Armand Jacks Destroys ID in One Sentence

Headlined here: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/the-materialist-mindset/ Eric Anderson

Eric Anderson @265 Looking forward to your OP on this topic. Origenes

Origenes @262: I hear what you're saying, and your point has merit. But I think the situation with the materialist position is slightly more nuanced than that. If I get time in the next few days I'll put up an OP on this topic. ----- Thanks, KF. I just noticed that for some reason my browser says "JavaScript is blocked on this page." I'm guessing that is why I can't edit right now. I'll see if I can resolve it. Eric Anderson

Headlined: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/fft-seversky-and-the-is-ought-gap/ PS: EA, the edit grace period is still there. kairosfocus

Seversky, if you have been keeping track that is not what is at stake. The issue is, we are patently inescapably morally governed, as for instance you implied by trying to correct and by expecting us to have a sense of duty to the truth and the right. Either that speaks truly or mindedness collapses into grand delusion. As, if such is a delusional perception in an actually utterly amoral world then delusion is at the heart of attempts to reason and be responsible -- as Rosenberg implies but tries to put a rosy picture on. Absurd. So, we need to ask, what sort of world must we be in for such moral government not to be rooted in grand delusion. This points to world-roots that cannot be infinite regress or a chicken-egg loop. Finitely remote, necessary being root. As, were there ever utter non-being (which can have no causal powers) such would forever obtain. The premise that, on pain of grand delusion and absurdity, we are responsibly and rationally significantly free and morally governed, self-moved creatures then leads to the world root being a necessary being that is at the same time inextricably the root of moral government. Where, if we are not self-moved initiating causal agents, we have no true freedom to draw a LOGICAL, meaningful inference from grounds and/or evidence to the consequent or a warranted conclusion, we would be trapped in a delusion of rationality while actually being the GIGO-limited playthings of our computational substrates and their blind, mechanically driven and/or stochastic cause effect chains. We must be free and self-moved to be rational or responsible. Is and ought are not IS--> OUGHT, but instead that they are inherently inextricably entangled and utterly fused at the world-root. There is one serious candidate (if you doubt, kindly provide a coherent alternative: _____ ) i.e. the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. KF kairosfocus

Eric Anderson @259 Thank you for pointing out the typical materialistic response wrt morality.

EA: However, the squirming can eventually follow the direction it does for the rest of the materialist creation story: namely, at some point Characteristic X didn’t exist, and then at some later point Characteristic X “evolved.”

The majority of materialists fails to understand that materialism can only take us to the illusion of effective moral laws. Suppose that by ‘Characteristic X’ is meant organismal behavior which is consistent with the moral law “thou shall not steal”. Now, in a purely material universe, all sorts of physical stuff can contribute to X, but X can never be caused by the moral law “thou shall not steal”. The consistency with a moral law is happenstantial and not an intended result. There cannot be a moral law who is telling atoms how to behave. In a materialistic world the moral law “though shall not steal” has no power to reach down in the brain and rearrange neuronal behavior so as to comply with that moral law. Illusion. Given materialism, it can only be the case that it is as if a moral law is being respected. So, no, naturalism cannot get us to morality. It can only get us to the illusion of morality. It can result in behavior which, incidentally, is consistent with a moral law. But noticing this consistency is nothing more than the occasional observation of temporal happenstantial synchronicity between two totally unrelated things. Origenes

Origenes @ 258

The matter seems very simple to me: because fermions and bosons are completely indifferent about morality, it is not possible to ground morality for atheists/materialists.

You cannot logically derive "ought" from "is". No one can, not even God. So, if our morality is God-given, how did He - or, indeed, any other being - derive it? Did He toss a coin? Seversky

Hey did we just lose the ability to edit comments for 20 minutes after we have posted them? Mods, please bring that back, if you can. Maybe it is just my machine acting up today . . . ? Eric Anderson

Origenes:

The matter seems very simple to me: because fermions and bosons are completely indifferent about morality, it is not possible to ground morality for atheists/materialists.

I think your point is well made, and should be sufficient to make any materialist squirm. However, the squirming can eventually follow the direction it does for the rest of the materialist creation story: namely, at some point Characteristic X didn't exist, and then at some later point Characteristic X "evolved." This may not seem very intellectually satisfactory to the objective observer, but the materialist is perfectly happy to argue that morality evolved as a result of [insert made-up reason here]. It isn't fundamentally different than any other system or characteristic evolving. No details. No particular reason or direction. It just did. So while I agree with your general point, and Rosenberg's frank admission, the entire issue becomes lost on the committed materialist. After all, the entire view of history and creation and all that this entails, is just -- as you aptly noted -- nothing more than a long accidental sequence of particles bumping into each other. And those particles, so the thinking does, don't have to ground anything. Not design, not functional complexity, not information. Nothing. Just wait long enough for the particles to bump into each other enough times, and -- Ta Da! -- here we are. Whether we are talking about molecular machines or morality, it is all the same in the materialist creation story. Remember, this is all right in line with the Great Evolutionary Explanation for all things: Stuff Happens. It is really no more substantive than that. Eric Anderson

hammaspeikko: The ones I have read, which I admit are limited, are more nuanced than that. They don’t say that “moral values and obligations are totally subjective.”, they claim that the individual values are subjective. A small distinction I realize, but an important one.

I have never heard about such a moral system. Individual values are subjective and non-individual values are not? Can you provide some more info? The matter seems very simple to me: because fermions and bosons are completely indifferent about morality, it is not possible to ground morality for atheists/materialists. Here is atheistic philosopher Alex Rosenberg:

Scientism can’t avoid nihilism. We need to make the best of it.... First, nihilism can’t condemn Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or those who fomented the Armenian genocide or the Rwandan one. If there is no such thing as “morally forbidden,” then what Mohamed Atta did on September 11, 2001, was not morally forbidden. Of course, it was not permitted either. But still, don’t we want to have grounds to condemn these monsters? Nihilism seems to cut that ground out from under us. ... To avoid these outcomes, people have been searching for scientifically respectable justification of morality for least a century and a half. The trouble is that over the same 150 years or so, the reasons for nihilism have continued to mount. Both the failure to find an ethics that everyone can agree on and the scientific explanation of the origin and persistence of moral norms have made nihilism more and more plausible while remaining just as unappetizing. [A. Rosenberg, 'The Atheist's Guide To Reality', ch. 5]

Origenes

JAD, WJM here at UD, adapted, on April 3rd, 2015:

If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If logic is not assumed to be a causally independent, authoritative arbiter of true statements, there’s no reason to apply it. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place. If you do not assume mind is primary, there is no “you” to make any argument at all.

That's the stark reality too many will revert to every type and degree of rhetorical subterfuge rather than honestly face. They want licence, not liberty. KF kairosfocus

Origene: "He is correct of course, since that’s exactly what subjective moralists say." The ones I have read, which I admit are limited, are more nuanced than that. They don't say that "moral values and obligations are totally subjective.", they claim that the individual values are subjective. A small distinction I realize, but an important one. And, I apologize in advance for not phrasing this as well as I would like. My own personal belief is that our system of morality is a combination of objective and subjective. The most obvious objective aspect of our morality system is that the existance of this system appears to be universal amongst humans. Even psychopaths and sociopaths have a morality system. They just happen to be very different than that of the majority of the population. Of the other values (not killing, lying, stealing...) some may be objective and others subjective. Frankly, I don't know. And I don't really care. But the one thing that makes logical sense is that if there are objective morals, they are not independent of subjectivity. They are either strengthened by our experiences or they are weakened. Thus explaining the variations that we see in their application amongst different cultures. hammaspeikko

hammaspeikko @254: I think many of the arguments used against subjective morality, including the one I quoted above, are caricatures and misrepresentations of what the subjective moralist argues. They have never argued that the moral value of being honest is not very common across cultures and over time.

Where does john_a_designer state that subjective moralists argue that "being honest is not very common across cultures and over time"? My take is that John did not make that statement. What John did say is this:

Some of our other atheist interlocutors insist that moral values and obligations are totally subjective.

He is correct of course, since that's exactly what subjective moralists say. IOWs you have made a caricature and misrepresentation of what john_a_designer argues — the very thing that you accuse John of. Origenes

JAD: "Again, my main point is this: you can’t have an honest discussion or debate without some kind of interpersonal objective standard which everyone involved recognizes." Keep in mind, I say the following as someone who believes in objective morality, so please don't shoot the messenger. I think many of the arguments used against subjective morality, including the one I quoted above, are caricatures and misrepresentations of what the subjective moralist argues. They have never argued that the moral value of being honest is not very common across cultures and over time. They just argue that it is easily explained as a necessity of living in social groups. Given the fact that honesty is not as universal as we would all like it to be, I think the subjectivist has a legitimate argument in this respect. hammaspeikko

hammaspeikko @249:

Eric, what I saw was one side arguing from philosophy and the other from observation of the world, neither side really addressing the other’s argument on their respective terms.

Well, I can't comment on all the back and forth between AJ and KF, so perhaps you're right on that front. But I'm not sure your description matches my experience with AJ on this thread. In my exchange I detailed the definitional, practical and logical problems with his claim, all the while requesting -- indeed, begging -- him to address the most basic and foundational follow-up questions and to provide any substantive evidence or rational argument for why we should take his claim seriously. All of which he steadfastly refused to do. As to your other point, and as I've previously said, I'm not sure I would call his behavior trolling. Maybe just annoying. But I can certainly understand why some would view his behavior as trolling. Perhaps he wasn't intentionally trying to troll and was just genuinely incapable of thinking through the issues in a logical manner. That's fine. We all have our limitations. ----- Again, just to be clear: As you know, I have not called AJ a troll. I've rarely called anyone a troll over the years, though it may have been justified in many cases. I'm not particularly interested in trying to define someone with a label to justify anything I'm doing or to justify my argument. I am interested only in a rational, objective, and logical discussion of the issues -- something which is easier with some people than with others. That is not a label, nor a justification for banning in most cases. Just a factual observation. Eric Anderson

JAD, correct. Your snippet also shows the tendency of denigratory projection that too often is used by polarised objectionists as a rhetorical substitute for cogent argument. KF kairosfocus

Hammaspeikko @ 249, You can’t have a discussion or a debate without some kind of interpersonal objective standard of honesty that everyone recognizes. About a year ago I asked this question:

How can you have an honest conversation with someone who does not believe in moral truth? That is why over the past couple years, aside from occasional glib comments, I no longer engage with these anonymous internet “know-it-alls.” Is it too much to ask for some basic honesty?

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-deny-objective-morality/#comment-608450 (There were a number of good points made in the OP and in the discussion that followed in that thread. It is well worth taking a look at.) More recently I wrote:

To enter into an honest debate one must be able to give honest arguments. An honest argument begins with premises which are, in some sense, either self-evidently true (as in mathematics,) probably true or at the very least plausibly true. In other words, your argument is a waste of everyone’s time unless there really is something or some things which are really true. That begins with the idea of truth itself. Notice the absurdity of the argument that some students at Pomona College recently made, which succeeded in shutting down a lecture by Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald. They were arguing that there is no “truth — ‘the Truth’ — “. But that is self-refuting, because their claim, there is no truth, is a truth claim-- a universal truth claim. You can’t even begin to talk rationally about something like universal human rights (as they are trying to do) until you recognize there are moral truths that are universal. Indeed, the idea of truth itself is universal-- it must be.

Truth and honesty, which requires the idea of objective truth, cannot be rationally defended or demanded by moral subjectivists. Incredibly they don’t seem to comprehend this. For example on an earlier thread Armand Jacks @ 49 responded to Origenes :

“O, thank you for engaging in an honest discussion. I do not get that from WJM or KF.”

To which I commented:

Based on materialism how can someone like Armand even talk about honesty? Honesty based on what standard? Whose standard? Some of our other atheist interlocutors insist that moral values and obligations are totally subjective. But how do they know this? How can they prove this? But if they are subjective, whose moral standard is everyone else obligated to follow? Ironically, we can’t even have an honest discussion about honesty with these people.

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-24/#comment-629358 How did Armand Jacks respond? If you are interested see his comment @ #65 of that thread. Again, my main point is this: you can’t have an honest discussion or debate without some kind of interpersonal objective standard which everyone involved recognizes. john_a_designer

Hi! I'm new to this site and finally decided to register and post something. AJ was very hostile sometimes from what I can see in previous posts. AJ modus operandi is very similar to a youtube user/troll called nickolasgaspar who likes to harass other people and start pointless discussions, being extremely hostile to people who are not materialists/monists kurx78

Eric, what I saw was one side arguing from philosophy and the other from observation of the world, neither side really addressing the other's argument on their respective terms. If this were an evolution sight I dare say that it would be some of the theists who would be accused of being trolls. I guess my only point is that we are all too quick to level the troll accusation. I think in many cases this is done to justify to oneself and others why the person being labelled a troll does not deserve to be treated fairly and honestly. And, in some cases it is levelled when someone doesn't have a rational response to what is being argued. hammaspeikko

You don't have to look any further than this thread for an example. At least by the description I gave. Again, I'm not saying he should have been banned; I might have preferred otherwise. But this is at least the second thread in recent weeks in which he has prattled on with his dubious argument about no free will under traditional theism, this despite detailed rebuttals and polite requests for him to address the logical follow-up questions. He provided little evidence or rational argument -- just endless repeats of the claim over and over, all the while steadfastly refusing to address the follow-up issues that would have made for a deepening and beneficial discussion. I should add that I don't know if this was the cause of his dismissal. His argument started with KF, but he was mostly arguing with me by the end. Eric Anderson

I'm not saying that AJ wasn't a troll. He definitely was with regard to Kairosfocus. I'm just not sure that he was, even by Eric's definition, with others. Does anyone have any examples? hammaspeikko

Fair minded criticism using valid arguments, which begin with fact based premises, is acceptable, disruptive behavior is not. Persistently taking threads off topic is being disruptive. There is no justifiable reason for being disruptive. john_a_designer

hammaspeikko @244: One hint may be the following: If they make a claim, without support, and then -- after multiple explanations of why their claim is suspect and multiple requests for them to provide some evidence actual and rational argument to support their claim -- they steadfastly refuse to do so, continue to assert their claim, and then do the same thing on multiple threads. I don't have to agree with their evidence or argument, and there is much that can be a matter of debate, but the failure to actually engage with the issues once they've jumped in and made their provocative initial comment is concerning. Is that trolling? I don't know. But it is annoying and unhelpful to genuine debate. Their provocative comment may, as you note, help get the discussion going, but they are then largely unhelpful, or even a hindrance, in moving the discussion forward. ----- In the end, though, absent some actual malice or egregious behavior that merits a ban, I tend to agree with Phinehas:

Personally, I’d much rather see them stick around to continue providing examples of the poverty of materialism and the irrationality of its supporters.

Eric Anderson

JaD: "I can spot a trolls like AJ from almost the moment they arrive." Forgive me if I am skeptical. Exactly when did you suspect that AJ was a troll? Is rvb8 a troll? JDK? Myself? Kairosfocus? UB? All I am suggesting is that if you eliminate AJ's interactions with Kairosfocus, would you label him a troll? I don't think I could. hammaspeikko

Here is something which I have said before which is worth repeating here: I can spot a trolls like AJ from almost the moment they arrive. They always start from a contrarian, even hostile, stance and a condescending tone, from which never back off. And they never ever try to establish any kind of common ground. They appear to believe that high-minded but otherwise vacuous rhetoric is equivalent to good reasoning. Apart from a few occasional glib comments I no longer engage with people who seem to be motivated only by this kind of smugness. You cannot reason with people who do not understand what reasoning is. Unfortunately, too many people on my side (and you don’t need to be an ID’ist to be on my side) enable these peoples smugness by trying to reason with them. Like I said above, they aren’t interested in truth, reason or establishing any kind of common ground. For them winning is being able to shut down the discussion and debate. So when you try to reason with them they don’t see it as an offer to play fair but an opportunity to obstruct and obfuscate. Again if they are able undermine the discussion in any way they see that as winning. They especially love it-- indeed, I think it’s something they try to provoke-- when they are criticized personally and, under the pretense of defending themselves, can trade insults. Why? Because that is one of the things that plays into their hands. Smug people crave being noticed, even if it’s negative. If nothing else they can feign being offended and that gives an opportunity to counter attack with sarcasm, mockery and ridicule… which causes frustration on the ID side… which cause retaliation, which then gets the discussion going in the direction the want it to go-- downhill. Is this really the way these people “think?” Just look at what is currently happening on college campuses where invited speakers (usually conservatives) are having their lectures shut down, sometimes with (or the threat of) violence. I think we are seeing the same kind of disruptive tactics here. And, make no mistake, they would be more extreme if they could. john_a_designer

Well, Armand gave me the impression that he knew he was being deliberate in his hostility, but wouldn't use the word 'trolling' to describe it. I also get the impression this has happened to him before under a different moniker. These things are judgement calls by blog moderators, anyway. Andrew asauber

Too often, it seems to me that banning provides interlocutor's an easy way out of debates they are losing. Sometimes, I wonder whether they don't start pushing buttons for this very reason. Personally, I'd much rather see them stick around to continue providing examples of the poverty of materialism and the irrationality of its supporters. Phinehas

Andrew: "Sometimes people just need a vacation. Armand was clearly trolling whatever else he might have been doing." I'm not sure. He definitely had a hard-on for Kairosfocus for some reason, but when he wasn't sparring with him I thought that he presented some reasonable argument. But, he was given a warning. Does anyone know what comment he made that triggered the final solution? hammaspeikko

I'm generally not a fan of banning either, but... There has to be a line somewhere in regards to blog commenter maintenance. If the ban isn't permanent and the commenter is agreeable to helping maintain reasonable discussion at some further date, a reinstatement could be good. Sometimes people just need a vacation. Armand was clearly trolling whatever else he might have been doing. Andrew asauber

hammaspeikko @235: Unfortunately, I don't know anything about the banning or un-banning particulars, so I can't help there. Ironically (and amusingly, I suppose), I was even "banned" for over a year. :) I couldn't post or comment and long-time regulars may have noticed I dropped off the radar for a while. I think it was under prior management and I still choose to believe it was due to a technical glitch, rather than purposeful, so I don't get too worried about it and haven't spent time to track down what really happened. Eric Anderson