Is there such a thing as morality or ethics?

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 17, 2021

Ethics, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, theism}

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

Atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty now challenges neurosurgeon Michael Egnor: There is no way to know whether a moral doctrine represents any reality apart from belief:

Michael Egnor: You’ve agreed with me that there are people who act out of respect for an objective moral law.
Matt Dillahunty: I agree with you there are people who act that way because of their belief and whether they believe it’s objective or not is irrelevant. They can believe it’s subjective and still do it. [01:29:30]
Michael Egnor: So, you don’t believe that it’s objectively wrong, for example, to kill innocent people, or rape babies, or exterminate the Jews?
Matt Dillahunty: Hang on. We just went through a whole bunch of stuff and when you got to a point where it was exposed that you were wrong about what you said, you went back to: I don’t think it’s objectively wrong to rape people and kill babies. That’s not what we were just discussing. We were discussing altruism and whether or not there’s a justification for it.
Michael Egnor: Yeah. But it’s what we’re discussing now, Matt. My question is, is it objectively wrong to do certain things, outside of opinions? [01:30:00]
Matt Dillahunty: I’ve already answered this and I’m sorry that you don’t understand it. I will try one more time.
When you declare what a foundation of morality is, once that’s done, you can compare the consequences of various actions with respect to that foundation, with respect to that goal. That comparison can be objective in the same way that the rules of chess are ultimately arbitrary. They didn’t have to be that way. We made up the game. It is objectively against the rules for you to move your pawn forward four spaces at the beginning of the game. Now, you can say, is it objectively wrong? Well, no, we could have house rules, but we’re talking about these rules.
News, “8. Does morality really exist? If so, does it come from God?” at Mind Matters News

C.S. Lewis (1898–1963) certainly disagreed with Dillahunty in The Abolition of Man (1943), where he talks about the Tao that forms the basis of all human morality.

Takehome: Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.

The debate to date:

Debate: Former atheist neurosurgeon vs. former Christian activist. At Theology Unleashed, each gets a chance to state his case and interrogate the other. In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and broadcaster Matt Dillahunty clash over the existence of God.
A neurosurgeon’s ten proofs for the existence of God. First, how did a medic, formerly an atheist, who cuts open people’s brains for a living, come to be sure there is irrefutable proof for God? In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty clash over “Does God exist?” Egnor starts off.
Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views. “My position is that it’s unacceptable to believe something if the available evidence does not support it.” Dillahunty: We can’t conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most “God” definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.
Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows… About philosophical arguments for the existence of God, as he begins a rebuttal. Atheist Dillahunty appears unable to recall the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which poses a challenge for Egnor in rebutting him.
Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe. In a peppery exchange, Egnor argues that proofs of God’s existence follow the same logical structure as proofs in science. If the universe begins in a singularity (where Einstein’s equations break down), what lies behind it? Egnor challenges Dillahunty on that.
Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? That’s neurosurgeon Michael Egnor’s accusation in this third part of the debate, which features a continued discussion of singularities, where conventional “laws of nature” break down.
If the “supernatural” means “outside of conventional nature,” Michael Egnor argues, science routinely accepts it, based on evidence.
Dillahunty asks 2nd oldest question: If God exists, why evil? In the debate between Christian neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty, the question of raping a baby was bound to arise.
Egnor argues that there is an objective moral law against such acts; Dillahunty argues, no, it is all just human judgment.
Does morality really exist? If so, does it come from God? Matt Dillahunty now challenges Michael Egnor: There is no way to know whether a moral doctrine represents any reality apart from belief. Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.

You may also wish to read:

Science can and does point to God’s existence. Michael Egnor: Natural science is not at all methodologically naturalist — it routinely points to causes outside of nature. If we are to understand natural effects, we must be open to all kinds of causes, including causes that transcend nature.

The Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence = nonsense. God in Himself is immeasurably greater than we are, and He transcends all human knowledge. A God with whom we do not struggle — who is not in some substantial and painful way hidden to us — is not God but is a mere figment of our imagination.

Atheist Claims about logical fallacies often just mean: Shut Up! In the recent debate, Matt Dillahunty accuses theists of “the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity” because we examine his claims and find them incredible. What atheists fear most is having to explain themselves, and the invocation of fictitious “fallacies” is one of their favorite ways to evade scrutiny.

and

Theists vs. atheists: Which group has the burden of proof? Because Dillahunty refuses to debate me again, I’ll address his claim that atheists have no burden of proof in the debate over God’s existence in this post. Both atheists and theists make positive statements about the nature of the universe. If atheists shun the ensuing burden of proof, it should count against them.

Comments

Origenes, I exist, a perception of consciousness, is self-evident and objectively true. KFkairosfocus_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

An issue important to women at the time you just dismiss.
You seem to want to paint someone negatively. You don’t seem to realize what you are doing. This issue has an history. I am certainly not recommending women not compete in marathons or vote but it’s a bogus issue. Especially since I’m one of the most knowledgeable persons in the country on people’s capability for competing in such events. Given the right testing and training history it is possible to predict a result in a race to within a small degree. For some short races to within less than a second. Also not too long ago most men couldn’t vote and few if any could run a marathon safely. I believe the original marathon runner died.jerry_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

KF: VL, I find your but you have not shown it ill-founded. You have not exhibited precisely what your everlasting, objective moral standard is. You have not explained how it is that many people who profess to believe in an objective moral standard still disagree on some of its implications. Show me what your objective moral standard says about women's right to vote. Or their right to go to university. Or whether woman can be priests or rabbis or imams. I suggest, you try to compose an objection that does not imply appeals to said duties: ________ . That may be instructive on the inescapability issue. I suggest you engage with some real world issues to see if your ideal, objective standard is up to the challenge. Jerry: How is that a misogynistic reply? An issue important to women at the time you just dismiss. You left. Interesting that you phrase it as a contest not a quest for understanding. I'm still here. That’ll what I said. Exactly. Who cares about some women's rights?JVL_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

PPS: Here is a summary snippet:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable . . . first duties of reason: "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to their legitimate authority; inescapable, so first truths of reason, i.e. they are self-evidently true and binding. Namely, Ciceronian first duties,
1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason, 3rd - to prudence [including warrant], 4th - to sound conscience, 5th - to neighbour; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc.
Likewise, we observe again, that objectors to such duties cannot but appeal to them to give their objections rhetorical traction (i.e. s/he must imply or acknowledge what we are, morally governed, duty-bound creatures to gain any persuasive effect). While also those who try to prove such cannot but appeal to the said principles too. So, these principles are a branch on which we all must sit, including objectors and those who imagine they are to be proved and try. That is, these are manifestly first principles of rational, responsible, honest, conscience guided liberty and so too a built-in framework of law; yes, core natural law of human nature. Reason, inescapably, is morally governed. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we sometimes seek to evade duties or may make inadvertent errors does not overthrow such first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
I suggest, you try to compose an objection that does not imply appeals to said duties: ________ . That may be instructive on the inescapability issue.kairosfocus_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Nothing like a good-ole misogynistic reply
How is that a misogynistic reply?
your opponent has left the field
You left. Interesting that you phrase it as a contest not a quest for understanding.
reply is: there’s nothin’ here, what’s all the fuss about.
That’ll what I said. Meanwhile you should find KF’s OP on natural law. I will link to it but have been busy.jerry_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

JVL, I find your but you have not shown it ill-founded. For example above, several times, you have had a core frame for moral truth pointed out, the Ciceronian first duties of reason, a summary of core, built in law that . . . once the printing revolution and a cluster of linked developments paved the way . . . as a matter of fact has made a huge contribution to development of modern liberty and constitutional democracy as can be seen from say the 2nd para of the US DoI 1776 (note the reference to laws of nature and nature's God in para 1) and the antecedent Dutch DoI of 1581. That core frame, as your and other objections show again and again -- by inability to avoid implying such appeals to duty to truth, right reason, warrant and broader prudence, sound conscience, neighbour so too fairness and justice etc -- is inescapable so inescapably and self-evidently true. Which, is manifestly objective. KF PS: On duty to right reason, I clip as a paradigmatic example the slightly later point made by Epictetus, likely in early C2:
DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]
We here see the signature of a first principle, being a branch on which we all must sit.kairosfocus_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Jerry: You know you won the argument when the other side brings up women not allowed running in a marathon as an objection. Nothing like a good-ole misogynistic reply to let you know your opponent has left the field because they can't be bothered to continue on with issues they brought up. It's typical: people down-play controversies and issues they think don't matter. Which is part of the problem. And when ever someone says: this matters, we should address it; the reply is: there's nothin' here, what's all the fuss about.JVL_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

You know you won the argument when the other side brings up women not allowed running in a marathon as an objection.jerry_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Jerry: But we/commenters do. What does your moral standard say about giving women the right to vote? Or letting them run in marathon races? Women were not given the right to vote in the US until well into the 20th century. Women were not given the right to run in sanctioned marathon races until the 1970s; Given your objective moral standard did all religious leaders decry these obvious miscarriages of justice? Some parts work in all situations. Some work in most situations. Because it’s not 100% perfect, does not mean it doesn’t exist. You added this after I made my comments. And I'm glad for your qualifications. But there is still the question: what is your standard and can we access it when addressing current social issues? AND, if it's not 100% applicable in all cases is it universal? Is it objective? If situations dictate modification then . . .JVL_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

When you make a claim that you have a all-encompassing, eternally-valid, consistent moral standard but fail to exhibit it I think it’s fair to be skeptical.
But commenters do. Some parts work in all situations. Some work in most situations. Because it’s not 100% perfect, does not mean it doesn’t exist. This has all been discussed extensively over the past year and essentially ignored by some here. Look to KF’s OP on natural law as an example.jerry_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Here's another way to think about it: If a physicist said: I have a unified field theory, it explains everything, it's objective, it's logical, it's true . . . you'd be completely justified in saying: okay, let's see it. And if they couldn't show you their objective, lock-solid rule what would you think? Would it matter if they made lots of arguments saying: this kind of thing must exist, logically it has to exist but they couldn't actually show you their hypothesis? Would you just buy their argument? When you make a claim that you have a all-encompassing, eternally-valid, consistent moral standard but fail to exhibit it I think it's fair to be skeptical.JVL_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Vividbleau: Then to put forth the objection “how can there be an objective, moral code when no one can agree on what it says “is a waste of bandwidth". The two communities are fundamentally different in their practices and assumptions. Any honest scientist will admit that all scientific knowledge is provisional, subject to new data and measurements. So, the idea that our current ideas and models are only our current best approximations of some not-fully-understood complete objective truth is baked in, it's part of the standard operating procedures. But those who propose that there is some unchanging and objective moral standard don't argue or reason that way. Maybe not all of them but a lot of them argue that they KNOW a) there is such an objective moral yardstick (not shown) and b) they know what it says. There is no acknowledgement that their proposed standard might be situational or change based on data or current conditions. In that realm that's not 'objective'; that's relative and situational and subjective. So, again, where is this unchanging, objective, eternal moral standard? And why do so many people who think it exists disagree on what it says? My reason for bringing up Dr Hoyle is to show that at least one very intelligent, very ID-sympathetic cosmologist believed in an infinite past. To become a physicist of any kind requires a pretty high level of mathematical ability. Perhaps some of you would like to answer some of his arguments?JVL_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

@51 You didn't answer my specific question. Is "I exist" a subjective or an objective statement —— and why? And BTW I am not really interested in following the rules of some alledged common discourse, especially when they don't make much sense.Origenes_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

@Origenes Look at the following scheme: 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact You as being a decisionmaker, belong in category 1. The spirit making choices is subjective. You as being a creation, the created body, are objective, category number 2. Remembering that subjective means, that it can only be identified with a chosen opinion, and objective means that it is identified with a 1 to 1 corresponding model. That's how it works in common discourse. That is the logic underlying ordinary subjective statements, like to say, "I find this painting beautiful", and ordinary objective statements, like to say, "there is a camel out back". Again, don't fantasize anything about how it works, only follow the rules used in common discourse.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

@ 44 Mohammadnursyamsu According to you there are some simple rules to follow. Enlighten me. Is my knowledge that I exist objective or subjective knowledge —— and why? If that knowledge is subjective, I put it to you that all knowledge is subjective, and that "objective" has lost its meaning.Origenes_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Finding quantum correlations to be present "in a wide range of important biomolecules" is simply astonishing, as well as being completely unexpected, and devastating, to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists. As the following article states, "Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
Moreover, it is also important to realize that quantum information is conserved. As the following article states, 'In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.'
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time - 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
The implication of finding 'non-local', beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, 'in every important biomolecule' in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe - Oct. 19, 2017 - Spiritual Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” - Stuart Hameroff - Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - video (5:00 minute mark) (of note, this video is, unfortunately, no longer available for public viewing) https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/life-after-death-soul-science-morgan-freeman/
Thus in conclusion, the moral argument for God does now indeed have some fairly impressive empirical evidence behind it that satisfies Kant's criteria of a beyond space and time influence. Moreover the empirical evidence that provided a 'quantum mechanism' to satisfy Kant's criteria for how we possibly could have a moral intuition that transcends space and time, also ends up providing fairly strong empirical evidence for a transcendent component to our being, i.e. evidence for a 'soul', that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. All in all, the Christian Theist is, once again, found to be sitting pretty as far as empirical science itself is concerned, and the Darwinian atheist is, once again, found to be left holding nothing but his irrational animosity towards a Being, i.e. God. he claims not to believe in, (i.e. the atheist is very much like someone claiming not to believe in pink unicorns, but none-the-less, harboring a deep animosity towards them. :) )
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
bornagain77_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Origenes at 43, in regards to the claim that "Morality & ethics act upon us from a realm independent from us", it might interest you to know that Immanuel Kant held the moral argument for God to be one of the most powerful arguments for the existence of God, but also held that, "the objective reality of the Idea of God, as moral author of the world, cannot be established by physical purposes alone. But nevertheless, if the cognition of these (physical) purposes is combined with moral purposes, they are of great importance to the practical reality of the Idea (of God)."
"the objective reality of the Idea of God, as moral author of the world, cannot be established by physical purposes alone. But nevertheless, if the cognition of these (physical) purposes is combined with moral purposes, they are of great importance to the practical reality of the Idea (of God)." - God, Immanuel Kant, Richard Dawkins, and the Quantum. - 8:03 minute mark https://youtu.be/EQOwMX4bCqk?t=483
In short, as Dr Suarez explained in the video, Kant’s requirement for the moral argument for God to be considered valid was that influences could somehow arise from outside space-time. And as Dr. Saurez also demonstrated, via advances in quantum mechanics, Kant's requirement that influences could somehow arise from outside space-time for the moral argument for God to be considered valid has now been met via quantum non-locality. But to go even further than 'just' proving that influences can arise from outside space-time, (and thus meeting Kant's requirement for the moral argument for God to be considered valid), and to add even more weight that God is the 'moral author of the world', in the following study it was found that. "Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional" and that "People are able to detect, within a split second, if a hurtful action they are witnessing is intentional or accidental".
Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows – November 29, 2012 Excerpt: People are able to detect, within a split second, if a hurtful action they are witnessing is intentional or accidental, new research on the brain at the University of Chicago shows. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-11-moral-instant-emotional-brain.html
Although that is pretty good as far as it goes, Kant's requirement for the moral argument to be considered valid was that (moral) influences could arise from outside space-time. And although quantum non-locality, as Dr. Suarez noted in his video, certainly establishes the fact that influences can arise outside of space-time, Kant's requirement has been met in an even more, shall we say, 'direct' fashion. Specifically, in the following study, when subjects were randomly shown violent or sexual images on a computer screen, the researchers "found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli (appeared on the screen)."
Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response. They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.html
Moreover, the following meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010 found that, when testing "arousing vs. neutral stimuli" that "if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes, (of 'arousing' stimuli), between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,"
Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) - (Oct. 22, 2012) Excerpt: A person playing a video game at work while wearing headphones, for example, can't hear when his or her boss is coming around the corner. But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,, This phenomenon is sometimes called "presentiment," as in "sensing the future," but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future. "I like to call the phenomenon 'anomalous anticipatory activity,'" she said. "The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can't explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It's anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it's an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145342.htm
And here is a link to the meta-analysis itself so you can see for yourself just how strong the conclusion for 'anomalous anticipatory activity' actually is,
Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis - 2012 Excerpt: This meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010 tests an unusual hypothesis: for stimuli of two or more types that are presented in an order designed to be unpredictable and that produce different post-stimulus physiological activity, the direction of pre-stimulus physiological activity reflects the direction of post-stimulus physiological activity, resulting in an unexplained anticipatory effect.,,, To avoid including data hand-picked from multiple different analyses, no post hoc experiments were considered. The results reveal a significant overall effect with a small effect size ,,,, Higher quality experiments produced a quantitatively larger effect size and a greater level of significance than lower quality studies. The number of contrary unpublished reports that would be necessary to reduce the level of significance to chance (p > 0.05) was conservatively calculated to be 87 reports. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/full
Thus, Kant’s criteria for accepting the validity of the moral argument for God has now been met on two levels. First, it has been met by showing that there are indeed influences arising from outside space-time as he had stipulated, and secondly, and more importantly, it has been more 'dramatically' met by showing that the human body itself possesses moral intuitions that transcend space and time. Moreover, in the preceding paper one of the researchers remarked that 'we can't explain (the anticipatory activity of the body) using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent 'quantum biological findings' could potentially make sense.'… And indeed, exactly as she thought, 'quantum biological findings' do indeed shed light how it might be possible for the body to anticipate morally troubling situations before they even happen. In fact, as this following video shows,,
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg
,,, not only do 'quantum biological findings' shed light on how 'anomalous anticipatory activity" can be possible, but 'quantum biological findings' go much further than that and establish that humans possess a transcendent 'quantum' component to their being on the molecular level of their material bodies that is not reducible to materialistic explanations. That is to say, findings from quantum biology now give us experimental evidence strongly suggesting we do indeed have a transcendent 'soul' that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies just as Christians have held all along. Specifically, in the following 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” it was found that “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,”
Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015 Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552
bornagain77_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Vivid, to so object JVL inescapably appeals to Ciceronian first duties of reason, as I noted. The self referentiality is fatal. KFkairosfocus_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

JVL “Obviously the objective truth about some things that objectively exist is disputed; just look at cosmology” Then to put forth the objection “how can there be an objective, moral code when no one can agree on what it says “is a waste of bandwidth. Vividvividbleau_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

From over 15 years ago
I have often said here that if ID ever wins the day then the real food fight would begin. It would be a religious debate and this site would then be of no use so it would take place elsewhere. But such debates have been going on for over 2000 years so it would not be new.
Arguing there is no truth is much different than arguing we can not discern the truth. The latter leads to endless non ending discussions. But is much different that being able to argue that certain beliefs/approaches lead to much better outcomes as opposed to believing nothing is objective leads to a better outcome. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ernst-mayr-at-the-millennium-a-study-in-misplaced-triumphalism/#comment-50559. That was over 680,000 comments ago. People over the ages have choses the approach that certain beliefs lead to much better outcomes. Few thought they were perfect beliefs. Maybe this world is designed to have such a situation. That is there can never be perfect agreement on what is.jerry_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

@Origenes, and all the rest. You are just displaying a dislike, rejection, and ignorance, of subjectivity in general. How subjectivity works can be found, by looking at the rules used with subjective words in common discourse, like the word "beautiful". You cannot just fantasize how subjectivity works, or fantasize how objectivity works. We already have rules in common discourse, follow the rules!mohammadnursyamsu_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

What does it mean for morality & ethics to have an “objective existence”? Two possible answers to that question: A: Morality & ethics act upon us from a realm independent from us; in a way similar to how physical laws operate. Their existence is not ‘carried’ by us; it is independent from us. B: Morality & ethics come from us, it is what we all agree on, given a certain level of social awareness. It is very similar as to how we all agree on “I think therefore I am”, “2 + 2 = 4”, “A = A”, and so on. I strongly disagree with the notion that option B is necessarily ‘subjective’. I would argue that we all arrive at roughly the same moral laws—— given a certain level of social awareness——, just as we all arrive at the same mathematical and logical truths——given a certain level of intellectual awareness. This is how things work, because, at a fundamental level, we are all similar beings. “I think therefor I am” is beyond my subjective opinion. I exist objectively. However, this knowledge certainly does not come from a realm independent from me. This is the crux of my argument: knowledge does not have to come from a source independent from me, in order for it to be “objective”. On the contrary, this objective knowledge springs from and is ‘carried’ by me.Origenes_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

Creationism says morality is subjective. The morality of any chosen option is in reference to the agency making the choice, the spirit. Which spirit is inherently subjective. And subjective meaning that it can only be identified with a chosen opinion. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact People may be confused that subjective means fantasized. There is just a part of reality that is subjective, the part that makes the choices. It's not the same as fantasy. Then there are the atheists who redefine subjectivity without reference to the inherently subjective spirit. The atheist idea of subjetivity is meaningless, it is just a subcategory of objectivity.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

Whatever JVL, given that you presented nothing other than your own personal opinion to counter my post, (and your personal opinion is, well, your personal opinion), I am quite satisfied to let my clarification of the irresolvable 'teleological problem' that Darwinists have with biology stand on its own merits. I am quite confident that readers can readily differentiate for themselves who is being forthright and who is blowing smoke.bornagain77_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

PS: Hoyle was wrong about his steady state views, not only empirically defeated by microwave background etc. There is a logic of structure and quantity issue that no stepwise, finite stage successive process can span an explicit or implicit transfinite gamut. This is most easily seen by setting the span of reals in the wider span of hyperreals, R*, which will readily lead to the problem of transfinite, stepwise traverse being an unattainable supertask. One can talk about a past that extends without limit, just as one can talk about a square circle. The problem is to actually implement such, frustrated by logic of being issues.kairosfocus_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

JVL:
I’m not the one making a claim. I’m merely asking: how can there be an objective moral standard when no one can agree what it says about certain topics?
Do you not notice how many implicit appeals to known first duties of reason are implicit in just this snippet? "I am not making a claim," is a claim that something is the actual case and implies duty to acknowledge its alleged truth. Obviously, it is an error. The onward implication, that we are duty bound to reason rightly and meet due burdens of proof appeals to duties to right reason, warrant and prudence. All of which further imply appeals to sound conscience, to be responsive to duty. And more. Your argument in miniature collapses, inescapably exemplifying what it would object to. Next, global or local intersubjective agreement cannot be a sound criterion of truth, warrant, objectivity as there are many cases of agreement in error on one hand and of disagreement where one party does have the better of the case on the merits on the other. Where, in fact, I have laid out seven ciceronian first duties that are in fact inescapable in objections and arguments. Your argument in miniature and its embedded claims exemplify precisely those duties. I have pointed to Cicero to note just how long the matter has been on record. Where, the now widely touted moral relativism and subjectivism behind the cited argument -- while too often taken as a new gospel -- are hopelessly self-defeating. I cite:
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.
KFkairosfocus_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT}

BO'H, whether something is or is not sexually prurient, exploitive, degrading, victimising, contributing to moral turpitude etc has an element of judgement, i.e. prudence in it -- as does anything of consequence engaged at professional level. At the same time, just to make your appeal you are unable but to implicitly turn on known duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, fairness and justice, etc. That inescapability regarding Ciceronian first duties of reason . . . see De Legibus . . . implies inescapable truth, truth that is certain, knowable and objective; which is also of moral character, even, built-in law of our rational, responsible, significantly free human nature. Law that is a pivot of sound civilisation. Indeed, these truths are self-evident and prior to proofs and objections to proofs. If you doubt, try to state your objections without implicitly turning on such appeals. I confidently predict, you cannot. KFkairosfocus_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

Vividbleau: Hers is a novel idea , how about answering my question? Why faff around with semantics? Obviously the objective truth about some things that objectively exist is disputed; just look at cosmology. But someone is claiming something so it seems to me that the easiest resolution for the discussion is to just produce the objective moral truth that is claimed to exist. Bornagain77: Thus JVL can deny the crucial, and illegitimate, dependence that Darwinists have on teleological language all he wants, but the fact of the matter is that there is no escaping their illegitimate use of teleological language in biological research. If their use is "illegitimate" are you saying that teleology has no place in biology? :-) Anyway, language is a crude tool for communicating scientific truths. Even mathematics has its limits. I think you're grasping at straws, cherry-picking certain phrases and usages in an attempt to force a philosophical view when that view is not required to explain the scientific process. ET: There are disagreements over written laws. Does that mean those written laws don’t exist? Hey, if someone wants to present their objective moral code I'd love it! Then we could see what it actually says. KF: JVL, did you notice how your objections implicitly appeal to and require the generally acknowledged, binding force, of duties to truth, to right reason, to warrant and broader prudence, to sound conscience etc? Have you noticed that this pattern consistently happens with those who argue or infer that it is objectively true on the subject matter of morality, that there are no objective truths regarding morality? Kindly, tell us whether or not these are inconsistencies on the part of those so objecting, and why. Hey, I'm not the one making a claim. I'm merely asking: how can there be an objective moral standard when no one can agree what it says about certain topics? Perhaps you'd like to address that issue? Oh, by the way . . . from Wikipedia's article on Dr Fred Hoyle:
While having no argument with the Lemaître theory (later confirmed by Edwin Hubble's observations) that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms" (see Kalam cosmological argument). Instead, Hoyle, along with Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi (with whom he had worked on radar in the Second World War), in 1948 began to argue for the universe as being in a "steady state" and formulated their Steady State theory. The theory tried to explain how the universe could be eternal and essentially unchanging while still having the galaxies we observe moving away from each other. The theory hinged on the creation of matter between galaxies over time, so that even though galaxies get further apart, new ones that develop between them fill the space they leave. The resulting universe is in a "steady state" in the same manner that a flowing river is—the individual water molecules are moving away but the overall river remains the same.
And yes, let's remember, he was a staunch supporter of some kind of intelligent design.JVL_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT}

I’m sure Justice Potter Stewart would have liked to have had you advising him in 1964.
Doubtful. I was only 6.
And your advice probably wouldn't have been any worse. Sorry, cheap shot. But my point was that the decision about whether anything is pornographic is subjective (as Judge Stewart) was acknowledging. In which case, it does not exist by your statement. It's weird that you agree with me, especially as you then say that the now non-existent pornography "exemplifies a loss of morals and ethics." From which I can only conclude that anything that "exemplifies a loss of morals and ethics" does not exist (at least according to you), and that we live in an exceedingly Panglossian world.Bob O'H_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

JVL, did you notice how your objections implicitly appeal to and require the generally acknowledged, binding force, of duties to truth, to right reason, to warrant and broader prudence, to sound conscience etc? Have you noticed that this pattern consistently happens with those who argue or infer that it is objectively true on the subject matter of morality, that there are no objective truths regarding morality? Kindly, tell us whether or not these are inconsistencies on the part of those so objecting, and why. KFkairosfocus_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 17 18 19 20 21 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply