An interview on God and mathematics

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 17, 2021

Intelligent Design, Mathematics, theism}

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

Some of us think mathematics is the best argument for God available. Anyway, here’s Jerry Bowyer’s interview with philosopher Vern Poythress:

The standard modern culture-war revolves around God vs. the mathematical sciences. Take your choice: Faith or physics. Then there are the voices of mutual toleration, which attempt to leave room for science among the faithful and for faith among the scientific. Poythress, though, taps into a different tradition entirely, one which is seldom heard in modern debate: That God and science are neither enemies, nor partners, but rather that God is the necessary foundation for mathematics and therefore of every science which uses it.
The argument is that mathematical laws, in order to be properly relied upon, must have attributes which indicate an origin in God. They are true everywhere (omnipresent), true always (eternal), cannot be defied or defeated (omnipotent), and are rational and have language characteristics (which makes them personal). Omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, personal… Sounds like God. Math is an expression of the mind of God. Sound strange? It isn’t. Modern natural science was created by people who said that they were trying to “think God’s thoughts after Him.”
Jerry Bowyer, “God In Mathematics” at Forbes

See also: Things exist that are unknowable: A tutorial on Chaitin’s number

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Comments

Jerry, the Revolution was just that, see https://www.history.com/topics/british-history/glorious-revolution That it was bloodless in the end was a contingent outcome, as many supporters defected from James II. KFkairosfocus_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

PS: 1688/89 Bill of Rights, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
Bill of Rights [1688] 1688 CHAPTER 2 1 Will and Mar Sess 2 An Act declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne [--> note the first focus] . . . . Recital that the late King James II. had abdicated the Government, and that the Throne was vacant, and that the Prince of Orange had written Letters to the Lords and Commons for the choosing Representatives in Parliament. And whereas the said late King James the Second haveing Abdicated the Government and the Throne being thereby Vacant His [X2Hignesse] the Prince of Orange (whome it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious Instrument of Delivering this Kingdome from Popery and Arbitrary Power) did (by the Advice of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and diverse principall Persons of the Commons) cause Letters to be written to the Lords Spirituall and Temporall being Protestants and other Letters to the severall Countyes Cityes Universities Burroughs and Cinque Ports for the Choosing of such Persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parlyament to meete and sitt at Westminster upon the two and twentyeth day of January in this Yeare one thousand six hundred eighty and eight in order to such an Establishment as that their Religion Lawes and Liberties might not againe be in danger of being Subverted, Upon which Letters Elections haveing beene accordingly made. The Subject’s Rights. And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties, Declare Dispensing Power. That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall. Late dispensing Power. That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall. Ecclesiastical Courts illegal. That the Commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes and all other Commissions and Courts of like nature are Illegall and Pernicious. Levying Money. That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner then the same is or shall be granted is Illegall. Right to petition. That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall. Standing Army. That the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law. Subjects’ Arms. That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law. Freedom of Election. That Election of Members of Parlyament ought to be free. Freedom of Speech. That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament. Excessive Bail. That excessive Baile ought not to be required nor excessive Fines imposed nor cruell and unusuall Punishments inflicted. Juries. That Jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned . . . F1 Grants of Forfeitures. That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void. Frequent Parliaments. And that for Redresse of all Grievances and for the amending strengthening and preserveing of the Lawes Parlyaments ought to be held frequently. The said Rights claimed. Tender of the Crown. Regal Power exercised. Limitation of the Crown. And they doe Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular the Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People in any of the said Premisses ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter into Consequence or Example. To which Demand of their Rights they are particularly encouraged by the Declaration of this Highnesse the Prince of Orange as being the onely meanes for obtaining a full Redresse and Remedy therein. Haveing therefore an intire Confidence That his said Highnesse the Prince of Orange will perfect the Deliverance soe farr advanced by him and will still preserve them from the Violation of their Rights which they have here asserted and from all other Attempts upon their Religion Rights and Liberties. The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons assembled at Westminster doe Resolve That William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange be and be declared King and Queene of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging to hold the Crowne and Royall Dignity of the said Kingdomes and Dominions to them the said Prince and Princesse dureing their Lives and the Life of the Survivour of them And that the sole and full Exercise of the Regall Power be onely in and executed by the said Prince of Orange in the Names of the said Prince and Princesse dureing their joynt Lives And after their Deceases the said Crowne and Royall Dignitie of the said Kingdoms and Dominions to be to the Heires of the Body of the said Princesse And for default of such Issue to the Princesse Anne of Denmarke and the Heires of her Body And for default of such Issue to the Heires of the Body of the said Prince of Orange. And the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe pray the said Prince and (X3) Princesse to accept the same accordingly.
This is considerably more than just a settlement of Catholic issues, and this Bill is in fact still in key parts active. For that matter so are parts of Magna Carta.kairosfocus_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

freedom in the relevant sense was in doubt at the time of that revolution in Britain
In a sense yes because it was not understood that was what was happening. But it was inevitable because of the rise of parliament and the religious conflict. It was not planned. It happened. No uprising engendered it in England.jerry_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Jerry, freedom in the relevant sense was in doubt at the time of that revolution in Britain (the imperial centre) much less its much weaker colonies. KFkairosfocus_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

WJM,
There are some things that are self-evidently aspects of existence, such as A=A, 2+2=4, free will, life, etc. That is not the same as saying that we have a “right” to life and liberty, or a “duty” to right reasoning. That’s an attempt to moralize or externally instantiate conditions that reflect existential properties.
Logic, mere facts and the like have no traction absent a more or less intuitive acknowledgement of the first duties of reason. A computer will blindly process, it does not choose to acknowledge force of logical sufficiency, or sense a need to be truthful. Where, precisely, the attempt to object inevitably appeals to the relevant duties. As happens with your clip. It is agents with power of choice who do such. Further, it is agents who find their integrity violated when subjected to arbitrary force, precisely as it treats them as less than agents. KFkairosfocus_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

The Glorious Revolution brought a Dutch prince to the UK
By the time of the Glorious Revolution, the die was cast. James was the second Stuart King deposed in 40 years. Pennsylvania was already established and freedom was progressing in the colonies. People were breaking away from Plymouth Bay and its authoritarian rule. All the Glorious Revolution did was eliminate Catholics as a factor in England for a second time. What brought freedom to England was the diminution of the monarchy and the rise of parliament that allowed a religious conflict. It was not some document/treatise or the power of a new thinking.jerry_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Jerry, Duplessis-Mornay, 1579, France. Dutch Declaration of Independence, 1581. Rutherford, author of Lex Rex, was Scottish. The Glorious Revolution brought a Dutch prince to the UK, married to Mary. The 1688-9 Bill of Rights was in that context. The Dutch DoI seems also to have directly influenced the US one. The Wesphpalia settlement also had influences. KF PS: Wikipedia on Grotius:
Hugo Grotius (/??ro??i?s/; 10 April 1583 – 28 August 1645), also known as Huig de Groot (Dutch: [??œy? d? ?ro?t]) and in Dutch as Hugo de Groot (Dutch: [??y?o? d? ?ro?t]), was a Dutch humanist, diplomat, lawyer, theologian, jurist, poet and playwright. A teenage intellectual prodigy, he was born in Delft and studied at Leiden University. He was imprisoned for his involvement in the intra-Calvinist disputes of the Dutch Republic, but escaped hidden in a chest of books. Grotius wrote most of his major works in exile in France. Hugo Grotius was a major figure in the fields of philosophy, political theory and law during the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Along with the earlier works of Francisco de Vitoria and Alberico Gentili, he laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law in its Protestant side. Two of his books have had a lasting impact in the field of international law: De jure belli ac pacis [On the Law of War and Peace] dedicated to Louis XIII of France and the Mare Liberum [The Free Seas]. Grotius has also contributed significantly to the evolution of the notion of rights. Before him, rights were above all perceived as attached to objects; after him, they are seen as belonging to persons, as the expression of an ability to act or as a means of realizing something. It is thought that Hugo Grotius was not the first to formulate the international society doctrine, but he was one of the first to define expressly the idea of one society of states, governed not by force or warfare but by actual laws and mutual agreement to enforce those laws. As Hedley Bull declared in 1990: "The idea of international society which Grotius propounded was given concrete expression in the Peace of Westphalia, and Grotius may be considered the intellectual father of this first general peace settlement of modern times."[2] Additionally, his contributions to Arminian theology helped provide the seeds for later Arminian-based movements, such as Methodism and Pentecostalism; Grotius is acknowledged as a significant figure in the Arminian-Calvinist debate. Because of his theological underpinning of free trade, he is also considered an "economic theologist".[3]
kairosfocus_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

There are some things that are self-evidently aspects of existence, such as A=A, 2+2=4, free will, life, etc. That is not the same as saying that we have a "right" to life and liberty, or a "duty" to right reasoning. That's an attempt to moralize or externally instantiate conditions that reflect existential properties. I've explained my position on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that those, in my views, are not rights; they are inviolable, existential properties. I can shoot you and end your life here; where the heck is your so-called "right" to life? The idea of "rights" is meaningless under the ERT (external reality theory). You only have the rights that which is more powerful than you allow. Now, reason. What exactly is my "duty" to "right reason?" Under ERT, I can win any argument with a gun. I don't have to explain anything. I don't have to even convince you of anything. I don't have to justify anything. People are irrational. Sorry if that's news to you. They don't make rational choices, virtually ever. I mean, how boring would that be. Are wanting to be more like Vulcans or machines? Oh, many believe they are being rational, many think their choices and arguments are perfectly rational. They might even make perfect, rational sense under the assumptions of their paradigm/worldview. Good lord, they might even be internally consistent and actually compatible with their behavior. But that's the problem with logic, isn't it? It's only as good as your assumptions, and only matter to the degree that the rest of the world cooperates (under ERT) with your rational decision-making. What does making all the well-reasoned choices and arguments gain you when a drunk hits your child and kills him or her, or when people can make a completely irrational choice and enjoy an immense number of benefits, liking buying a winning lottery ticket? Now, go ahead, KF, break down what I said and interpret it from your perspective where I'm exhibiting a "duty" to right reason even as I argue that I do not. I understand your perspective, KF. You don't understand mine.William J Murray_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

it was actually quite broad
It happened only in England and then their North American colonies. The best example is Pennsylvania. Freedom was an outcome of the conflicts and the stalemate that ensued. Either one of the opposing sides would have gladly established their orthodoxy as absolute if they won and it would not have included freedom.jerry_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

VL, kindly cf 121. KFkairosfocus_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Jerry, it was actually quite broad, and it was more than mere conflicts, there was considerable theologically based reflection and general thinking. A key chain ran France to Holland to Scotland and England, then of course the American colonies. But, again, we are far afield from topic. You are showing how if a summary is given, expect pointing to details thought to be left out, if details are given, expect to suffer dismissal as too long. KFkairosfocus_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

the movable type printing revolution was the gateway. The ferment over the Reformation opened up the new thinking and new interest that created a reasonably informed public.
Only in England. And a little in Holland. Where there was a monarchy in place, Protestant or Catholic, and the great chain of being philosophy, freedom did not take hold. So it was not the Reformation per se that led to the modern world but the fighting between different Protestant religions that diluted the authority of the monarch and led to the rapid increase in power of Parliament. The divine right of kings originated in Ur and flowed right into the 20th century in many places. We have a form of the great chain of being developing in the US at this moment as the elites believe they are the ones to rule here and everywhere and the now constant disparaging of the Trump voter as inferior. Plato’s Republic was an advocation of the great chain of being. The elites are adopting it.jerry_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

re 132: I agree.Viola Lee_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee, BTW, perhaps you missed it. My views on other worlds and MRT are not just theoretical, they are first-hand empirical, experiential. But, you probably don't believe that. That's okay, I understand. It's a bit much for most people.William J Murray_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee, Well, that's one of the great things about being me. Others are free to believe whatever they want, and have no obligations whatsoever, certainly not to me. I just enjoy interesting conversation and take it where I can get it.William J Murray_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

KF, I understand that's how all that looks from your perspective, but like your "delusion" challenge against mental reality theory, it's only valid from the conceptual framework you are in. Your inability to understand a different perspective isn't my problem. BTW, the only way to properly, logically pursue this disagreement from your perspective is if you ask questions about, and at least try to understand my perspective, not repeating rote declarations of logic stemming from your perspective. All you are doing when you do that is telling other people how your perspective is interpreting what they say. But, I think that's exactly what you'll do now, and what you will continue doing. Good lord I've been watching you do it for months now. It's no longer enjoyable. So, I thought I'd change it up this morning. We'll see. I have other things I can do that I find enjoyable.William J Murray_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

to WJM at 125: You wrote, "1. What do you mean by “spiritual”? I didn't (and don't) intend to write an essay on the full extent of my thoughts on the nature of humankind. I offered the idea that the key moral component of our nature in relationship to others is compassion. (Other religions say it is love.) Issues that relate back to that part of us are spiritual. That is how I used the term. You wrote, "2. Apparently you don’t believe there are any necessary or unavoidable ramifications to that behavior". I didn't address that issue at all, which is much different than not believing something about it. 3. You wrote, "There are tens of thousands of people, perhaps millions who live in more worlds than just this one, some of which I personally know, of which I am one." I have read your theories on this, and don't believe they are correct.Viola Lee_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

WJM: Pardon a markup on opening sentence, illustrating inescapability of said first duties: >> just to be open here,>> - appeal to duty to truth, where persuasive effect is an appeal to others being aware of said duties. >> I don’t personally believe in “First duties to right reason”>> - appeal to duty to truth, implicit challenge to show warrant on right reason - our feelings or perceptions or beliefs as stated are not capable of creating an escape hatch - inescapability shows antecedence to particular acts of reason, so inescapable and self-evident truth. >> or “objective, absolute morality.”>> - objectivity of course pivots on warrant, an objective truth claim is sufficiently warranted independent of a particular error-prone individual's consciousness that it is an in common well supported view; though such warrant is in principle open to amendment. - objective moral truths are truths claimed about morality that is oughtness, with warrant. Negatively, there are no objective moral truths is self-referential and self-defeating. Such undermines subjectivism, emotivism and relativism as incoherent and self-falsifying. - yes, there is diversity of views with disagreement; that simply means that we have differences and need to look to warrant. - Positively, the first duties as listed are inescapable, inescapably true and self-evident. - absolute truths are sufficiently complete, without admixture of error and so are 100% complete and 100% pure on a given matter. We can only assert incorrigible knowledge of absolute truths on particularly narrow points, perhaps 2 + 3 = 5. >> I’ve made arguments and contributed on the behalf of those perspectives, and extending from those perspectives, because I’ve enjoyed doing so,>> - gratitude is due >>but I never actually said I believe in those things. My “first duty” is to my own enjoyment.>> - sounds somewhat hedonistic or epicurean, not particularly viable as systems. However, enjoyment is a significant and -- tempered by other due considerations of rights, freedoms and duties -- valid motive. (Some may enjoy kidnapping, torturing, sexually assaulting and murdering young children on the way home from school. Regrettably, this is a real world case.) KFkairosfocus_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

Jerry, the movable type printing revolution was the gateway. The ferment over the Reformation opened up the new thinking and new interest that created a reasonably informed public. These drove democratising forces in contexts where people were willing to take the gamble of trying. That led to breakthrough. But constitutional democracy without key cultural buttresses will fail. Recognising and respecting first duties of reason, as just that, is a part of looking at what has broken down on said buttresses. KFkairosfocus_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

The modern world arose in England to some of the reasons Kf described but the origin of the printing press was probably a necessary condition but not a sufficient one. Other countries whether Protestant or Catholic did not advance in the same way as England. It was because of religious wars that England granted freedom to a substantial minority and writers. Then to its colonies in North America where the major changes took place and led to the modern world. Few in England and its colonies dreamed of any country that wasn’t governed by Judeo Christian principles. So it was the combination of that and freedom that led to the modern world. Jonah Goldberg said it only happened once and there’s no reason it cannot disappear. It’s a choice. We are seeing both an assault on freedom and Judeo Christian morality. There’s no asuridity modern civilization can exist without either.jerry_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

Also, just to throw this out there and skip all the in-between stuff, all arguments about morality, either subjective or objective, logically and inexorably lead to the same equation: "might(in whatever form) = right." It is the inescapable conclusion to all logically pursued arguments about morality.William J Murray_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

BTW, just to be open here, I don't personally believe in "First duties to right reason" or "objective, absolute morality." I've made arguments and contributed on the behalf of those perspectives, and extending from those perspectives, because I've enjoyed doing so, but I never actually said I believe in those things. My "first duty" is to my own enjoyment. KF might argue that my pursuit of enjoyment is still based on "right reason" in how I go about acquiring the most enjoyable existence I can, and that is to some degree true, but I use reason like a tool in the service of building my enjoyable life. My "duty" isn't to the tool; it's to the building of my enjoyment. I'm perfectly fine believing and doing unreasonable things in service to my enjoyment. Enjoyment guides my thoughts and behavior. If I can build a rational argument for what I believe, it's fun to make that case. If not, so what?William J Murray_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

VL, First, I want to applaud you for taking a leap and expressing your views. There is nothing I respect more than people willing to open their views up to examination and criticism. Second, a couple of questions from your comments. You said:
But this is not because there is some rule out there someplace that tells us this is wrong, but rather that to do so would be a severe act of lack of compassion, and would be a violation of what I consider key aspects of human beings’ spirituall nature.
1. What do you mean by "spiritual"? 2. Apparently you don't believe there are any necessary or unavoidable ramifications to that behavior - IOW, no metaphysical "rule" is being interacted with by wrong behavior (sin, karma, etc.) that carries with it necessary corrective or punitive ramifications. If I am not compassionate, or behave cruelly, so what? What difference does it make to me, as long as I enjoy my life? 3. Really just a note. You said:
..we only live in this one world,..."
You're making an assumption there. There are tens of thousands of people, perhaps millions who live in more worlds than just this one, some of which I personally know, of which I am one. I don't mean that symbolically, or metaphorically, or in any strained sense of those words. I mean it literally, with "world" having the meaning of "realm" or "dimension."William J Murray_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT}

F/N: The C18 agricultural revolution https://www.britannica.com/topic/agricultural-revolution KFkairosfocus_{January 23, 2021
January
01
Jan
23
23
2021
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

WJM & Jerry, my argument has been that movable type printing was revolutionary, working with vernacular rendering of the Bible and with the associated rise of widespread literacy, bills, newspapers, tracts, coffee houses etc to open the door to a broad based comparatively informed public. The ferment of the Protestant Reformation set a context in which many fundamental issues were widely discussed and the double covenant theology of nationhood and government under God gained traction. Through this we see an era from about 1650 to 1787-9 in which for the first time, we could have representational, constitutional, small-d democratic self government. The glorious revolution and bill of rights 1688 - 9 and the US Revolution 1775 - 89 marked the breakthroughs. It is no accident that these two polities pioneered modern liberty and the industrial revolution. Protection of intellectual property through patents and copyrights were also important. And yes this opened up unprecedented positive developments for our civilisation, for all its troubles and sins. It is from these loci that industrialisation and linked agricultural revolutions then eventually democratisation in a rule of law driven constitutional frame spread globally. The latter, only going globbal within living memory. However both are now threatening to fade and a return of lawless oligarchy seems to be being enabled by the cancel culture surveillance state. KFkairosfocus_{January 23, 2021
January
01
Jan
23
23
2021
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT}

VL, FYI I have just responded to a claim you made, through a step by step corrective argument. KFkairosfocus_{January 23, 2021
January
01
Jan
23
23
2021
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT}

VL, At this point I am disappointed in your continued mischaracterisation despite repeated correction:
I understand the general structure of KF’s position: that is not a problem. He keeps “going back to fundamentals” because he can’t, in fact, explain the leap from math to morals as it applies to real people in the real world.
1: My position is that rationality, which includes reasoning on the logic of structure and quantity AKA Mathematics, faces some inescapable first duties. These include: to truth, to right reason [core logic and linked themes], to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and to justice, etc. By inspection of how we think and argue it will rapidly be seen that such is an observation that should be unexceptional. Further to such, it will be noted that an attempt to disregard or dismiss or object, will inevitably appeal to the same principles. E.g. your objection makes certain fact . . . truth . . . claims, expecting to be acknowledged. The claims happen to be false. 2: Thus, there is no inexplicable leap from Mathematics to morals. The rather simple structure is, Math exemplifies rationality. That rationality, in general, is governed by first duties as outlined. The inescapability reveals inescapable truth and the absurdity of implicitly relying on what one would overthrow shows self-evidence. 3: This is a universal and utterly pervasive principle of rationality. 4: It should not be heavy weather, that it seems so for some points to lock in of a failed paradigm in current dominant patterns of secularist thought. Likely, subjectivism, emotivism and relativism, which tend to reject objectivity on truth, and particularly on the issue of duties, i.e. morality. Actually, the claim "there are no objective moral truths," is a self-referential truth claim regarding morality and it is thus self-refuting and incoherent. It is necessarily false. 6: From a related angle, rationality requires freedom thus responsible choice, thence the duty to choose soundly and aright, but due to said freedom, necessarily the ability to ill-advisedly choose what is unsound and/or wrongful. The seven duties are an elaboration at first level of the duty to soundness and the right. 7: Where, it is patent that the disciplines of the academy and professions pivot on duty to be truthful, logical and well warranted, with implications for sound society and for justice. A very simple example is the auditor's statement that a set of financial statements do or do not give a true and fair view of the financial affairs of an entity. Obviously, in founding and developing a discipline or profession or art, using logic, experience, prudence [including warrant] etc, reliable bodies of knowledge and best practices are built up, obviously influenced by these duties. 8: This particularly extends to law and government, though of course the trickiness of too much of politics shows that many hope to succeed by deceit: misleading people to believe they are acting aright and soundly when they are not. In fact, say, an inspection of the bUS founding and framing will show these patterns in action, for good and for bad. 9: In previous threads there were repeated attempts to drag off track into yet another wading in the tainted waters of various currently fashionable pathologies and the like. These have been previously discussed at UD and there is no need to go back into such, much less to allow every thread to be distracted by the obviously obsessed. 10: Above, you repeated claims regarding divorce, e.g. at 69 above, as a less tainted test case that I allegedly have been unable to specifically address. I took time in 70 following to again -- done before and in your presence -- speak to it using a well known piece of Dominical reasoning that happens to be a natural law argument that shows that there are social evils that given hardness of our hearts have to be regulated and ameliorated but which are against our original manifest order as humans coming in two complementary sexes. There is a call to higher living as a counter-culture. This, you seem to have overlooked. Where, of course, a pattern of rights, duties and freedoms pivoting on and coeval with our humanity -- our built in nature -- is manifestly of universal jurisdiction. And even were there other creatures that are rational and non-reproducing or reproduce by budding, it would still obtain for human rational creatures. 11: This actually is pregnant with import for civil order, and speaks to a lot of history. Not to mention after the fact perfectionism used as a key fallacy of cancel culture red guard tactics. 12: On the case of mathematics, the point about how disciplines and professions are built up should be enough. A famous and widely relevant case on the power of logic to show a stunning truth that then led the Mathematical profession to change its path is the incompleteness proofs of Godel. A similar case, less well known, is the Robinson taming of the infinitesimal. And many more. In short, your objection fails and is in fact strawmannish. The relevance of first duties to this case is obvious, I trust it will be heeded going forward. KFkairosfocus_{January 23, 2021
January
01
Jan
23
23
2021
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

Here are some ideas I like from Hinduism. First there are three "gods", Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, which represents the three forces of creation, preservation, and destruction that pervade reality. The three are different faces of the unmanifested One, brahman, that underlies reality. (As you might guess, Hinduism is full of doctrinal differences about these things much like the Judeo-Christian tradition is, but I am not interested in those, as I think all such metaphysical embellishments are just part of our story-telling about the big ideas.) What I like (and this is related to post 119), is that human beings partake of all three principles, including that of the creator who chooses to bring reality into the form it takes. Our moral choices help make the world what it is. We choose from the creative freedom within us, and are thus responsible for the world to the extent that our choices contribute to it.Viola Lee_{January 23, 2021
January
01
Jan
23
23
2021
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

Creationists are sitting on the truth, without comprehending it. Terms like "good", "beauty", "truth", "justice", etc. are exlusively creationist terms. It is very obvious that the two fundamental categories of creator and creation, correspond perfectly with the categories of all what is subjective, and all what is objective. The logic of subjectivity, is that an opinion is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice. All subjective statements have that same underlying logic. For example, to say a painting is beautiful, the opinion is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, thus chosen, and the opinion expresses a love for the way the painting looks. "Choice" is also the mechanism of creation, it is how a creation originates. So it means, a subjective opinion expresses what the identity of a creator is. The love for the way the painting looks expresses the identity of that person as being a decisionmaking agency, a creator. So the concept of subjective opinion is validated in the creator category of creationism, and the concept of fact is validated in the creation category. 1. Creator 2. Creates by making choices 3. The substance of which is called spiritual 4. Is identified with a chosen opinion 1. Creation 2. Was created by choice 3. The substance of which is called material 4. Is identified with a fact forced by evidence. Materialism does validate the concept of fact, but materialism does not validate subjective terms at all. Terms like "good", "beauty", "justice", "God", these terms are just random noise in materialism.mohammadnursyamsu_{January 23, 2021
January
01
Jan
23
23
2021
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

Instead of arguing about what I don’t accept about what others think, I’ll offer some thoughts about what I do think. As I have said several times, I am not an adherent of any particular religion: I think all are, to varying degrees “different paths up the mountain” towards some common human intuitions about our nature. However, I have a number of Hindu friends, and other friends interested in these matters from a Hindu and Buddhist perspective, and I like the following key idea from those traditions. Metaphorically, our deepest nature is a balance between the head (rationality) and the heart (compassion). Compassion is the key moral principle. Rationality and compassion are the compasses that help guide us through life. However (and this is not a Hindu idea): I believe that that we have existential freedom, and it is our responsibility - a responsibility that we cannot avoid - to make moral choices based on rational compassion. The duties to exercise our mind and our compassion are part of our ultimate nature, but it is up to us to decide how to apply them to the complexities of human life. The world presents us with moral questions, and it is our fate, for better or for worse, to have to answer them as we best see fit, guided by our commitment to head and heart, rationality and compassion. As to your question, WJM, the qualifiers to the question carry way too many metaphysical assumptions. We are not absolute creatures, and we only live in this one world, so I have no knowledge about whether something is “absolutely morally true in all possible imagined worlds worlds”, and nor does anyone else. With that said, you ask, ““It is wrong to be cruel to others for your own pleasure.” Well, first, I think it is wrong to be cruel to others, period. Finding pleasure in doing so would be doubly wrong. But this is not because there is some rule out there someplace that tells us this is wrong, but rather that to do so would be a severe act of lack of compassion, and would be a violation of what I consider key aspects of human beings’ spiritual nature.Viola Lee_{January 23, 2021
January
01
Jan
23
23
2021
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply