Materialist Hypocrisy

_{Barry Arrington

December 17, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

Many materialists argue out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to consciousness.

On the one hand, they argue that consciousness is the key to dignity and the right to life. See, for example, the arguments of Peter Singer, who argues specifically that there is no ethical problem in killing an unborn baby because the baby at that stage of development is not self-conscious.

But then materialists turn right around and argue that consciousness is ontologically meaningless, asserting that it is nothing but an epiphenomenon of the electro-chemical activity of the brain.

Well, which is it? Is consciousness absolutely crucial, literally a matter of life and death, or is it the essentially meaningless byproduct of chance and necessity?

Comments

One of the most fundamental, self-evident meanings in the universe is that A cannot be both A, and not-A. Conciousness being simply another physical characteristic - like hair, or the ability to breath in water, or equillibrium - or, consciousness being something uniquely special that we should make life and death decisions in regards to, offer a clear A or not-A truth. Consciousness is either inherently unique and of great importance, OR it is just another physical feature that just happened to develop, with no intrinsic value greater than hair color or a sense of balance. If one is just going to arbitrarily pick consciousness as a grounding point for morality and ethics, then one can as easily, and as meaningfully, pick skin color, size, ideology or reigion as the linchpin of morality and ethics.William J. Murray_{December 18, 2008
December
12
Dec
18
18
2008
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

William,
Without inherent meaning imbued by a designer and a spiritual free will consciousness that can make meaningful choices ungoverned by cause and effect, we are all simply chance manifestations of matter pretending that morals or ethics mean something or ultimately matter in order to motivate ourselves towards some goal, and if so, then we are free to imagine and interpret anything whatsoever because there is no inherent meaning whatsoever.
And yet those terrible things happened anyway. You claim that "inherent meaning has been imbued by a designer" and yet this meaning is so unclear that it can be easily ignored or discarded. You "pretend" that your morals matter because you believe that they were defined by "a designer" but you don't actually have any evidence. So sure, both sides might be "pretending" but only one realises it. Sure, you might then say the reason theists do bad things is because we have freedom of choice also given to us by "the designer". Yet "the designer" could quite simply make sure everybody did the right thing every time without restricting free will just by providing an unambigious clear message.
Thus we are designed for survival long enough to make little copies. Reproduction, Mike, is not the same thing as “moral truth.”
You are almost there... jlid
If the Christian is right, there are objective moral values that we should take care to follow.
So, in your world only Christians can behave in a moral way? I've got news for you, there are billions of non-christian theists out in the world and the vast majority behave in ways you would no doubt agree are moral. So what does Christinanity have to do with anything? What are these "christian moral values" please? Can you provide a list? S Wakefield
The grand tally and combined total of all religious inspired killing in history as far as anyone can reliably account for probably does not top 100,000 persons, if you’re talking about organized religion. And even this might be exaggerated
Evidence for this please? Citations?
Thus for example many archeologists are loathe to critique the Aztecs for their bloodletting ceremonies atop stone pyramids to usher in good harvests.
Why did the "inherent moralty" fail here? If you think that their bloodletting was immoral why do you supposed it happened? Presumably as morality is inherent they had to make a decision to ignore that? And so by definition their behaviour was immoral? Why do you suppose they ignored the "inherent morality" and went their own way? Is it because the "good news" had not yet reached them and so they had no option but to behave in a immoral way?
Whether or not those inherent meanings are vague or highly interpretable is irrelevant.
Not at all, it's the heart of hte matter. You can watch white noise static all day and start to see shapes and patterns that might not really be there. Does that mean that in fact those shapes are really there? If people claim there is such a thing "inherent meanings" but then go on to claim "oh, I can't actually tell you what they are or explain why everybody thinks they are different" I'm inclined to believe they are not there at all. After all, if they were there in a way that was more signal then noise would humanity over time converge on them? Quite the opposite appears to be happening.
I attempt to divine the inherent meanings of my personal life as best I can and “obey” their direction, because I’ve found they inevitably lead to a profoundly more satisfying, enjoyable, successful existence.
Everybody does. And here we are. Everybody "obeys" in a different way. The only difference between us is that you think that everybody has the same internal "compass" that's been inserted by some external force.MikeKratch_{December 18, 2008
December
12
Dec
18
18
2008
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

The difference is that adult cells, while still electrochemical, are combined in such a way that they are conscious - which is exactly where we came in Yes, I know you mentioned that you felt there was no contradiction. Not speaking for Barry, but I get the drift that he was pointing out that chemicals are just that: Chemicals. With all their relations of whatever type--in whatever combination, formulation, or pattern. So consciousness is the result of all this? No matter how complex or whatever the resultant "emergent" property, how do we cross then that chasm of the "is" to the "ought"? If consciousness is the byproduct of these combinations, or illusion, or just a jumble of chemicals, why should it contain any more meaning than the fact that this computer screen has the appearance of solidity but is just a stream of photons hitting my eye? Where does meaning come in? How so? Via suffering? Fish suffer too? Are you pitching for veganism? I'm not trying to be cute here, but just to point out that matter is just matter. Pain is the reflection that something might be wrong physically, yes, but to say it has some inherent "meaning" is to try and move into the metaphysical, and not the physical. Or not JUST the physical. _______________________ As far as the Herculean efforts, what I was referring to mostly was Barry's effort to get you two back on track, rather than a drift to the Hinterlands of ethical input that in turn ventured into other areas which ended up being a precis on rights and animal meat. Though to be sure Mike did more of this. "is it fear that drives you?" kinda comments from him, kinda like "fear is the mind killer" is really offbeat. So Dune it is. Though I think the first one was said by Megatron in Transformers :)S Wakefield Tolbert_{December 18, 2008
December
12
Dec
18
18
2008
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

Re #28 Perhaps Mike and Mark would finally get the “point” of Barry’s pen if they understood the term “contradiction” in the context Barry meant. Despite Herculean efforts by Barry, they alas do not. In the initial post Barry wrote: "Is consciousness absolutely crucial, literally a matter of life and death, or is it the essentially meaningless byproduct of chance and necessity?" I wrote that I thought that was a false dichotomy. After that I cannot find any attempt by Barry to explain the contradiction. Only attacks on me personally and on my ethical standpoint. Where are the Herculean efforts to explain the contradiction? Someone once told me that Embryonic stem cells should be harvested for research and federally funded (although lackluster compared to the ADULT version of the same thing), as the moral issue is not relevent. Why not? They aren’t really human? How so? They are just clumps of cells that “merely” are communicating via electrochemical reactions at the blastocyst level. The difference is that adult cells, while still electrochemical, are combined in such a way that they are conscious - which is exactly where we came in :-)Mark Frank_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

Re #21 Barry - I understood that you wanted to restrict this post to a discussion of hypocrisy. I am happy to talk about the details of materialist ethics, but I was trying to stick to the point, which is that there is no contradiction between this ethical standpoint (whatever you think of it) and considering consciousness to be an electrochemical process.Mark Frank_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT}

MK: "These “misinterpretations” you mention have driven more human pain and misery then anything else that ever existed. WJM: Oh, I think you're being a bit overdramatic, and I think this hyperbole reveals a bias. There have been few purely religious wars; most wars were about power, population, resources, secular ideology, and economics, and I think all wars pale in comparison to disease or natural disaster when it comes to generating human suffering. MK: "So many people have died over “misinterpretations” that it’s unbelievable." WJM: So what? I don't see how this is relevant. Anyway, you're being rather vague. Perhaps you could be more specific about what "misinterpretations" you're talking about. We seem to have wandered far off the point of human consciousness having inherent meaning; i.e., a free will agent capable of making decisions in a context of messages and phenomena that have inherent meaning. MK: "The inherent meaning you mention must be so inconclusive, so vague and open to misinterpretation I suspect that there is no inherent meaning at all, it’s just the noise you are seeing. And as it’s just noise everybody sees what they want to see and no two people say the same thing." WJM: Actually, most religions and spiritual beliefs do have some very basic, common messages, and point to some very basic, common meanings. However, even if they did not, and even if the meaning is vague and easily misinterpreted: so what? The point is, without inherent meaning as a standard, decisions, morality and ethics are trivial equivocations one can bend to any shape. Whether or not those inherent meanings are vague or highly interpretable is irrelevant. A book has inherent meaning; that many people come away with different interpretations doesn't change that fact. You seem to be making an argument about a particular kind of god that "should" leave particular kinds of messages and meanings that "should" be easily understood in detail by everyone, regardless of what they've chosen to believe in and think. God isn't required to live up to your epectations, nor are god's messsages and meanings required to be utterly self-evident to everyone, regardless of whatever decisions they've made concerning how they think and what they believe. If a god exists, it isn't required to be the god you'd prefer. You seem to want god to organize his meaningful messages and phenomena in a way that removes our free will capacity to ignore them or make up our own. MK: The difference is that a correct diagnosis can save a persons life. There is no way to determine which interpretation of the inherent truth is the correct one. Conclusion: Inherent truth is an illusion. WJM: If so, why should I believe your argument? You make your argument as if entities with free will capacity can evaluate the inherent truth of your argument, and then you state your conclusion as if it is an inherent truth. This is the fundamental point you don't seem to get; all materialist arguments are ultimately self-refuting simply because they ultimately deny inherent meaning, self-evident truth and real free will,which invalidates every basis for making an argument and reaching a conclusion. MK: "And, out of interest, where are these “inherent truths” documented? What reference or source are you talking about here? What is it that people are looking at and intrepreting in so many diverse ways?" WJM: IMO, inherent meanings are designed into the relationship of the soul and it's existential framework. MK: "There are thousands of religions. Are you saying that only a single one is correct?" MK: No. I'm not saying any of them are, in full or in part. I think there are likely large meaning themes that are generally apparent to most people, and more specific meanings that are written into the lives of individuals. Let's look at it this way; let's say god is a magnificent author, and it's writing a book called the story of life on earth. Now, the writer imbues all the relationships, sequences, and contrivances of plot with meaning; it develops characterizations and events in designed consideration of it's storyline. There will be overarching inherent meanings, subtext meanings, inherent characterizations, etc. It's not all just random noise, but there can be many diverse meanings. That there are many meanings doesn't change the point that they are inherent in the story. That some of them even contradict each other creates conflict in the story which - by design - manifests the overall inherent meaning of the story, even if one character cannot see it all from their perspective. MK: "The one you happen to follow? That would be something of a co-incidence." WJM: I don't belong to any religion or spiritual doctrine. I attempt to divine the inherent meanings of my personal life as best I can and "obey" their direction, because I've found they inevitably lead to a profoundly more satisfying, enjoyable, successful existence. When I play the role I was inherently meant to play, I find peace, joy, satisfaction, and contentment.William J. Murray_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

MikeK: The grand tally and combined total of all religious inspired killing in history as far as anyone can reliably account for probably does not top 100,000 persons, if you're talking about organized religion. And even this might be exaggerated. Stalin could knock off this many Kulack before his morning cognac and cigars. Now granted part of this was the horrifying development of advanced weaponry, no doubt. But slave labor camps, Siberian outposts of frozen nothingness, and other low key killings never required such either. You mention the accompaning developement of "sexual freedoms", the end of slavery, and other Western themes in the incremental advancement of human righs. Well, history is always a mixed bag. But then how are you defining the good? Are we back to the Vedas then? That which YOU find abhorrent---or what many people deem abhorrent---is vice? Always? Going to the dentist is incredibly annoying to me. But is dentistry immoral? Or are you detailing "rights" then? How do you define such? Sez who? And on what universal or culturally accepted basis? Thus for example many archeologists are loathe to critique the Aztecs for their bloodletting ceremonies atop stone pyramids to usher in good harvests. Cultural relativism is applied here but not for the Spanish Conquistadores whose quest for gold vanquished their bloody culture. Hmm. As to Pol Pot. Who says he was a madman? On what accepted basis? Being evil as hell is not the same thing as being crazy. One assumes you have some meausure of "the good"--no doubt pertaining to sexual innovations that others might find "depart" from the norm. How are these then justified for you? My point is not to draw out some definitive answer here. I can't do that. Beyond my pay grade, as Barry the Prez Elect likes to say. But to demonstrate that in a materialist universe of action/reaction, if we're consistent here, and guys like Stephen Pinker are correct, then there ultimately is not such beast as "right" or "wrong." These are mere convenient, utilitarian social conventions that only have meaning for personal desires. This can be the only consistent materialist approach to morality. The human brain was built for SURVIVAL. It is at most a side mechanism evolved to house and maintain the life support system for sperm and egg delivers, which is REAL focus of all biology. Thus we are designed for survival long enough to make little copies. Reproduction, Mike, is not the same thing as "moral truth." Ask yourself if planarian worms are "moral" beings.S Wakefield Tolbert_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

Mike K, I was not trying to explain the reasons why people do what they do; we could forever ponder something like that. My point, simply, is that within atheism there can be no objective justification for certain behavior over other behavior. The most one can say is that it is "preferred" for some practical or psychological reason or another. The Christian, by contrast, believes in the existence of an eternal God whose very nature defines good and evil. The Christian has no say in the matter. If the Christian is right, there are objective moral values that we should take care to follow. If the atheist is right, it hardly matters (in any fundamental sense) because there is no such thing as good and evil. "Good" and "evil" become euphemisms for what we like or don't like. Of course this does not mean that Christians therefore always act in accordance with proper moral values, but merely that if Christians are right then good and evil do in fact exist. If atheists are right then no one has any business claiming that certain acts are evil and others good. The most one can say is certain acts are more useful in certain situations. If you disagree, perhaps it is because somehow we all know that good and evil do in fact exist. This, however, is very surely an artifact of the Judaeo-Christian worldview. If we reject this worldview and accept materialism we must also give up condemning anything as evil.jlid_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

MK: "Yes, there are lunatics like Pol Pot but you cannot say that those terrible things those lunatics did was driven by some sort of materialist ideology. Madmen need no excuses. And there were madmen a-plenty who murdered in the day and pray at night, in all centuries inclusing this one." WJM: There's no such thing as madness, unless there is a standard of inherent "non-mad" behavior by which it can be objectively compared. The only reason Hitler and Pol Pot are recgonized as mad, is because of the ineherent, standard meanings of life and responsible, human behavior they violated. Further, without a prime-mover free will, they have violated nothing; they have simply done what aeons of physics and chance have produced. Without a prime-mover free will, free of material cause and effect, Hitler is nothing more than elm disease and pol pot is the moral equivalent of a forest fire. Without inherent meaning imbued by a designer and a spiritual free will consciousness that can make meaningful choices ungoverned by cause and effect, we are all simply chance manifestations of matter pretending that morals or ethics mean something or ultimately matter in order to motivate ourselves towards some goal, and if so, then we are free to imagine and interpret anything whatsoever because there is no inherent meaning whatsoever.William J. Murray_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

William
Just because something has inherent meaning, doesn’t mean it is impossible for humans to misinterpret aspects of it, or tack on their own local, cultural additions and revisions.
An interesting view of the world you have. These "misinterpretations" you mention have driven more human pain and misery then anything else that ever existed. So many people have died over "misinterpretations" that it's unbelievable. The inherent meaning you mention must be so inconclusive, so vague and open to misinterpretation I suspect that there is no inherent meaning at all, it's just the noise you are seeing. And as it's just noise everybody sees what they want to see and no two people say the same thing.
Just because scientists or doctors disagree on a conclusion or on a diagnosis, doesn’t mean that no conclusion or diagnosis is the correct one.
The difference is that a correct diagnosis can save a persons life. There is no way to determine which interpretation of the inherent truth is the correct one. Conclusion: Inherent truth is an illusion. And, out of interest, where are these "inherent truths" documented? What reference or source are you talking about here? What is it that people are looking at and intrepreting in so many diverse ways? There are thousands of religions. Are you saying that only a single one is correct? Which one? The one you happen to follow? That would be something of a co-incidence.MikeKratch_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

Sola, Sorry, I'm afraid I'm not interested in being witnessed to. Do you believe in enternal punishement (i.e. an eternity in boiling nasty substances) for "sins" committed in this life? If so, how do you explain the fact that some Christians do things that will subject them to this punishment?MikeKratch_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

MK: "Could you tell me where you get this “inherent meaning” from please?" WJM: Inherent meaning is designed into the message or phenomena; interpreted meaning is whatever a mind interprets. Here's the difference: this post has inherent meaning. One might be able to make certain interpretations of it that vary from the orginal meaning slightly, but not too far from the inherent meaning (depending on how good I am at imbuing it with the meaning I desire)without something being wrong with the mind interpreting it. It requires an intelligent designer to imbue anything with inherent meaning, because it requires understanding the context, the medium, and something about the nature of those who observe the message. That doesn't necessarily mean everyone gets the meaning. Now let's take a randomly generated piece of art - throwing paint at a canvas blindfolded, and putting it up in a gallery, and asking each person what it means. The art itself has no inherent meaning, because it wasn't designed with any meaning, or imbued with any message intended for any observer; the interpretations of the "meaning" of the abstract art only reflects the psychology of the individual observing it. Randomly generated messages - if you can call them that - have no inherent meaning. MK: "What are they and where did they come from?" WJM: They are messages or phenomena deliberately designed to mean something to the experiencer or obserer. Obviously, a designer. God, if you will. MK: It seems to me that no two religious people can agree on the “meaning” or what “morals” should be. It’s why there are so many religions and splinter groups. WJM: Just because scientists or doctors disagree on a conclusion or on a diagnosis, doesn't mean that no conclusion or diagnosis is the correct one. MK: "If there really was a “universal moral code” flowing from a deity why are there so many different versions of these so called “universal morals” then?" WJM: Why do some people still believe the world is flat? Why do some people think they can fly? Why do some people think that there's a worldwide conspiracy to turn them into slaves? Just because something has inherent meaning, doesn't mean it is impossible for humans to misinterpret aspects of it, or tack on their own local, cultural additions and revisions. MK: "People who claim that without a deity there can be no morals typically cannot agree on what those morals actually are. And it’s often the most religious (and so presumably more moral) people who fall the hardest." WJM: Whether or not various people misinterpret or fail at living up to an inherent meaning doesn't change the argument that without inherent meaniing, there's nothing to "misinterpret" or "fail to live up to"; anyone is free to "interpret" whatever they want from the chance abstract in front of them. MK: "Are you telling me that the only reason you don’t kill everyone who disagrees with you is fear of punishment after death?" I have no fear of punishment after death regardless of whatI choose to do. I don't believe in that kind of god, or in that kind of afterlife. I do think there are many aspects of existence that have self-evident meaning and self-evident value, even if the mind of man is capable of altering, misinterpreting, and corrupting that meaning for it's own ends.William J. Murray_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

Mike it will be shown unto you if you but ask for it. Of course atheists can not have morals. Neither do anyone else. There is Good and there is Bad and we know where these things come from and we know reifying this any further is pointless. the propensity to do Good or Bad has been called "moral". I say not. the propensity to do Bad is known to Christians by another name and there is an explanation. The propensity to do good? God is Love.Sola Raison_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

jlid
Again, it is not that atheists are necessarily immoral; rather they have no good reason to act in any certain way.
And yet there are atheists that act in a moral way and theists that act in a immoral way. How do you explain that? If anything it's more puzzling that theists act in immoral ways as they most certanly have a "good reason" to act in a moral way. The fear of eternal punishment would certanly make me behave in whatever way was proscribed, if I believe it.MikeKratch_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

The prevalence of materialist ideology of course.
I see. Yet the vast majority of the population of, for example, the USA do not buy into materialist ideology. And yet there are terrible problems. So, there were no wars in the 19th century then? As materialist ideology had not yet become prevalent. Nor the 18th, 17th etc. It seems to me that terrible things have happened all the way through history and, if anything, more crimes against humanity were committed in the name of non-materialist ideology in previous centurys then not. Crusades, pogroms, purges, witch hunts etc etc etc. I take the opposite view. It is only in this century where we see things like the advent of sexual equality, racial equality and abolition of slavery. And yet these things happened, according to you, despite the prevalence of materialist ideology. Yes, there are lunatics like Pol Pot but you cannot say that those terrible things those lunatics did was driven by some sort of materialist ideology. Madmen need no excuses. And there were madmen a-plenty who murdered in the day and pray at night, in all centuries inclusing this one.MikeKratch_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

Our correcton posts crossed.Barry Arrington_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

jlid means "they have no good reason not to be."Barry Arrington_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

Edit: I should have said: Again, it is not that atheists are necessarily immoral; rather they have no good reason to act in any certain way.jlid_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

I simply pointed out things are perhaps not as simple or clear cut as you make out.
By making them insignificant?Upright BiPed_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

Mike asks: "What, in your opinon changed in the 20th century that was different to the 19 previous centurys then?" The prevalence of materialist ideology of course.Barry Arrington_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Mike K, It is not that atheists cannot act morally. It is simply that within that worldview there is no ultimate law dictating good or evil; quite literally, anything goes. Whatever humans decide are "moral" becomes appropriate behavior. Clearly a "morality" that can be redefined whenever we like is very different from what is normally meant by the word. Again, it is not that atheists are necessarily immoral; rather they have no good reason to be.jlid_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

I'm not going to get into morals about meat and what "innate" value means. This term has, after all, been criticized as being as arbitrary as just saying "that which we like = x value" Or from the Vedas: That which pleases is Virtue; that which hinders the same is Vice. (We can all see around the corners how problems can arise from such definitional sloppiness). I shall not step there for now. That's quicksand and molassas. But: Perhaps Mike and Mark would finally get the "point" of Barry's pen if they understood the term "contradiction" in the context Barry meant. Despite Herculean efforts by Barry, they alas do not. The point here is not about death penalties allegedly shortselling our morals about life and death vs. the actions of Chairman Mao (the two are hardly comparable, the first is society's response to evil actually ACKNOWLEDGING the value of life--the "inherent", to use a phrase the Dynamica M Duo hates--and the latter is about the INITIATION of evil for some putative gain that has less to do with punishement than elitist marxian dialectics gone awry with the peasantry. So spare us.) Let's try another tack. Someone once told me that Embryonic stem cells should be harvested for research and federally funded (although lackluster compared to the ADULT version of the same thing), as the moral issue is not relevent. Why not? They aren't really human? How so? They are just clumps of cells that "merely" are communicating via electrochemical reactions at the blastocyst level. Hmm. Now then. How does the ADULT human brain operate? Well... um....clumps of cells that communicate....electrochemically. Who among us shall henceforth advocate live vivisection of human flesh for the advancement of science and making the spine-injured walk again? I thought not. I can't know for certain--nor can anyone--what is the spark that separates consciousness from electrochemical interpretations of thought. Some say it is indeed all illusion. One of the M Crew above asked if this is meaningful. If consciousness is but pure illusion, in the first place you'd have a problem ascertaining what reality is and proving your own notions one way or another. Perhaps thinking that you are THINKING is but an adaptation to troubled moment? Second, we assume that science must move to explain things--not guess at them for all eternity as a coffee chatter jawbone excercise for fun. If consciousness is but mere illusion than it may have "meaning" only to the extent that a David Copperfield trick of apparant levitation does. Neato. But unreal and for most people unexplained. I'm guessing that science still holds the goal of explaining the unexplainable?S Wakefield Tolbert_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

vjtorley
On the other hand, someone - and I include atheists here - who affirms the reality of teleology as a basic category can engage in meaningful moral discourse.
So normal atheists do not have morals then? Interesting...MikeKratch_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

I suggest that those who believe consciousness is purely physical read The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers. He is a materialist of sorts, but recognizes that minds cannot be reduced to physical matter. How can the experience of feeling pain or seeing blue possibly be described in terms of particles and energy? There is no possible way to describe to someone what "blue" is or looks like by describing the relevant physical processes (same goes for pain). This is why materialist philosophers like Dan Dennett deny that these experiences of pain or color are real; he is forced to discard them as illusions. In a conversation with my mother-in-law this somehow came up; her reply? Clearly he has never given birth.jlid_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Barry, That's fine. It's your blog, you can do what you like.
This is what Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot and Hitler all believed.
However I would point out you first brought up the subject of how belief shapes behaviour. I simply pointed out things are perhaps not as simple or clear cut as you make out.
The 20th Century was one long lesson in the folly of your formulation.
What, in your opinon changed in the 20th century that was different to the 19 previous centurys then?MikeKratch_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

MikeKratch, all of your efforts to redirect this thread into a discussion of the Old Testament and religious beliefs were a waste of time. They were deleted. If you want to discuss the topic of this post, by all means do so. If not, move along. If you continue to try to bring extraneous topics into the thread they (along with your privilege to post on this site) will be deleted as well.Barry Arrington_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

MikeKratch You write: "Could you describe where the 'logic of your ethic' comes from?" Ever heard of natural law? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ As the article makes clear, "It is essential to the natural law position that there be some things that are universally and naturally good." Unfortunately, reductionist "bottom-up" materialism, by dispensing with "top-down" teleology in its account of the world, leaves no room for the concept of a universal good. On the other hand, someone - and I include atheists here - who affirms the reality of teleology as a basic category can engage in meaningful moral discourse. By the way, I'm a vegetarian, because I don't like to make animals suffer (I eat fish, however, as they are an important part of a good diet, and they do not feel pain - see http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/Fishwelfare/Rose.pdf ). I believe that animals (mammals and birds) are conscious but not self-conscious.vjtorley_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Lest my last post be misunderstood, I am not suggesting that Mark would exclude Jews. I am stating there is nothing in the logic of his ethic to keep him from doing so if he chose.Barry Arrington_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank continues to lead with his chin: “I, as a materialist, believe that the right to life is . . . something that humans grant to each other” The 20th Century was one long lesson in the folly of your formulation. Again, I am astonished that you do not grasp such a simple truth. Humans who believe that others have the right to live only because they have granted them that right also believe they have the power to revoke that grant for those whom they deem undesirable. This is what Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot and Hitler all believed. After all, “ya gotta crack a few eggs to make and omelet.” The Germans even had a phrase for it: “Life unworthy of life.” “We have an in-built desire to protect the life of other animals that are sufficiently similar to us” What utter drivel. The built in desire you posit did not keep Mao from slaughtering 60,000,000 Chinese. Were all 60 million insufficiently similar to Mao ya think? “For some materialists . . . “sufficiently similar” excludes . . .” Jews. You have gone from silly to scary. Your ethics are nothing short of despicable.Barry Arrington_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

"Do you have any arguments or evidence to support your views? If not, really, move along." Absolutely I have arguments. The first one is simply that the two statements are not logically contradictory. It is not like asserting that 2+2=5. So I might reasonably ask you why you find my statement astonishing. However, I will also provide my own reasons. To go further we need to agree on what we mean by "ontologically meaningful". Given the context of your initial post I have interpreted it as "has a right to life". If you mean something different by "ontologically meaningful" please say. Now we need to examine how certain entities gain the right to life. You no doubt relate it your religion, but I don't - and remember this post is about being hypocritical, not about whether our world views are right or wrong. I, as a materialist, believe that the right to life is not an objective attribute from God but something that humans grant to each other and other animals because we respond to their similarity to our own position and our own very strong desire to live. We have an in-built desire to protect the life of other animals that are sufficiently similar to us (of course, this desire is often overcome by other more selfish desires - just like any other conflict of motives - and a few people lose or never have this desire and become psychopaths). For some materialists, such a Singer, "sufficiently similar" excludes any animal or human that is not conscious. The fact that this consciousness is the result of electrochemical processes does not change this desire. Singer may be wrong but he is not being hypocritical.Mark Frank_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply