Materialist Reaches New Low

_{Barry Arrington
November 8, 2018

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Barry: Can we know with absolute certainty that it is evil to torture a baby for pleasure?

JDK: “There is no possible answer to the question: it’s a meaningless question.”

UPDATE:

JDK has accused me of being intellectually dishonest for quoting him as saying (1) there is no possible answer to the question; and (2) it is a meaningless question. He has implied that the “context” of his statement makes it mean something other than what it appears to mean on its face.

OK JDK. I’ll bite. Do you believe the question has meaning and it is possible to answer? If so, answer it. If not, apologize for saying the quotation was dishonest.

SECOND UPDATE:

JDK continues to post in the comment thread. I noted that he had posted twice without responding. His response:

A true fact, Barry. This makes three times.

It surprises no one, I am sure, that JDK’s charge of dishonesty was, itself, fundamentally dishonest. What should we expect from someone who claims to be wobbly on the whole baby torture issue?

Comments

"My consciousness and sense of agency are experiential facts. I don’t have an underlying explanation that justifies them: they just are. Barry call this BS. I call it a realistic and honest appraisal of the limits of human knowledge. As I have repeated said, I live by the idea, articulated by Feynman, that I would rather live with uncertainty than believe things that are not true." Barry hasn't called this BS. He has called other statements of yours BS. But if you're going to object to him calling you a liar, then you're going to have to be more careful. I disagree with you, and I admire your willingness to endure the slings and arrows and publicly defend your position, however well or poorly I might think you're doing in that attempt. Just by the by, Descartes covered this long ago: "I think, therefore I am." I doubt anyone here actually doubts that. As BA points out, the radical materialists like to claim to dispute it but the very nature of their arguments belies their claim. C'est la vie.ScuzzaMan_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Stephen, I don't know the answers to those questions, but I appreciate your asking them. As I said, I am strongly agnostic about those things. I take the experience of consciousness and agency as a given, and start from there. I am aware of the spectrum of thought on these issues, but I don't think I or anyone else knows what the true situation is, or whether any of our human explanations are the true one. My consciousness and sense of agency are experiential facts. I don't have an underlying explanation that justifies them: they just are. Barry call this BS. I call it a realistic and honest appraisal of the limits of human knowledge. As I have repeated said, I live by the idea, articulated by Feynman, that I would rather live with uncertainty than believe things that are not true. That is why choice is central to my position. I choose to affirm the primacy of consciousness and free without needing to have some underlying explanation for them. I would rather do that then make up stories which claim to account for them just to avoid the uncertainty of not knowing.jdk_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

SM
Had the crusades not happened and Europe been conquered by Islam, you would be beheaded for making the same criticism of Islam you’ve made here about the crusades.
That important point is usually completely ignored or dismissed by a majority of people today (or at least by the public voices in society).Silver Asiatic_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

jdk: "I am not a materialist. I have told you that, and so did Bob O. That we have consciousness and through consciousness agency is a premise that I accept." That's a little vague. By agency, do you mean an immaterial faculty (mind) in addition to a material organ (brain) - and an immaterial faculty of will capable of resisting the body's inappropriate animal urges, such as murder or rape. If so, how do you explain these immaterial faculties?StephenB_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

"I hope that every time someone hears the words “objective morality” and “natural moral law” they picture blood-splattered knights surrounded by carnage and mass graves full of the bodies of slaves and their babies." So I noticed this and although it's half related and half completely irrelevant to the point of this thread, still I think it deserves reply. The crusades were two very short-lived episodes of Western European christianity pushing back against the encroaching muslim conquests. There were centuries of muslim invasions of eastern Europe and north Africa, slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Christians and Jews, and enslavement of millions, before the Christian states of Europe pushed back when they were directly threatened. I have no defense to make of the medieval church or of the behaviour of the crusaders per se. War always descends to people at our worst, irrespective. But if you're going to make arguments about morality in this thread about the basis of moral thought, then I'm going to insist on some degree of accuracy in your presentation of what you consider relevant history. Circling back to the question of certainty of knowledge, you seem overly certain for someone presenting such an inadequate picture. Had the crusades not happened and Europe been conquered by Islam, you would be beheaded for making the same criticism of Islam you've made here about the crusades. I am naive enough to think that distinction important, and that it ought to accord christianity some measure of respect by agnostics and unbelievers alike.ScuzzaMan_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

JDK @ 90 Yes, I know, I know. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to argue like a hardcore materialist when it suits you and yet reserve the option of jumping back into a feigned agnosticism when the incoherence of materialism is too much to bear. I call BS on that. You say we have free will. OK, then. Free will is possible only if materialism is false. Logically, therefore, if you assert the existence of free will you are flatly denying that materialism is true. There goes your agnosticism out the window. Before we move on, please clarify. Are you agnostic about materialism? If so, you have to give up on being committed to the existence of free will. Are you committed to the existence of free will? If so, you have to give up on your agnosticism about materialism. Time to choose JDK. Prediction. JDK will refuse to choose and go on trying to have it both ways.Barry Arrington_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

P.S. By the way, Barry, I have repeatedly pointed to posts 1 and 10 on the Saudi thread making it clear that the I based some of my thoughts on freely-willed choice. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bob-argues-with-a-saudi-about-whether-it-is-good-to-execute-homosexuals/jdk_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

I am not a materialist. I have told you that, and so did Bob O. That we have consciousness and through consciousness agency is a premise that I accept. I am strongly agnostic about the nature and source of consciousness and free will: I do not know what their metaphysical nature might be, if any. But I accept my internal experience of consciousness and agency as a fact, and that therefore is a premise from which other conclusions are based.jdk_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

JDK @ 88: Just an inference from your other positions. If I am wrong, by all means correct me. If you have concluded that we have freewill, please tell us what the premises are that led to that conclusion.Barry Arrington_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

re 86: In what way do my metaphysical premises preclude free will? Can you be explicit about what you think my metaphysical premises are, Barry?jdk_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Old Andrew:
I hope that every time someone hears the words “objective morality” and “natural moral law” they picture blood-splattered knights surrounded by carnage and mass graves full of the bodies of slaves and their babies.
Let's not forget that these mass graves are the product of subjective morality, not objective morality. Objective morality comes from outside the individual; it is discovered, real, and true. Subjective morality comes from inside the individual; it is invented, unreal, and false. Granted, there are people within the arena of objective morality that break away from their principles and create a subjective matrix in order to create confusion or justify excessive behavior, but the fact remains that their novelties come from themselves and not the objective principles that the falsely claim to believe in. No one ever committed murder because he believes in or follows objective morality, which forbids that very thing.StephenB_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

JDK:
If you wish to accurately represent my views, you will use the word “choice”, not “preference”, because my view emphasizes free will.
Your metaphysical premises preclude freewill. Therefore you appear to be in the logically incoherent position of basing one "view" on the existence of something a different "view" precludes. You are in a tight spot.Barry Arrington_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

And good luck to you was well Andrew.Barry Arrington_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

You are deeply confused about the meaning of the phrase “personal attack.” If someone lies and acts in a cowardly way, pointing out that they are a liar and a coward is in no meaningful sense a “personal attack.”
Good luck, man. Andrew out.OldAndrew_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

OA
I like to be right as much as the next person. And I’m susceptible to getting worked up and emotional just like other people. But if you read my words you’ll see that I’m not just endlessly trying to score points. I’m attempting to communicate.
That's an honest response, but I would ask you to consider that Barry and others here are not merely trying to score points. This is a very serious issue - for each person, and for society. Many people today believe in subjective morals, and that truth is relative. Many leaders in our society today - in media, education, politics, entertainment, business, science ... will reject the notion that we have true moral standards. They just get away with it. Nobody seems to challenge them. This thread is providing that challenge.Silver Asiatic_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

I hope that every time someone hears the words “objective morality” and “natural moral law” they picture blood-splattered knights surrounded by carnage and mass graves full of the bodies of slaves and their babies.
Yes, I did say that, and I meant it.
Which goes to show how deeply misguided and confused you are. Mass murder does not follow as a matter of necessity from arguing that objective morality exists. The objective morality condemns murder; to suggest that it promotes murder is to be aggressively stupid.
People have been those terms, “objective morality” and “natural moral law” as clubs to beat on others for the supposed inferiority of their morals.
Setting aside your tendentious use of the words “club” and “beat,” those who reject the truth (i.e., that objective morality exists) do in fact have an inferior moral framework. You say that you believe objective morality exists. This implies that you believe someone who does not believe in objective morality is in error. Do you not think their error is inferior to your true belief?
I’m making those words work against you.
Not sure what words you think are working against me. So far all you have demonstrated is that you are deeply confused.
First by pointing out that people who use them are just as capable of evil as those who don’t.
No one ever said otherwise. So I don’t know why you believe you’ve made some stunning revelation.
What we believe matters, but what we do matters more.
What we believe determines what we do.
So while you’re talking about hypotheticals, I’m talking about real evil visited upon real people by real people who strongly believed in objective morality.
Again, no one ever said that people who believe in objective morality cannot do wrong. Just the opposite is true.
Second, I’ve associated them. When you use those words people will remember the evil, bloody baggage they haul behind them. And they will. That was communication, but not diplomacy.
Yes, just as people will remember the even bloodier and orders of magnitude more evil acts of atheist regimes (as demonstrated by tens of millions of corpses piled up in the 20th Century). Again, the point is not that one side or the other never does wrong. The point is that only one side actually means something when they use the word “wrong.”Barry Arrington_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Barry,
Andrew, perhaps there is a third alternative, which is this: You are not bright enough to understand that my two statements are not contradictory. In the first statement I said “If someone says that torturing babies is wrong for them but it may be right for someone else, that is evil.” Notice, I never said the other guy actually thinks it is okay. I said the other guy said that it “may be right for someone else.” And under subjective reasoning, if there were such a person it would in fact, by definition, be okay for them. I never said such a person actually exists.
So you didn't say the other person thought it was okay. You said they thought it may be right for someone else. And I misunderstood that. No, I guess I'm not that bright.OldAndrew_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Since Andrew has decided to get up on his sanctimonious, self-righteous high horse, I will respond to his other points as well.
First, our belief in objective morality does not make us somehow superior to those who do not believe it. I don’t think anyone has explicitly said that it makes someone superior, but it’s strongly implied by mocking and attacking those who disagree and calling them names.
Well, it depends on what you mean by “superior.” If I say torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong” and a relativist says, “No it is not.” Then my moral reasoning is superior to the relativist’s moral reasoning.
Imagine an atheist neighbor who never steals your Amazon packages because he thinks it’s wrong. Are you going to get into arguments with him and call him names because his reasons for not stealing your stuff aren’t sufficiently grounded?
If your neighbor comes onto my website like JDH has and lies and acts in a cowardly way, I will point those things out.
Yes, the distinction exists. I get it. I really do. But where you’re going with it and all the personal attacks just don’t make sense.
You are deeply confused about the meaning of the phrase “personal attack.” If someone lies and acts in a cowardly way, pointing out that they are a liar and a coward is in no meaningful sense a “personal attack.” I will tell you what is a personal attack, however: Getting on your sanctimonious, self-righteous high horse and posting a condescending comment attacking someone for merely telling the truth.
Here’s the problem: That statement, while reasonable, does not constitute any sort of logical proof that they are wrong. Neither is it logical proof that my beliefs about objective morality or yours are right.
No one ever said that it did Andrew. I can’t imagine why you would think they have. The point, which you seemed to have missed, is not to demonstrate subjectivism is wrong. The point is to demonstrate that subjectivism is absurd. Now it may be there is not God and the existentialists are correct when they say the universe is in fact absurd. But what I will not tolerate and will call out at every turn is smiley-faced, what-me-worry atheists who simultaneously sponge parasitically off of the Christian worldview they despise and undercut it at every turn.
Even if you and I agreed on every detail of what objective morality means, it wouldn’t prove that we were right. We don’t. So how can it possibly prove that they’re wrong and you’re wrong but I’m right, or that they’re wrong and I’m wrong but you’re right? How can it establish that a particular set of religious beliefs is correct? It can’t.
If anyone can make sense of that mishmash they are welcome to respond to it. It left me feeling slightly dizzy.
I’m saying that pointing out that what isn’t objective is subjective (rather tautological when you boil it down) doesn’t accomplish it.
No, you are absolutely wrong about that. The subjectivists who come into these pages – JDK in particular – spew their subjectivism and then try to smuggle in objectivism through the back door. The do it every. single. time. So we need constantly to point out what they are doing.
That’s what they keep saying over and over, and they are right.
No, actually, they don’t.Barry Arrington_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

I hope that every time someone hears the words “objective morality” and “natural moral law” they picture blood-splattered knights surrounded by carnage and mass graves full of the bodies of slaves and their babies.
Yes, I did say that, and I meant it. People have been those terms, “objective morality” and “natural moral law” as clubs to beat on others for the supposed inferiority of their morals. I'm making those words work against you. First by pointing out that people who use them are just as capable of evil as those who don't. What we believe matters, but what we do matters more. So while you're talking about hypotheticals, I'm talking about real evil visited upon real people by real people who strongly believed in objective morality. Second, I've associated them. When you use those words people will remember the evil, bloody baggage they haul behind them. And they will. That was communication, but not diplomacy.OldAndrew_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Andrew,

No one has ever said “the other guy thinks it’s okay.” The point is that the other guy cannot ground his statement that it is not okay in anything other than an appeal to his own personal preference.
First I’ll quote your previous words:
If someone says that torturing babies is wrong for them but it may be right for someone else, that is evil.
So someone did say that. You did. Notice that I point out the contradiction without calling you a liar. You just didn’t realize the contradiction. That’s not lying.
Andrew, perhaps there is a third alternative, which is this: You are not bright enough to understand that my two statements are not contradictory. In the first statement I said “If someone says that torturing babies is wrong for them but it may be right for someone else, that is evil.” Notice, I never said the other guy actually thinks it is okay. I said the other guy said that it “may be right for someone else.” And under subjective reasoning, if there were such a person it would in fact, by definition, be okay for them. I never said such a person actually exists. The next time you try to correct someone on the Internet – especially in the condescending and sanctimonious tone that pervades your comment – you should take a moment to make sure you actually understand what they said.Barry Arrington_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

SA,
It’s important to think about the topic and find related meanings, otherwise you will make a mistake in understanding.
Or we could say that it's important to think about what we're trying to say and skillfully use the English language to select the words that express what we mean - especially when the language contains a word for exactly what we mean - instead of saying something else and then chiding others for not decoding it.
“Your bad” … apology to the thread. I trust it is accepted.
It wasn't an apology. Think of it more as a sort of diplomacy. Let me break down for you how that works: - You sow confusion by saying one thing when you mean something else. Or saying something general that might include something else, or maybe mixing the two. I can't tell. - When I use the words, "My bad, I did not realize..." that is a deliberate, careful attempt at diplomacy, framing your lack of clarity as my misunderstanding. - Am I contradicting myself because now I'm saying one thing when I mean another. Maybe. (See, more diplomacy.) But in this case it wasn't part of any logical argument. - To be even more specific, saying that maybe I didn't understand something is my way of signalling that it's okay to admit when we misunderstand or say something we don't mean. I like to be right as much as the next person. And I'm susceptible to getting worked up and emotional just like other people. But if you read my words you'll see that I'm not just endlessly trying to score points. I'm attempting to communicate.OldAndrew_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

OA
I hope that every time someone hears the words “objective morality” and “natural moral law” they picture blood-splattered knights surrounded by carnage and mass graves full of the bodies of slaves and their babies.
OA
I get it. I really get it. Everyone gets it. I agree with that statement. I’ll go a step farther and agree that there is a fixed source of moral guidance. It’s not subjective.
It's great to see that you're capable of recognizing your errors and having the humility to openly change your views when confronted with the truth of the matter. It's hopeful. The path of conversion is on-going, for all of us. Sincerely, OldAndrew - I pray for you.Silver Asiatic_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

jdk@ 70,
If you wish to accurately represent my views, you will use the word “choice”, not “preference”, because my view emphasizes free will.
How is anyone obligated to use your hairsplitting preference when it comes to terminology? It appears to me that you are just trying to find reasons to feel insulted. That’s a ploy we see all the time on this site.john_a_designer_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

BA,
No one has ever said “the other guy thinks it’s okay.” The point is that the other guy cannot ground his statement that it is not okay in anything other than an appeal to his own personal preference.
First I'll quote your previous words:
If someone says that torturing babies is wrong for them but it may be right for someone else, that is evil.
So someone did say that. You did. Notice that I point out the contradiction without calling you a liar. You just didn't realize the contradiction. That's not lying. But let's go back to this:
The point is that the other guy cannot ground his statement that it is not okay in anything other than an appeal to his own personal preference.
I get it. I really get it. Everyone gets it. I agree with that statement. I'll go a step farther and agree that there is a fixed source of moral guidance. It's not subjective. I'm establishing that common ground so that hopefully the following points are clearer: First, our belief in objective morality does not make us somehow superior to those who do not believe it. I don't think anyone has explicitly said that it makes someone superior, but it's strongly implied by mocking and attacking those who disagree and calling them names. Imagine an atheist neighbor who never steals your Amazon packages because he thinks it's wrong. Are you going to get into arguments with him and call him names because his reasons for not stealing your stuff aren't sufficiently grounded? Yes, the distinction exists. I get it. I really do. But where you're going with it and all the personal attacks just don't make sense. Second, consider this statement, which which I agree: An atheist's morals are grounded in personal preference, so their belief that XYZ is evil is subjective and may be subject to change. That's a reasonable statement. While I don't think most atheists would like to phrase it that way, I think that many would concede it for the sake of discussion. Here's the problem: That statement, while reasonable, does not constitute any sort of logical proof that they are wrong. Neither is it logical proof that my beliefs about objective morality or yours are right. Even if you and I agreed on every detail of what objective morality means, it wouldn't prove that we were right. We don't. So how can it possibly prove that they're wrong and you're wrong but I'm right, or that they're wrong and I'm wrong but you're right? How can it establish that a particular set of religious beliefs is correct? It can't. I'm not saying that someone can't try to establish their religious beliefs using logic and reason. I'm saying that pointing out that what isn't objective is subjective (rather tautological when you boil it down) doesn't accomplish it. That's what they keep saying over and over, and they are right.OldAndrew_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

BA answering jdf
The point is that the other guy cannot ground his statement that it is not okay in anything other than an appeal to his own personal preference.
Personal preference here is the same as "personal choice". You select an action, not guided by a objective moral standard, but just that it is your personal choice alone.Silver Asiatic_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

jdk
If you wish to accurately represent my views, you will use the word “choice”, not “preference”, because my view emphasizes free will.
Ok, but what is the motive and foundation for your choice? Emotional satisfaction? Pleasure?Silver Asiatic_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

OA
BTW, my bad. I did not realize ...
It's important to think about the topic and find related meanings, otherwise you will make a mistake in understanding. Obviously, abortion is not the only example of inflicting torture on babies, but it is a common one. "Your bad" ... apology to the thread. I trust it is accepted.Silver Asiatic_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

If you wish to accurately represent my views, you will use the word "choice", not "preference", because my view emphasizes free will.jdk_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

kf
the weakest, most voiceless have a right to the protections of the civil peace of justice
I just wonder what kind of man it is who leaves the care of the defenseless to whatever subjective judgement provides. Subjectivists cannot establish that their moral convictions are "standards". There can be no heroism in that view. There can be no sense of what we understand as "a just man", or even "a good man", since every man is just doing what he wants to do. He is not conforming his selfish independence to the greater good. This is true of reasoning. Right-reason demands a surrender to higher values. It is the same with being a man of justice - defending widows, orphans, the unborn - the defenseless. It is surrendering ego and self-interest to a higher (objective) moral value. Otherwise, in the subjective view, everything emerges from self. It's the ultimate selfish morality. I see religious errors at the root of this, but no matter. Even the pagan philsophers recognized that a man obtains greatness. goodness, and justice by striving for higher values which exist outside of himself. I hope OA and jdf and other subjectivists here see this. It's very relevant for our own personal growth.Silver Asiatic_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

PPS: I am of course concerned at how personal some exchanges above have become. A term like "lie" is very loaded (like "racist") and I think we would do well to ponder what it is about: to lie is to speak with disregard to truth in hope of profiting from what is said or suggested being taken as true. This actually goes to a breach of the civil peace of justice and to principles where mindedness is undeniably under a known duty to truth, right reason, fairness and more. The offensiveness of "lie" comes from the objective, binding nature of moral obligation.kairosfocus_{November 10, 2018
November
11
Nov
10
10
2018
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply