Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Materialist Finally Follows the Logic

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The rather obvious point of my story Becky’s Lesson is that the typical A-Mat spewings about morality coming from societal consensus are irrational, because the “everyone thinks its OK” theory of morality can be used to justify all manner of evil.  I am always trying to get A-Mats to follow the logic of their argument to where it leads, and they almost always steadfastly refuse.  Because, by and large, A-Mats are Simpering Cowards.

But in the spirit of giving the Devil his due, I must recognize and give credit to an A-Mat who does, finally, follow his logic out to the end.  RodW is one such.  In response to my story  he wrote, “Well if I lived in a world where everyone thought it genocide was ok I assume I’d think it was ok too.”

RodW has the courage to look into the abyss, and we have to give him credit for that.  Of course, the subtext of the story is that a metaphysics that leads to a moral theory that can be used to justify genocide is incoherent and should be rejected.  Horrifyingly, instead of rejecting the metaphysics, RodW embraced its justification of genocide.

Most of the other A-Mats responded by desperately trying to change the subject.  They mostly wanted to talk about Canaan 3,000 years ago instead of Europe within living memory (CR was their bandleader).  Of course, if my moral theory had just been exposed as potentially justifying the Holocaust, I would want to change the subject too.

 

Comments
Philosophical questions attract mental midgets.Belfast
March 9, 2018
March
03
Mar
9
09
2018
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT
@J Mac #50 - You wonder "where Christianity would be, if the Nazis had REALLY won the war?" probably about the same place they were during the war...fighting and resisting the evil of Hitler as many other countries were doing: https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005185 Certainly there were (and still are) many hurdles in the minds of many about the Jews and their responsibility of the Christs sacrifice. yet there were clear efforts made to thwart Hitler: "The Church, under the Pope's guidance, had already saved the lives of more Jews than all other churches, religious institutions and rescue organizations combined..." Wiki and Pope Pius XII. So... if during the conflict there were clear and concise efforts to thwart Hitlers hate.... then one should logically conclude the answer to which one like you hypothetically is asking.... makes sense but sometimes sense is not so common.Trumper
March 9, 2018
March
03
Mar
9
09
2018
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
And it was a political party/state likely full off all the latest and greatest progressive thought. Andrewasauber
March 9, 2018
March
03
Mar
9
09
2018
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
And let us not forget who perpetrated the Holocaust. It was a national political party/state, not a church. Andrewasauber
March 9, 2018
March
03
Mar
9
09
2018
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
"On December 17, 1942, the Allies issued a proclamation condemning the "extermination" of the Jewish people in Europe and declared that they would punish the perpetrators. Notwithstanding this, it remains unclear to what extent Allied and neutral leaders understood the full import of their information. The utter shock of senior Allied commanders who liberated camps at the end of the war may indicate that this understanding was not complete." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/when-did-the-world-find-out-about-the-holocaust Andrewasauber
March 9, 2018
March
03
Mar
9
09
2018
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
"It doesn’t matter who else is acknowledging it now" J-Mac, That's wasn't my question. My question Part A was: "So who was doing all the acknowledging that the holocaust was evil during the events in question (the holocaust itself)" That's when it really mattered, don't you think? Andrewasauber
March 9, 2018
March
03
Mar
9
09
2018
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
@Andrew, So who was doing all the acknowledging that the holocaust was evil during the events in question and up till now, since we know it wasn’t “churches”? I have a guess… It doesn't matter who else is acknowledging it now...The problem is now and was clear when Nazis were in power: The churches didn't acknowledge it when they had an opportunity to do so voluntarily... Forced acknowledgments make Barry Arrington's argument clearly pointless or false...J-Mac
March 9, 2018
March
03
Mar
9
09
2018
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
See, what Atheists try to do is try to appear to be better moralists than Christians, even though Atheists have no moral code they can reference. They have the shifting sands of grouppopthought to stand on. This is how pathetic their position is. Andrewasauber
March 9, 2018
March
03
Mar
9
09
2018
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Churches finally acknowledged that holocaust was evil…
So who was doing all the acknowledging that the holocaust was evil during the events in question and up till now, since we know it wasn't "churches"? I have a guess... Andrewasauber
March 9, 2018
March
03
Mar
9
09
2018
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
In regards to Becky’s Lesson... I'm just wondering where Christianity would be, if the Nazis had REALLY won the war? There is no doubt that the great majority of Christian Churches supported Hitler and turned the blind eye to the systematic killing of Jews, which many historians and Jewish leaders themselves acknowledged was motivated by churchs' religious prejudices dating back to the death of Jesus Christ... My question is: How Barry and others can be so certain that if Nazis had won the war, the Christianity would call the holocaust evil? What evidence do they have that it would support that claim? Just because Nazis lost the war and Christian Churches were sort of forced to acknowledge that they had turned the blind eye to extermination of the Jews doesn't breath a lot of confidence into Barry's others' claims that holocaust would be viewed as evil because it is viewed as such today... Why did it take the Churches 50-60 years after the war to acknowledge what should have been acknowledged right after Nazis lost the war? I don't think Barry's argument carries a lot of weight because we are NOW faced with the facts that Churches finally acknowledged that holocaust was evil...J-Mac
March 9, 2018
March
03
Mar
9
09
2018
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Seversky at 44, in your attempted rebuttal of the crime/socio-demographic statistics cited by Barton, you focus in on 'homicide'. I noted the decline in violent crimes and attributed it, in large part, to tougher policing,,, specifically I stated,, "The decline in the violent crime rate (beginning) at the mid 90s is attributed in large part to tougher enforcement on minor crimes (i.e. New York’s ‘spitting on the sidewalk’ enforcement,, etc..)." for instance,,,
During the 1990s, crime rates in New York City dropped dramatically, even more than in the United States as a whole. Violent crime declined by more than 56 percent in the City, compared to about 28 percent in the nation as whole. Property crimes tumbled by about 65 percent, but fell only 26 percent nationally. Many attribute New York's crime reduction to specific "get-tough" policies carried out by former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's administration. The most prominent of his policy changes was the aggressive policing of lower-level crimes, a policy which has been dubbed the "broken windows" approach to law enforcement. In this view, small disorders lead to larger ones and perhaps even to crime. As Mr. Guiliani told the press in 1998, "Obviously murder and graffiti are two vastly different crimes. But they are part of the same continuum, and a climate that tolerates one is more likely to tolerate the other.",, The contribution of such deterrence measures (the "stick") offers more explanation for the decline in New York City crime than the improvement in the economy, the authors conclude. Between 1990 and 1999, homicide dropped 73 percent, burglary 66 percent, assault 40 percent, robbery 67 percent, and vehicle hoists 73 percent.
Thus, the decline was wrought, in large part, by what was in essence an overall 'loss of freedom' from what we had previously known when prayer was in school. Might I suggest that such a 'get tough' policy on lower level offences might stop many of our inner cities from being veritable war zones as they are now?
The 30 cities with the highest murder rates in the US Nov 13, 2017 Despite a 20-year downward trend for violent crime in the U.S., murder rates have gone up in the past two years. Here's a look at the cities that currently have the highest murder rates in the country. #30. Waco, Texas Murder rate per 100k people: 16.74 Number of reported murders (2015): 22 Population: 131,413,,,, ---- #1. St. Louis, Missouri Murder rate per 100k people: 59.29 Number of reported murders (2015): 188 Population: 317,095 http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/national/the-cities-with-the-highest-murder-rates-in-the-us/collection_0e7dd367-2f62-5822-b849-97f4e9a43e3d.html#1
Please note that New York city is no longer on the list as the quote unquote 'murder capital of America' as it was once popularly known as back in the late 80's during the crack epidemic,,,
Violent crime in New York City has been dropping since the mid-1990s[1] and, as of 2017, is the lowest of any major city in the United States. In 2017, there were 290 homicides, the lowest number since the 1940s.[2] Crime rates spiked in the 1980s and early 1990s as the crack epidemic hit the city.[3][4] According to a 2015 ranking of 50 cities by The Economist, New York was the 10th-overall-safest major city in the world, as well as the 28th-safest in personal safety.[5] During the 1990s the New York City Police Department (NYPD) adopted CompStat, broken windows policing and other strategies in a major effort to reduce crime. The city's dramatic drop in crime has been attributed by criminologists to policing tactics, the end of the crack epidemic, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City
Moreover Seversky, as should be needless to say, you overlooked many other areas that Barton covered, to focus in on homicide, which I had already conceded had declined, in large part, due to 'get tough' policing. The other areas you did not focus in on, such as unwed motherhood, and even SAT's in public schools,, etc..,,, which no one disputes are currently major social problems in America, are a huge overlooked elephant in the room in your attempted rebuttal of the statistics that Barton cited. As to Barton's overall "lack of scholarship' on Jefferson and history generally, I reluctantly have to agree with you that he is not a reliable source on Jefferson, or America's history in general, and thus I also have to thank you for bringing such lack of rigor on Barton's part to my attention. ,,, Apparently, miracles do happen Seversky. You were finally found to be correct on a topic you challenged me on! :) ,,, That being said, I stand by the crime/socio-demographic statistics originally cited by Barton since they are a data point that is readily available for anyone to see apart from any bias that Barton's own analysis of them may have imparted to them.. i.e. In this area of prayer in school, Barton is on far stronger footing for his claims than he is on in his claims for American history generally! Here is a trusted rebuttal of Barton's scholarship on Jefferson
Barton is right. The founders of the American Bible Society were an impressive bunch. But if these men were alive today they would be shocked, if not appalled, to learn that David Barton, the country’s most prominent defender of the Christian republic they hoped to construct, is now singing the praises of Thomas Jefferson. Boudinot, Jay, Cone, Day, and the other ABS builders of a Christian America (we can also add Francis Scott Key and John Quincy Adams, and John Marshall to that group) were engaged in an early 19th-century culture war for the soul of the new nation against a group of skeptical intellectuals that embraced and promoted a secular vision of America’s future. By defending Thomas Jefferson, David Barton has dishonored their memory. - John Fea https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/161878 John Fea teaches American history and chairs the History Department at Messiah College in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. He is the author of The Bible Cause: A History of the American Bible Society (Oxford University Press, 2016) and blogs daily at www.thewayofimprovement.com
Thanks again for pointing this out Seversky!bornagain77
March 9, 2018
March
03
Mar
9
09
2018
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
Seversky at 41, thanks for the Slate article. I was unaware of the backlash from agnostics and atheists. You mention this comment from the article,,,
I’m all for rigor, but I prefer other people do it. I see its importance—it’s fun for some people—but I don’t have the patience for it. If you looked at all my past experiments, they were always rhetorical devices. I gathered data to show how my point would be made. I used data as a point of persuasion, and I never really worried about, ‘Will this replicate or will this not?’
But fail to mention this comment
In that paper, he actively encouraged replication in a way that no one ever does. He said, ‘This is an extraordinary claim, so we need to be open with our procedures.’
In fact the word 'replication' was used numerous times in his paper in his desire to have the field opened up. It is not that he was trying to 'pull the wool' over anyone's eyes, it is that he was trying to open the field up to investigation. In fact, in the following interview we find,,
The reason I use unselected college students is because I want to encourage other people to replicate it. If I were just using the top 1% of psi-talented people in the country, my colleagues in mainstream psychology would not be able to try to replicate it. https://skeptiko.com/daryl-bem-responds-to-parapsychology-debunkers/
Unsurprisingly, dishonest researcher bias from skeptics was found in the people who didn't want ESP to be real. From the same interview we find:
Dr. Daryl Bem:,,, Without accusing him of actually being dishonest, he has now published the three studies that he and French and Ritchie tried to get published in several journals that rejected it.,,, ,,, they knew that there were three other studies that had been submitted and completed and two of the three showed statistically significant results replicating my results. But you don’t know that from reading his article. That borders on dishonesty.,,, Dr. Daryl Bem: Yeah. Skeptics are quick to jump on it and say, “Well then what you’re saying is no one else who doesn’t believe it already can replicate it.” And that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that we need to incorporate the experimenters’ attitudes and expectations as variables in our attempts to replicate.,,, https://skeptiko.com/daryl-bem-responds-to-parapsychology-debunkers/
The point being is that his research has not been debunked,,, has been replicated in some experiments. And, as usual in dealing with Darwinian Atheists, there are serious reasons to be skeptical of the supposed skeptics who supposedly debunked his research. Moreover and most importantly, I do not have to rely solely on such sensitive psychological experiments, that are so prone to bias, to support the reality of the immaterial mind. I can appeal to our very best science from quantum mechanics, where researcher bias is all but rendered null and void, to show experimental evidence from physics that VERY strongly supports the reality of the immaterial Mind. In fact, Albert Einstein himself was, embarrassing so, shown to be completely wrong, by advances in Quantum Mechanics, in his presupposition that the subjective 'experience of the now', (and free will), would never be a part of experimental physics:
Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video (corrected volume) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4
In fact, I can now also appeal to advances in quantum biology to, #1, debunk the entire reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution, and #2, to very strongly support the Christian's position that we do indeed have a transcendent soul/mind that is capable of living beyond the deaths of out material body.
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology - video https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y
Thus in conclusion Seversky, as usual, your supposed rebuttal is found to come up short of what you were trying to portray. Moreover, with your reductive materialistic framework, you are now found to not even be in the right theoretical ballpark to begin with by advances in quantum biology. A Darwinist being upstaged by advances in experimental science? Go figure. Who would have ever thought such a thing was possible? It is almost as if Darwinian evolution never qualified as testable science to begin with,, :)
Darwinian Evolution: A Pseudoscience based on Unrestrained Imagination and Bad Liberal Theology - video https://youtu.be/KeDi6gUMQJQ
bornagain77
March 9, 2018
March
03
Mar
9
09
2018
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
There isn't any doubt that teaching kids that they are the result of purposeless processes had some effect to spawn the violence we are observingET
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
There are also correlations between lead water pipes in cities and violence. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jfeigenbaum/files/feigenbaum_muller_lead_crime.pdf And leaded gasoline and violence. http://hisscienceistootight.blogspot.ca/2013/01/the-link-between-leaded-gasoline-and.html But these correlations have been soundly trashed as causal relations. As has the relationship between prayer in school and violence.Allan Keith
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
Just wondering- are there any credible a-mats?ET
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
bornagain77 @ 24
Actually, I looked up Barton’s source material, and he is accurate in his assessment on the removal of prayer: If anyone doubts those sobering numbers cited by David Barton, here is the raw data on crime statistics for America from 1960 to 2013:
Out of interest I looked up the statistics for homicide from 1950 - 2014. They ticked along at between 4.0 and 5.1 per 100 000 from 1950 to 1965 They began to increase slowly until they peaked at 10.2 per 100 000 in 1980. Thereafter, they began to fall back until by 2013 and 2014 they were back at 4.5 per 100 000. And public prayer hasn't been restored to the schools as far as I'm aware. All Barton can show at best is a correlation. To show that the rise in crime could only be attributed to the banning of state-sponsored prayer in public schools, he would have to exclude all the myriad other economic, social and political factors that could also have been responsible. And that he has not done and probably cannot do.
Frankly, Barton is a fairly good, if not excellent, historical scholar who gets short rift because he bucks secular myths,, (which should not be surprising for anyone in the ID community)
David Barton is notorious for having claimed to have an earned degree when his PhD was actually awarded by an unaccredited diploma mill, Christian Life University which, strangely enough for a university, is registered with the IRS a a church. He is also notorious for having attributed a number of quotes to prominent historical figures such as various Founding Fathers which no one else could find and which he eventually was forced to concede were either fake or "unconfirmed". No reputable, professional historian would lay claim to a degree he or she had not earned, neither would they risk their scholastic reputations by inventing fake quotes wholesale. Barton is neither reputable nor reliable.Seversky
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
Google says studies can't be replicatedET
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
Wasn't there just an article about many peer-reviewed articles lacking rigor and cannot be replicated?ET
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
bornagain77 @ 23
All but one of the nine experiments confirmed the hypothesis that psi exists. The odds against the combined results being due to chance or statistical flukes are about 74 billion to 1, according to Bem. http://news.cornell.edu/storie.....see-future
,,, But what is 74 billion to 1 to a Darwinist,,, eh Seversky?? You ignore probabilities much greater than that in molecular biology all the time without even batting an eye,,, ????
And you ignore the criticisms of his methodological and statistical rigor and that attempts to replicate some of his experiments have found no effect. You also ignore the fact that he admitted to a lack of rigor in a Slate Magzine article in 2017:
I’m all for rigor, but I prefer other people do it. I see its importance—it’s fun for some people—but I don’t have the patience for it. If you looked at all my past experiments, they were always rhetorical devices. I gathered data to show how my point would be made. I used data as a point of persuasion, and I never really worried about, ‘Will this replicate or will this not?’
Seversky
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
LM @ 35: "Choosing to work with the Holocaust or psychopath is often the most immediate means of avoiding becoming a victim. Should one sacrifice oneself for some expectation contrary to the societal norm for the greater part’s survival, when the value of one’s sacrifice cannot be evaluated? What if the majority understanding is that the Holocaust or psychopath was by far the best means to the greater part’s survival?" Spot on!Truth Will Set You Free
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Origenes @ 37: Checkmate!Truth Will Set You Free
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
There is no such thing as moral progress in the a/mat faith. There is only moral change that is good to some and bad to others. Those who like the change call it progress. Those who dislike the change call it regress. Also, this world is as full of hate, vengeance, and hypocrisy as it ever was. The United States, in particular, is ripe for a very bloody civil war. The hatred between the two largest political groups (each numbering in the tens of millions) is at powderkeg levels. Adding fuel to the fire, much of the corporate news media no longer even pretend to be objective news reporting services, choosing instead to embrace a partisan role that favors one political group over the other.Truth Will Set You Free
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
CR: I’m saying that, on closer inspection, they actually share the same underlying philosophical position. Both are justificationists arguing over which “final solution” is authoritative.
So, after closer inspection, you conclude that both viewpoints are justificationistic .... and you justify your (justificationistic) conclusion by pointing out that on both sides there are "justificationists arguing over which 'final solution' is authoritative." So, CR, you are a justificationist. Do I understand you correctly? Or am I mistaken and did you not arrive at your conclusion by justificationistic means?Origenes
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
@Barry
CR: Is this supposed to be some kind of argument? BA: Of course not CR. Read it again, this time for comprehension. I am not arguing.
It's not? Then how does "living memory" make the Holocaust any worse, or a 3,000 years old command to slaughter Cannonite women and children any better? Why mention it at all?
I am pointing out that you want to change the subject because you are too cowardly to address the argument I made other than with childish “what about-ism.”
Again, your assuming the story represents two different viewpoints. I'm saying that, on closer inspection, they actually share the same underlying philosophical position. Both are justificationists arguing over which "final solution" is authoritative. That's not “what about-ism.” That's pointing out a similarity you've failed to identify that was in this comment.critical rationalist
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Seversky @ 16:
It could but how many people would choose for them and their families to be victims of a Holocaust or psychopath? In practical terms, morality is about protecting the common needs and interests of people living together in society.
Choosing to work with the Holocaust or psychopath is often the most immediate means of avoiding becoming a victim. Should one sacrifice oneself for some expectation contrary to the societal norm for the greater part's survival, when the value of one's sacrifice cannot be evaluated? What if the majority understanding is that the Holocaust or psychopath was by far the best means to the greater part's survival?LocalMinimum
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
In practical terms, morality is about protecting the common needs and interests of people living together in society. For example, we all want and need a secure and reliable supply of food and water, shelter against the elements, a secure and stable environment in which to raise a family and the means to provide for them. Do we really need someone or something else to tell us that it’s a good thing to respect the needs and interests of others in return for having yours respected?
Here you seem to be presenting an objective basis of morality, I'm assuming based on its survival value within a Darwinian hypothetical frame of reference.
bornagain77 @ 3
Besides the self-evident truth that morality must be objectively real …
Neither self-evident nor true. An inanimate universe is incapable of moral judgements and how would those of an alien intelligence or god be anything other than their subjective views?
And here you dispute BA's claim to objective morality, as delivered by a higher intelligence. This is an apparent contradiction. In the first example, you make the inherent claim that you, with a critter's intellect, can understand, develop, and communicate an objective sense of morality, even if it boils down to "do for you and yours". Why couldn't a greater intelligence, with a greater perspective and superior computational resources/processes, offer a superior and more universal "do for you and yours" ethical system? Say, something more comparatively national than tribal, with the scale emergent issues worked out?LocalMinimum
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
rvb8- Blind watchmaker evolution is bogus and should never be taught anywhere. You guys can't even test the claims of blind watchmaker evolution. So by teaching it there is a huge disservice to kids of all ages. Talk about the misuse and abuse of government funds...ET
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
morality comes from man
Ahhh... personal preference repackaged as "morality". I see what you Atheists did there. Andrewasauber
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
CR @ 27:
Is this supposed to be some kind of argument?
Of course not CR. Read it again, this time for comprehension. I am not arguing. I am pointing out that you want to change the subject because you are too cowardly to address the argument I made other than with childish "what about-ism."Barry Arrington
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
Rvb8: Atheists are clear; morality comes from man …
Atheists materialists are clear about the following also: the brain dictates human behavior. But how does the brain adapt to new moral behavior? How can the brain rewire itself in order to comply with new consensual moral rules? How are new consensual moral laws translated into brain chemistry and consequently translated into new behavior which is in line with those new consensual moral rules? How does brain chemistry program itself to be in line with society?Origenes
March 8, 2018
March
03
Mar
8
08
2018
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply