there would be an addendum to the Bible which would explain it all. When the Jews were the chosen people they were instructed by God to kill all the Amalakites, and they did because its moral to do what God commands you. But then they murdered Christ, their own Messiah. For 2000 years God mulled over what to do. Then he decided to wipe them out, just has he had decided to wipe out the Amalakites. He chose as the instrument of his vengeance the German people, specifically the Nazis among them. So 1000 years from now, theists of the WLCraig sort would say that the genocide of the Amalakies and the Jews were both moral acts because thats what God commanded. See how simple it is??
"Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?" -Eliphaz, Job 4:17 "Would you indeed annul My judgement? Would you condemn Me that you may be justified?" -God, Job 40:8bb
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
JDK, why do you think that it is important to be correct (rather than persuasive or powerful) about views on morality? Does this not speak to the inescapability of our being under moral government, in reasoning as in the rest of life? What then follows if we for argument suppose that this sense is delusional -- as ever so many are eager to assert or imply? Does this not land us in undermining our whole inner life by letting grand delusion loose thus pointing to self referential chaos of incoherence? By the converse we have good reason to accept that our sense of being under moral government reflects reality, just as we have reason to hold that we are capable of rationality and knowledge of the world. Subjectivity of conscious experience insofar as we have reason to believe it can be reasonably accurate, points to the objectivity of morality just as other major facets of the life of the mind. KFkairosfocus
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Was slavery wrong? yes Was the way the native Americans were treated as the white man took over America wrong? Sam Houston lived among native Americans. Are you going to accuse him of treating them "wrong"? See thing is leftists have created this new sectarian belief system about "white", and to teach it to all the children so "whites" will go away. To them what the "whites" should have done was build a wall around North America to reserve the whole continent for a couple of million people, and keep all "whites" out. Yes indeed. This is the major demonization right there, those "whites" back then did not build that wall, and they should disappear for that reason. In both cases, the people involved (all Christians) didn’t seem to think so. Believe me when I say it, jdk really knows who is Christian and who isn't. See, when "whites" do bad stuff like take over a continent, they are Christian. But then the next step, when they establish a civilization on the continent, they and the civilization are not Christian. Easy logic to understand and you are a bigot if you don't get it. What has gotten society to change its opinion on such things as slavery? Christianity, Judaism and humanism, at the beginning of the abolitionist movement. That's why slavery in the Islamic world is so widespread, the Christians who oppose it have been enslaved and massacred and run off in Islamic countries. To what extent has Americans come to see the treatment of the Native Americans as very wrong? Sorrow for what happened to some, for the founding of any civilization, is pretty universal. How would jdk have done it better? Would jdk, living hundreds of years ago, financed the building of that wall around north America to keep the continent for a couple of million people and to keep all "whites" out? Is bombing civilians in the Middle East wrong? I sure think so, but my government and many US citizens don’t seem to agree with me. Is jdk promoting a lie about purposeful bombing of civilians? I think he is without using the word 'purposeful' but implying it. Purposeful bombing of civilians is what is done by jihadists and they admit it and promote it. Rocket attacks on residential neigborhoods in Israel and bomb attacks on buses carrying children are what Muslims do and admit and promote. In 100 years, it seems at least possible to me that the world in general will see modern warfare, as we wage it now, as terribly wrong, but I won’t be around to see it. Totally naive. There is no entity out there to legally grant any nation the "right" to exist without the backup of arms. Every nation and civilization through history earns its survival by force of arms, either wielded by its own people or the earning of goodwill of people in other established nations having the force of arms. There is no other method of deciding who gets to be a nation and who does not. This is the way of history and it will be this way until humankind is extinguished. The worlds' scriptures even say it, so to think otherwise is naive. Idealism and utopianism can never change it; utopian thinking has been around thousands of years.groovamos
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
BA writes,
Moreover, even if you could somehow legally define personhood in a satisfactory manner without reference to the principles that are uniquely inherent to Theism, and Christianity in particular, atheistic materialists/naturalists still have an extremely difficult time assigning any real worth or value to persons in the first place (if there were really even such things as ‘persons’ within atheism): It is interesting to point out that the materialistic/atheistic philosophy has an extremely difficult time assigning any proper value to humans in the first place, i.e. Just how do you derive value for a person from a philosophy that maintains all our transcendent values are illusory?
There is no problem in legally defining personhood, as human beings are obviously different from all other animals. Nothing circular, and no theism needed. Also, I notice how BA loads the questions, so to speak: he says "real" or "proper" worth and "transcendent" values. Assuming that by real and proper he also means transcendent, then yes, those things are illusions. But just dismissing anything that isn't based on theism as unreal isn't much of a argument: it's just a dogmatic position. Irrespective of theistic or non-theistic beliefs, people still assign value to other people. Children from the day they are born are building a sense of connection and caring with other humans, and as they grow they develop more mature understandings of the value, including rights and responsibilities, of other humans This is not a problem: people who don't believe in God or transcendent values do all this as part of being a human being in the material, biological sense.jdk
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
jdk
Barry, how do you know that the Holocaust, or anything, is objectively wrong, as opposed to your subjective belief?
The same way you do.StephenB
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
Origenes. BINGO! And I guarantee he will never honestly address that question:
,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. Talbott
As to the actual scientific evidence for a soul, due to advances in quantum biology, the Christian is sitting extremely pretty right now:
Molecular Biology – 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics https://youtu.be/rCs3WXHqOv8
bornagain77
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
jdk, a useless and circular legal definition of personhood just so as to serve your own atheistic agenda ain't going to cut it. Moreover, even if you could somehow legally define personhood in a satisfactory manner without reference to the principles that are uniquely inherent to Theism, and Christianity in particular, atheistic materialists/naturalists still have an extremely difficult time assigning any real worth or value to persons in the first place (if there were really even such things as 'persons' within atheism): It is interesting to point out that the materialistic/atheistic philosophy has an extremely difficult time assigning any proper value to humans in the first place, i.e. Just how do you derive value for a person from a philosophy that maintains all our transcendent values are illusory?:
How much is my body worth? Excerpt: The U.S. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils invested many a hard-earned tax dollar in calculating the chemical and mineral composition of the human body,,,,Together, all of the above (chemicals and minerals) amounts to less than one dollar! http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/worth.asp
I would like to think, despite the atrocities of abortion, Nazism and Communism, that most people intuitively know that they are worth far more value than a dollar?!? Yet, as pointed out, on materialism you have the ‘resale value’ of less than one dollar! Of course, in the marketplace some arrangements of inexpensive matter carry much more intrinsic value than other arrangements of inexpensive matter. But this is only because of the craftsmanship inherent within how that inexpensive matter is arranged that makes it worth much more than it would normally be. But materialists, besides denying we are made in the image of God in the first place, also resolutely deny that there is any true craftsmanship within humans. We are merely the happenstance product of filtered accidents! Thus, under atheistic materialism, why should any person’s particular arrangement of material carry any more worth and value than that of a pile of sand?
The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013 Excerpt: Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
Whereas in Theism, particularly in Christianity, there is no trouble whatsoever figuring out how much humans are really worth, since infinite Almighty God, in Who’s image we are made, has shown us how much we mean to him, since he was willing to trade heaven to pay the ultimate sacrifice so as to redeem us from death:
1 Corinthians 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Matthew 16:26 And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul? MercyMe – Beautiful - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh7-RSPuAA
bornagain77
August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply