And now for something completely different… Darwinian PZ Myers laments the sad state of atheism today

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 27, 2018

Atheism, Culture, Intelligent Design, Naturalism}

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

I noticed the “troubling turn” about 8 years ago, as more and more atheists began to rally around two themes: the Glorious Leaders who were fonts of inarguable Reason & Logic, and a definition of atheism that exempted them from all social responsibility or ethical obligation. The other big difference was that unlike Eiynah, I resisted criticizing with the excuses of #NotAllAtheists and they’ll outgrow the regressive social tendencies if we just keep trying. I was wrong. And it is quite depressing.More.

He offers a presumably share-able image:

Also, he provides a link to a longer piece at Nice Mangos:

BUT…there’s still something about it that feels a little regressive and cult-like. The blind faith, dogmatism, tribalism, homophobia, sexism, sexual abuse and harassment, transphobia – and often, what boils down to a refusal to question leaders. All these things, that make so many movement atheists smug because they regularly assume and *loudly* declare that they’re above it all, are present within their own circles too.

Actually, others have noticed that as well.

One problem is that, to remain honest, atheists must sometimes part company with serious progressives. Most serious progressives are actually nihilists. For all they know, there could be a God as long as he is not in their way.

They do not care what is true, as long as their heels are on some Bret Weinstein’s face.

That is what Sam Harris has been discovering… the hard way. If the atheist stands for facts, in and of themselves, he becomes the enemy no matter what else he thinks. He is implying that progressives are accountable to something other than successful seizure of power.

To hang with progressives for long is to become like them.

Readers?

See also: A Progressive Auto-da-fé (Barry Arrington)

At Quillette: Who will the Evergreen mob (targeted biology teacher recently) target next?

and

PZ Myers on Royal Society “rethink evolution” meet

Comments

Please note that in the comment #32 the reference to post OLV@30 should be OLV@31 instead.PaoloV_{May 29, 2018
May
05
May
29
29
2018
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Seversky@13: “We should not be any more surprised to learn that some atheists behave inappropriately than we are to find that some believers do the same.” Read what OLV wrote in #25 and #31. Atheists are believers too, hence your statement quoted above seems inaccurate. You may want to qualify the terms you use in your comments, so that they are better understood.PaoloV_{May 29, 2018
May
05
May
29
29
2018
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

OLV@25 & OLV@30, Exactly. That’s their belief, which is devoid of truth. We humans like to believe in anything that fits our imagination, instead of believing in our gracious Creator who made us. Let’s pray that God will open their eyes so they can see the true Light.PaoloV_{May 29, 2018
May
05
May
29
29
2018
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Seversky(17): “Some atheists categorically deny the existence of the Christian God” That’s what they strongly believe in. They are strong believers.OLV_{May 29, 2018
May
05
May
29
29
2018
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Headlined: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/sev-jdk-the-value-of-philosophy-esp-metaphysics-and-addressing-the-intersubjective-consensus-challenge/kairosfocus_{May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Thanks.jdk_{May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

JDK, you are right, sorry, it is Seversky in 17. My error. Pardon. KFkairosfocus_{May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

kf, you quote me as saying "You consistently ignore the possibility that a consensus morality can be achieved through inter-subjective agreement.", but I didn't say that: someone else in this thread did.jdk_{May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

JDK, a long time ago now, I realised that if one asks the why of warrant in succession for a claim, say A, an interesting chain occurs: A as B, B as C, C as . . . (Long before I ever heard the term, Agrippa Trilemma.) Thus, we face three options: infinite regress, ultimate circularity, finitely remote terminus. Infinite regress is absurdly impossible, warrant vanishes poof. Circularity at such a level is begging a question. So, we face a finite chain to a set of first plausibles, only a relatively few of which can be self-evident. Thus, worldviews are inevitable, the issue is, to have a responsible and reasonable faith-point. This brings to bear comparative difficulties analysis and grand inference to the best current explanation. That process of comparative difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power [neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork quilt] is an exercise in metaphysics. Which can be termed critical analysis of worldviews. In this context, ontology [the study of being], logic [including in principle, logic of structure and quantity, i.e. Mathematics], epistemology [knowledge], ethics [critical assessment of morality], wider axiology [e.g. aesthetics, study of beauty], political philosophy [study of governance and justice] and of course meta-study of domains of scholarship and praxis [education, science, law, religion etc] also naturally emerge. So, philosophy is a mother-lode and controlling discipline. Indeed, much of our framing of the intellectual disciplines comes from branches of Aristotle's inquiry. Metaphysics, literally was studies in the volume following that on nature, phusis. Which last is the root of my home discipline, physics. The importance of philosophy, then, is not to be dismissed. At least, if we intend to be responsible and reasonable. (And yes, I am very aware that "Philosopher" is often a dismissive epithet. That points to some of the mess our civilisation is in. And of course, education is deeply shaped by philosophy, or else it will be shaped by ideology and will end in propagandistic agit prop and indoctrination. Resemblance to current trends is not coincidental.) Coming back to your specific appeal to inter-subjective consensus implying cultural relativism as a way to address ethics without taking on the IS-OUGHT gap at world-root level, SM is right and so is ES58 when he points to the coerced consensus of Nazi Germany. Let me clip SM in 18:
[JDK:] “You consistently ignore the possibility that a consensus morality can be achieved through inter-subjective agreement.” [SM:] Discounting it as useless is not ignoring it. You’re making the very error you’re accusing BA[77] of. A consensus morality is about as useful as any other consensus. There was once a scientific consensus that the Earth was the centre of our universe. It was wrong. The problem with a consensus morality formed by flawed people ought to be obvious but just to make it plain: It is guaranteed to be wrong.
I again point to the caution by Lewis Vaughn:
Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping: . . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts. Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values. Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible. Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.
In the end, starting with our minds governed by duties to truth, rationality, fairness, prudence etc, we are forced to face moral government of our lives as more or less responsible, reasonable, significantly free agents. Indeed, without that, reasoning and knowing, etc fall to pieces. And so, the IS-OUGHT gap is central. This means we face the challenge of bridging (which is only possible at world-root level, post Hume). Put up any candidate you like: ______ . After centuries of debates, we will readily see why on comparative difficulties assessment we will come back to there being just one serious candidate: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and trust, thus of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. But we live in a day of those who find God irksome and wish to remove him from any reference in serious thought or action. The moral incoherence, chaos and irresponsibility of our day is readily explained on that attempt to saw our civilisation off from its life-giving root. Perhaps, we should first reassess why we are so inclined, and where it will predictably end, once the most ruthless nihilists fully seize power? That has happened before, indeed within living memory. And, in part, that is why I will not cede the God-despisers a veto over the substance of ethical and general discussion. KFkairosfocus_{May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

jdk(21): “Non-believers in God.” There’s no such thing. Those are also believers. They believe there’s no God. They believe...OLV_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

Seversky @ 17:

5) The Western View Of Morality and Human Equality Did Not Arise Through Human Reason Alone But Through the Religion of Judeo-Christianity.,,,
And how did Christianity arrive at that view if not through reason, tossing a coin?
Clearly a Christian would expect it followed naturally from principles handed down by a God with a complete field of view?

“Christianity was to introduce the notion that humanity was fundamentally identical, that men were equal in dignity – an unprecedented idea at the time, and one to which our world owes its entire democratic inheritance.”
Men, perhaps, but not women or slaves or other races.
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28 You have need of more study on this subject, apparently.
In spite of this alleged notion of equality it has taken – and will continue to take – humanity a long, long time to get to the point where all human beings, regardless of color, race, creed or sexual orientation are treated as equals.
The notion is pretty clear to me. The Bible also refers to humanity as sinful, hard-headed, and rebellious. Fits hand in glove with the recalcitrance towards equity you bemoan. Of course, we only need watch AK pour out his scorn on KF's insistence of holding abortion against a higher standard as a live demonstration of this moral failure in action. He justifies it by standing on the moral relativity of atheism, and the apparent notion that actions don't follow beliefs in any way. Is this your argument, too? Should we base our beliefs strictly on immediate gratification, then? If not, you should probably get with him about blowing up the bridge you're both standing on.
And I need hardly point out that some of the resistance to such changes has come from nominally Christian elements of society.
And atheistic communism's debut resulted in over 100 million slain, a significantly greater death toll than both World Wars. The ad hominem is unprofitable to you even if it wasn't trivially fallacious.LocalMinimum_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Here's a new one! :-)
Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ
jdk_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

As to the gobbledygook mess Seversky offered at 17:
"You consistently ignore the possibility that a consensus morality can be achieved through inter-subjective agreement."
Hitler, Stalin and Mao would have agreed wholeheartedly with you.
"You have also not answered the question which is raised by the insistence on an objective morality, to whit, are you saying that you would not know what is right or wrong unless someone else tells you?"
Apparently you, the atheistic materialist, are dead sure about what you think is right or wrong even though atheistic materialism is completely amoral. i.e. there are no right or wrong atoms, they just are what they are! If anyone should ever question their moral certainty it is the atheistic materialist. But alas, they are apparently oblivious to the fact they are without any moral foundation
"This is a sophomoric argument and I would hope Peterson knows it. Let’s use a Biblical example. Suppose Peterson covets his neighbor’s ox and decides to take it. The neighbor tells all his neighbors what Peterson has done and they get together and decide that if Peterson has taken one ox he could take everyone else’s if he was so minded. So they all confront Peterson, demand that he hand back his neighbor’s ox and then get out of town and don’t come back. So how did “pure naked self-interest” turn out for him?"
So if the neighbor could get away with stealing an ox would that then make it morally OK in your book of made up materialistic morals?
"Rationality is simply the employment of reason to construct an argument or case. You can make a rational case for handing over Jews to the Nazis in WWII in the grounds of self-preservation but you can also make a rational case for aiding them in spite of personal risk on the grounds of your social and moral obligations to your fellow human beings."
Atheistic Materialism denies free will, and, as a result, forsakes rationality and reason altogether.
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html Physicalism and Reason - May 2013 Summary: So we find ourselves affirming two contradictory propositions: 1. Everything is governed by cause-and-effect. 2. Our brains can process and be changed by ground-consequent logical relationships. To achieve consistency, we must either deny that everything is governed by cause-and-effect, and open our worldviews to something beyond physicalism, or we must deny that our brains are influenced by ground-consequence reasoning, and abandon the idea that we are rational creatures. Ask yourself: are humans like falling dominoes, entirely subject to natural law, or may we stand up and walk in the direction that reason shows us? http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2012/09/physicalism-and-reason/
Moreover, on a 'survival of the fittest', Darwinian, view of reality there is nothing more 'rational' than self-preservation. It is practically the defining mantra of Darwinism. Altruism simply finds no place in Darwinian presuppositions.
"That depends on how you arrive at a definition of right and wrong."
Again, there is no right and wrong within atheistic materialism.
"So if it wasn’t reason alone that gave us the western view of human rights, human equality, and human dignity, then where did such a view of humanity come from?,,, A perfectly good question, as is the question of how that view arose."
Atheistic materialism is completely amoral and lacks the standing to even ask the question(s) about morality.
The Universe Reflects a Mind - Michael Egnor - February 28, 2018 Excerpt: Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/
then you ask
"And how did Christianity arrive at that view if not through reason, tossing a coin?"
The morality of Christianity is derived from the perfect, sinless, life of Jesus Christ and is testified to by His victory over death:
2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Acts 2:24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words "The Lamb" - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ
you then state
"Men, perhaps, but not women or slaves or other races. In spite of this alleged notion of equality it has taken – and will continue to take – humanity a long, long time to get to the point where all human beings, regardless of color, race, creed or sexual orientation are treated as equals. And I need hardly point out that some of the resistance to such changes has come from nominally Christian elements of society."
Atheistic materialism has brought nothing but unmitigated horror wherever it has achieved dominance in government. Only Christianity has proven itself capable of providing a solid moral foundation for democratic societies in which equality has been, with sustained concerted effort towards that goal, 'reasonably' achieved.
For Its Moral Ideals, Evolutionary Materialism "Freeloads" on Christianity - Nancy Pearcey - May 8, 2015 Excerpt: Westerners pride themselves on holding noble ideals such as equality and universal human rights. Yet the dominant worldview of our day -- evolutionary materialism -- denies the reality of human freedom and gives no basis for moral ideals such as human rights. So where did the idea of equal rights come from? The 19th-century political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville said it came from Christianity. "The most profound geniuses of Rome and Greece" never came up with the idea of equal rights, he wrote. "Jesus Christ had to come to earth to make it understood that all members of the human species are naturally alike and equal." The 19th-century atheist Friedrich Nietzsche agreed: "Another Christian concept ... has passed even more deeply into the tissue of modernity: the concept of the 'equality of souls before God.' This concept furnishes the prototype of all theories of equal rights." Contemporary atheist Luc Ferry says the same thing. We tend to take the concept of equality for granted; yet it was Christianity that overthrew ancient social hierarchies between rich and poor, masters and slaves. "According to Christianity, we were all 'brothers,' on the same level as creatures of God," Ferry writes. "Christianity is the first universalist ethos.",,, At the birth of our nation, the American founders deemed it self-evident that human rights must be grounded in God. The Declaration of Independence leads off with those bright, blazing words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident -- that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." In the summer of 2013, a beer company sparked controversy when it released an advertisement for Independence Day that deleted the crucial words "by their Creator." The ad said, "They are endowed with certain unalienable rights." (Endowed by whom?) The advertisement is emblematic of what many secularists do: They borrow ideals like equality and rights from a biblical worldview but cut them off from their source in the Creator. They are freeloaders. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/05/for_its_moral_i095901.html
bornagain77_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Non-believers in God. You knew that.jdk_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

jdk(2): “most non-believers believe” Huh?OLV_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Was about to make same point as @18 but will just add that Nazism is an example of such a systemes58_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

"You consistently ignore the possibility that a consensus morality can be achieved through inter-subjective agreement." Discounting it as useless is not ignoring it. You're making the very error you're accusing BA of. A consensus morality is about as useful as any other consensus. There was once a scientific consensus that the Earth was the centre of our universe. It was wrong. The problem with a consensus morality formed by flawed people ought to be obvious but just to make it plain: It is guaranteed to be wrong.ScuzzaMan_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 3
So PZ and jdk bemoan the fact that rank and file atheists apparently are living consistently within atheism and forsake social responsibility or ethical obligation. PZ and jdk apparently believe that an immaterial objective morality that is binding to all persons can be derived from a belief system, i.e. atheistic materialism, which holds immaterial objective morality to be illusory.
You consistently ignore the possibility that a consensus morality can be achieved through inter-subjective agreement. You have also not answered the question which is raised by the insistence on an objective morality, to whit, are you saying that you would not know what is right or wrong unless someone else tells you?

The Problem With Atheism According To A Secular Psychologist – 23/10/2017 Excerpt: Psych Professor Jordan Peterson nails the problem with modern Atheism when he says: “What is irrational about me getting exactly what I want from every one of you whenever I want it at every possible second?…There’s nothing irrational about it. It’s pure naked self-interest.”

This is a sophomoric argument and I would hope Peterson knows it. Let's use a Biblical example. Suppose Peterson covets his neighbor's ox and decides to take it. The neighbor tells all his neighbors what Peterson has done and they get together and decide that if Peterson has taken one ox he could take everyone else's if he was so minded. So they all confront Peterson, demand that he hand back his neighbor's ox and then get out of town and don't come back. So how did "pure naked self-interest" turn out for him?

There are many possible situations where doing good can be considered irrational. Jewish social commentator Dennis Prager gives the following historical example that makes the point: “Was it rational or irrational for a non-Jew in Nazi-occupied Europe during World War II to risk his or her life to hide a Jew? We all know that this was moral greatness of the highest order. But was it rational?” Prager’s answer: “Not really. You can’t get much more rational than self-preservation. Moreover, in all the studies I have read of non-Jewish rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust — and I have read many — I have never read of any rescuers who said that they did what they did because it was the reasonable or rational thing to do. Not one.”

Rationality is simply the employment of reason to construct an argument or case. You can make a rational case for handing over Jews to the Nazis in WWII in the grounds of self-preservation but you can also make a rational case for aiding them in spite of personal risk on the grounds of your social and moral obligations to your fellow human beings.
4) If Doing Evil Can Be Rational, and Doing Good Can Be Irrational, Then Human Reason Alone Can’t Tell Us Right From Wrong.,,,

That depends on how you arrive at a definition of right and wrong.
So if it wasn’t reason alone that gave us the western view of human rights, human equality, and human dignity, then where did such a view of humanity come from?
A perfectly good question, as is the question of how that view arose.
5) The Western View Of Morality and Human Equality Did Not Arise Through Human Reason Alone But Through the Religion of Judeo-Christianity.,,,

And how did Christianity arrive at that view if not through reason, tossing a coin?
“Christianity was to introduce the notion that humanity was fundamentally identical, that men were equal in dignity – an unprecedented idea at the time, and one to which our world owes its entire democratic inheritance.”

Men, perhaps, but not women or slaves or other races. In spite of this alleged notion of equality it has taken - and will continue to take - humanity a long, long time to get to the point where all human beings, regardless of color, race, creed or sexual orientation are treated as equals. And I need hardly point out that some of the resistance to such changes has come from nominally Christian elements of society.Seversky_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

I understand, Mike, that some (most?) may ignore me as I ignore at least some (most?) of what some others write. Although I would hope all of us would exercise some judgment sorting out the wheat from the chaff, and in trying to understand perspectives different than our own.jdk_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

Mike,
Fair enough. But don’t be surprised when more thoughtful people ignore you.
What does that say for those here who have not ignored him?Allan Keith_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

jdk: This is “bogus philosophizing”, an external manifestation of your highly dogmatic commitment to a particular cultural expression of theism. Fair enough. But don't be surprised when more thoughtful people ignore you.mike1962_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Some atheists categorically deny the existence of the Christian God, for example, whereas others, like myself, see no good reason for believing in such so we act on assumption that one does not exist, even though we cannot say for certain that it doesn't. Atheists are also as prone human fallibilities as any other large population. We should not be any more surprised to learn that some atheists behave inappropriately than we are to find that some believers do the same. In the interests of clarity, it should also be noted that atheism and materialism are not the same thing. Although many atheists are materialists, it is quite possible to believe in a material world that was created by God just as it also possible to be an atheist who believes there are immaterial components of the universe.Seversky_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

to both ba and kf: because I think your belief in the power and importance of metaphysical philosophy is excessive and misguided. There are many issues involving social responsibility and moral obligation for which I agree with a whole range of people, from theists to Buddhists to materialists. As I've often explained, we make up stories–religious and metaphysical–to support beliefs that are really deeply embedded in our biological, psychological, and cultural nature. They're interesting to think about, and can help express large, abstract ideas, but they are artifacts and effects, not causes, of our beliefs. So I pay no attention to your comments like "And exactly how is it possible for material particles to anticipate anything?" or "Pray, tell us how they propose to soundly bridge the IS-OUGHT gap on evolutionary materialistic scientism based presuppositions?". This is "bogus philosophizing", an external manifestation of your highly dogmatic commitment to a particular cultural expression of theism.jdk_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Actually, I didn't say that atheists were nihilists. Most probably aren't. They think that the statement "There is no God" represents a fact. A problem develops when they are asked to identify reasons why the evolved human brain can identify a fact, as opposed to a mere evolved belief that enabled our species to survive on the open savannah. Hence Darwinian philosopher Dennett's insistence that consciousness is an illusion. Thomas Nagel, also an atheist but not apparently a Darwinian, disagrees. See Mind and Cosmos. The progressive, whatever else he believes, believes in running Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying off campus for not following a probably fact-lite and possibly fact-free political program. Serious atheists like Sam Harris will likely end up having to choose and it won't be pretty.News_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

JDK
PZ Myers is for an atheist movement that also is for “social responsibility [and] ethical obligation”
Pray, tell us how they propose to soundly bridge the IS-OUGHT gap on evolutionary materialistic scientism based presuppositions? Or, is this little more than shock at the working out of the dynamics that were so loudly championed in recent years? Remember, post Hume, we for cause know that there is but one level where the required bridging can be done: the world-root. KFkairosfocus_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

So let me get this straight. You are not a materialist because you, apparently, find it wanting in regards to being true, (or else you obviously would be a materialist), but then you see nothing inconsistent with defending materialism as if it were true? :) Consistency is not your strong suit is it ?!? :)bornagain77_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

I can defend whomever I want. Because I am strongly agnostic about metaphysics, and believe that our nature comes more from our biological nature than it does from our philosophy (which is an abstract overlay over beliefs which are much more deep-seated), I can support anyone who beliefs in social responsibility and moral obligation. I don't think philosophical beliefs are nearly as important as one's practical beliefs about how we should act.jdk_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

"I am not a materialist." Then do not defend PZ's materialism. Defend your own worldview.bornagain77_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

I am not a materialist. And this is the umpteenth time you've posted the link to your video about Einstein.jdk_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

""I" anticipated..." And exactly how is it possible for material particles to anticipate anything? I know you like to try to escape into Eastern Mysticism when pressed on the sheer inability of materialism to account for subjective conscious experience, but you are, in defending PZ's position on morality, defending atheistic materialism now. So how do material particles 'anticipate' anything?
The Mind and Its Now - Stanley L. Jaki, May 2008 Excerpts:,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind's ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows. ,,, the now is immensely richer an experience than any marvelous set of numbers, even if science could give an account of the set of numbers, in terms of energy levels. The now is not a number. It is rather a word, the most decisive of all words. It is through experiencing that word that the mind comes alive and registers all existence around and well beyond. ,,, All our moments, all our nows, flow into a personal continuum, of which the supreme form is the NOW which is uncreated, because it simply IS. http://metanexus.net/essay/mind-and-its-now “Every day we recall the past, perceive the present and imagine the future. How do our brains accomplish these feats? It’s safe to say that nobody really knows.” Sebastian Seung - Massachusetts Institute of Technology neuroscientist - “Connectome” Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4
bornagain77_{May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply