Predictably, in response to my last post materialists (this time Rationaly’s bane and jdk) trotted out this old chestnut: “People have been wrong about morality; therefore moral truth cannot possibly be objective.”
*palm forehead* This canard has been refuted so many times I have lost count. I will try one more time.
RB and jdk, nearly everyone once thought that the sun orbited the earth. Now we know without the slightest doubt that just the opposite is the case. The earth orbits the sun. Is the fact that the earth orbits the sun objectively true? Of course it is. Now, try to follow the logic here. It is not a difficult logical chain, but you people seem to have a hard time with it, so I will go slow.
- In the past people have been nearly universally wrong about at least one objective truth (i.e., the earth orbits the sun).
- Therefore, the fact that people have been universally wrong about a thing does not compel the conclusion that truths about the thing in question are necessarily subjective
In philosophy-speak, you have made a category error. You are confusing ontology with epistemology. A thing’s being (its ontological status) is independent of what we know or do not know about it (its epistemological status).
The earth objectively orbits the sun (ontology). That fact was just as objectively true for the thousands of years when nearly everyone was wrong about it (epistemology).
Now, repeat after me: The fact that people have been wrong about moral truths even for thousands of years does not compel the conclusion that morality is subjective any more than the fact that people have been wrong about astronomical truths even for thousands of years compels the conclusion that astronomy is subjective.
BTW, if you disagree, then the title of the OP becomes apropos.
Barry, “Predictably, in response to my last post materialists (this time Rationaly’s bane and jdk) trotted out this old chestnut: “People have been wrong about morality; therefore moral truth cannot possibly be objective.””
It is always easy to prove someone wrong when you claim that they are saying something that they have never said. You get D for debate But A for effort.
“RB and jdk, nearly everyone once thought that the sun orbited the earth.”
True. But that conclusion was based on objective evidence. The sun, moon and stars traverse the sky on a daily basis. If it weren’t for a proliferation of additional objective evidence, we might still believe this. Both theories were supported by objective data, but the heliocentric theory is the one that is the best explanation of the data we have today.
Unfortunately, objective morality currently stands where the earth centric theory currently stands. It is consistent with some of the objective data but the subjective theory remains the best explanation.
Well, got to turn the BBQ on. Talk later.
RB, is the following statement true or false?
RB, does the following conclusion follow through ineluctable logic from the first statement?
Prediction. RB will will either dodge and obfuscate or ignore the question altogether. Anything but deal with uncomfortable truth.
Barry:
RB:
Again you confuse epistemology with ontology. The point is not why they were wrong about objective truth. The point is that they were in fact wrong about objective truth. Therefore, it follows that people can be wrong about objective truth and their error does not make the truth any less objective.
Why is that so hard for you to understand? It is truly not a difficult concept to grasp if you only allow yourself to grasp it. Is it really the case that your ideological blinders prevent you from grasping even simple, easy to see, truth? That’s really sad.
I sometimes wonder if internet anonymity is a good thing. I bet RB would not post such stupid comments under his real name.
The claim “that people have been wrong about moral truths even for thousands of years” assumes that the existence of moral truths that people can be wrong about has been established. Yet this is the bone of contention between us. You are assuming that which has yet to be proven.
No, the argument is that moral propositions are prescriptive not descriptive. They enjoin people to behave in certain ways towards each other. They are not claims about objective reality so they are not capable of being true or false.
Barry writes,
Please show me where I said this, because I don’t believe I did.
The last post I wrote on this subject was,
This is quite a different statement than what Barry says I said.
So Barry says,
This are not analogous. There is empirical, observable evidence that led us to conclude that the earth goes around the sun. There is no comparable way to observe evidence that show that objective morals exist: that is what I said.
It is possible objective morals exist, just as it is possible that God exists, but there is no way to ascertain whether anyone’s statements about those are “truly” objective, so the reasonable, evidence-based conclusion is that one’s opinion about the existence or specifics of objective morality is a subjective opinion.
So, Barry, feel free to argue with me, but don’t say I said things I didn’t.
And Barry, my real name is Jack Krebs. I’m quit being “hazel” and “aleta” because I wanted to move away from internet anonymity.
ah, that explains it
By the way Jack, ID concepts like irreducible complexity are indisputably true, and frankly, were deeply seated in physics and biology long before the politics. You had your chance to do something important (speak for politically-neutral science) and you didn’t seize the opportunity.
Barry, “I sometimes wonder if internet anonymity is a good thing. I bet RB would not post such stupid comments under his real name.”
Using your real name when commenting is no guarantee of not making stupid comments. Case in point:
“ The point is not why they were wrong about objective truth. The point is that they were in fact wrong about objective truth.”
Speaking of stupid comments. Are you seriously saying that why people are often wrong about objective truths is not important? Earth centric theories were wrong not due to their ability to explain what was objectively observed at the time. They were wrong because the heliocentric theory was equally good at explaining those early observations, and better at explaining the more recent observations.
“The point is that they were in fact wrong about objective truth. Therefore, it follows that people can be wrong about objective truth and their error does not make the truth any less objective.”
True. But if that is the basis of an argument for an objective truth, rather than actual objective evidence, the rational mind will seriously question the proposal. As a wise man once said: “Why is that so hard for you to understand? It is truly not a difficult concept to grasp if you only allow yourself to grasp it. Is it really the case that your ideological blinders prevent you from grasping even simple, easy to see, truth? That’s really sad.”
By the way. The barbecued chicken was wonderful. I hope your dinner was as good.
UBP, “By the way Jack, ID concepts like irreducible complexity are indisputably true,…”
Nobody has argued that irreducible complexity is not indisputably true. Contrary to Dawkins’ nonsense, a mouse trap missing one of its parts is not likely to kill a mouse. Where the dispute occurs is to whether a complex structure can arise through natural means without an intelligent agent.
Heliocentrism is wrong. The sun is not the center of the universe. Yet again it could be. (acentrism)
Nobody has argued that irreducible complexity is not indisputably true.
I just wet my pants.
Barry, I apologize for calling your comment stupid. I try to be better than that.
RB makes progress:
Barry:
RB:
Then he slips up:
No, again, you don’t seem to understand the different between ontology and epistemology. My arguments have been entirely ontological in nature, and for some reason you believe you can counter them with arguments about epistemology. Fail.
Bane,
Perhaps you read that differently than I do. Does that page need to be changed so that the public is not misled?
Yes, that is one of the places that disputes arise. In particular is the response by anti-IDist to the threshold of complexity required for a self-replicator capable of Darwinian evolution.
Seversky, I may address the issues you raise in comments 4 and 5 later; only so many materialist moles I can whack in one day. I do understand why you want to change the subject though. Your side is constantly embarrassing itself with the chestnut addressed in the OP.
The purpose of this post is very very limited. I will put it up again.
I expect you to keep running away. But if you care to take a stand, you can tell us whether you agree or disagree with these two statements.
Note that this definition by Behe agrees with what RB said.
Behe would later go on to say that biological IC systems cab not evolve, but that is different than just defining them as Behe did in the quote above.
This confusion runs through a lot of ID literature, I think
Another quote:
Note that the first sentence merely defines what IC is, and the second makes the claim that biological IC systems can’t evolve.
There are other complexities here, of course, , but, again, I think RB’s statement at 10 is accurate, as he distinguishes the definition from the claim about the cause.
Barry, in 16 you write,
But in the OP you claimed that RB and I had claimed that,
Do you see that these two sentences say different things?
jdk, the capacity to specify objects is required to organize the cell and enable open-ended Darwinian evolution. In the cell, this requires the spatial arrangement of a medium (a codon) to serve as a representation for each object (amino acid) being specified, and another arrangement of matter (an aaRS) to establish what is being represented. The system also has to be organized in a way that preserves the natural discontinuity between the representation and its referent (which is exactly what is found inside the cell). The reason nature requires this special organization of two objects is because no object in the universe inherently specifies any other object in the universe (amino acids are not specified by the surface properties of nucleotides).
Is the specification of amino acids by the medium of DNA an IC process, or not?
again *crickets*
Jack,
I went back and looked. You put your first comment up at UD nearly 11 years ago on January 13, 2006. You’ve been debating in this area for a long time. It seems to be that you should be up on the issues.
How long are you going to run away from answering Upright Biped’s simple questions?
Doesn’t the fact that you feel compelled to run away from Upright Biped’s simple questions give you pause? If it were me, I think that would give me pause.
Hi Barry. Just like everyone else here, I can choose what topics I want to discuss. Just because I don’t respond to someone’s request to answer a question doesn’t mean I’m running away from it.
I think things evolve. I think that scientists who know much more than me have explained how Behe is wrong about his ideas about what can and can not evolve, and I accept mainstream science’s position on this. I don’t have the expertise to discuss the specifics of a lot of the science at the cellular and molecular level.
Upright Biped (and you) will just have to live with what I choose to discuss, and not. Feel free to ignore me. [For example, #18 above. 🙂 ]
And by the way, I participated at ARN and ISCID before this, and was probably “dayton” and “evan” there, if you want to continue your research.
Well, this is nostalgic! 😉
Your post on January 13, 2006: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....l-dembski/
My Panda’s Thumb post:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....l-dembski/
And my comment to your post:
Jack,
Okay. Are you now saying that you are no longer in possesion of those skills? There seems to be some confusion, are you or are you not capable of defending your position? If you are, then answer the question.
The capacity to specify objects is required to organize the cell and enable open-ended Darwinian evolution. In the cell, this requires the spatial arrangement of a medium (a codon) to serve as a representation for each object (amino acid) being specified, and another arrangement of matter (an aaRS) to establish what is being represented. The system also has to be organized in a way that preserves the natural discontinuity between the representation and its referent (which is exactly what is found inside the cell). The reason nature requires this special organization of two objects is because no object in the universe inherently specifies any other object in the universe (amino acids are not specified by the surface properties of nucleotides).
Is the specification of amino acids by the medium of DNA an IC process, or not?
If you do not answer that question, then Jack Krebs, a founder of the Kansas Citizens for Science, has chosen to run away from indisputable scientific observation, and thus demonstrated in perhaps the clearest way possible the very thing he accused ID of — “This is not about science and never has been.”. And let there be no mistake, the reason that Jack runs away is strictly because the observations presented to him are indeed indisputable, as well as being so deeply written into the literature.
jdk, you are in a difficult situation. Why not take the opportunity to say that you’ll read up on the data. You can read von Neumann discussing the threshold of complexity required for a self-replicating system. Also you can find additional resources on the Biosemiosis.org bibliography. What is not acceptable however, is to continue pretending the evidence is not there, or blatantly ignoring it.
Michael Rowan-Robinson, former president of the Royal Astronomical Society, and apparently an atheist, emphasized the Copernican principle as the threshold test for modern thought, asserting that:
In other words, according to Michael Rowan-Robinson, a person is not informed and/or rational if they may hold the Earth has a unique position and/or status in the universe. Yet, due to advances in our knowledge, methinks the honorable Michael Rowan-Robinson may have judged much too quickly.
Contrary to what is popularly believed by many people today, of the earth being nothing but a insignificant speck of dust lost in a vast ocean of space (Copernican Principle), there is actually a strong case to be made for the earth, and humans themselves, being central in the universe once again.
In fact, due to the 4-Dimensional space-time upon which General Relativity is built,,,
,,, and also due to the fact that, in both General and Special Relativity, the observer is given a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements,,,
,,, Then, as far as general relativity itself is concerned, centrality in the universe is left open for whomever is making a particular model of the universe to arbitrarily decide for themselves,,,
No less than Einstein himself stated that, as far as General Relativity itself is concerned, neither the sun nor the earth has more centrality in the universe than the other does
Fred Hoyle, discoverer of stellar nucleosynthesis, weighs in here:
George Ellis, who, along with Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking, helped extend General Relativity to show that not only energy and matter had a definite beginning in the Big Bang but that space and time also had a definite beginning in the Big Bang, weighs in here:
Many people say that the heliocentric model is preferred over the earth centered model because of simplicity, i.e. aka Occam’s razor, the following recent article takes issue with that claim:
In fact, Ptolemy’s model has a certain symmetrical beauty to it that is missing from the Copernican model
And thus, on the criteria of beauty alone, I hold Ptolemy’s model should be preferred over Copernican’s model
That the earth and solar system should be given privileged consideration over all other frames of reference in the universe is established by empirical evidence itself, i.e. by Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) anomalies.
At the 13:55 minute mark of this following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR anomalies do indeed line up with the earth and solar system
Moreover besides the earth and solar system lining up with the anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation, Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:
Moreover, the light coming from the CMBR is also, unexpectedly, found to be fine tuned for intelligent life like human life to discover it:
And whereas in General Relativity the observer is given a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements, in quantum mechanics it is the measurement itself that gives the observer a privileged frame of reference in the universe
And although both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics give the observer a privileged frame of reference in the universe, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, none-the-less, in the much sought after ‘theory of everything’, simply ‘refuse to talk to each other’ in any attempt to unify them mathematically:
Yet, as mentioned in the preceding video, the universe is not ‘schizophrenic’. That is to say, the universe operates as a cohesive whole and is not governed by different legislation in different places. Yet, the belief that the universe should operatre as a cohesive whole and be governed by a single unifying principle is a theistic presupposition. A presupposition which undergirded the birth of modern science itself.
And when the Agent causality, i.e. God, of Theists is rightly let ‘back’ into the picture of physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, (instead of the self refuting ‘blind’ causality of atheists in which atheists themselves become merely ‘neuronal illusions’), then a empirically backed unification between Quantum Theory and Relativity is readily achieved by the resurrection of Christ from death:
Verse and Praise Music
Supplemental notes:
Barry, “
Translation: Please don’t cloud the issue by using things like proper scientific methodology and objective evidence.
Call me old fashioned, but when I am attempting to make a claim about something, I try to support it with evidence, not just opinion. I don’t always succeed, but I at least make the effort.
BA et al:
Correct.
Now, let us focus: “People have been wrong about morality; therefore moral truth cannot possibly be objective.”
See how that points to objectively knowable moral truths?
(As in; if X is an objectively knowable moral error, then it is — trivially — an objectively knowable moral truth that X is a moral error. [Of course if it is possible to be in moral error then it is possible to be in such error in believing that something, Y, perceived as moral error is actually an error. Moral knowledge is not equal to the fashionable opinions of a given day. Something our day, with the blood of hundreds of millions of aborted babies on our hands and consciences, needs to recognise.])
KF
RB, scientism is self-referentially incoherent. It makes a philosophical claim that only scientific knowledge claims are significant. It is also UNDER ethics, not over it. There is such a thing as evil science. Ethical truths need to be evauated by proper rules and principles, which necessarily go beyond science. A key empirical point here is that we find ourselves inescapably under moral government, seen even in your own tone above. What sort of world frame makes sense of such moral government . . . where, might and manipulation make ‘right’ does not even make it out of the starting blocks. Evolutionary materialistic scientism necessarily ends in or at minimum opens the door to such nihilism. This has been well understood since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, 2350 years ago. KF
F/N: truth is that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not, that it is not. That is, accurate description of reality — an ontological matter; things as they are. Knowledge is a subsidiary matter: how do we confidently warrant claim X to be true? (There is a tendency to collapse truth into knowledge, and knowledge into “science.” This fails.) KF
KF:
Then it is a good thing that I am not talking about scientism.
No there isn’t. Science may be used in an “evil” fashion, but there is no such thing as an “evil” science.
Again, there is no such thing as an ethical truth. There are behaviours that we as a society have agreed to abide by and label them as ethical.
Again, you are making an assertion that is in dispute. If you are saying that as we grow we establish deeply entrenched beliefs and expectations of behaviour (call them morals if you want), that cause us distress if we deviate from them, or see others deviating from them, then I agree that we are under moral government. If you are saying that these moral values are objective and writ by some designer/deity, then we would disagree.The bulk of evidence simply does not support this as the best explanation of the objective facts that we see every day.
I agree that might and manipulation don’t make right (whatever right is). But it does occasionally make the rules. but it is not a choice only between objective morality and might and manipulation make right. You completely ignore the impact of early learning, indoctrination, feedback, parental and peer interactions, etc. in the establishment of our moral assemblage.
Seversly, 4 (attn RB, JDK, JC et al), re:
Nope.
First, BA is, even trivially correct, that reality is before our ability to warrant our claims about it on whatever evidence we do or do not have in hand.
The general issue is, reality exists, and truth accurately describes it.
Our presence or absence of objectively grounded knowledge of it is strictly irrelevant to the matter, reality exists.
It is also trivially true that in cases, we can describe reality as existing, thence “error exists,” which is undeniably true and knowable so schemes of thought that undermine truth and knowledge in general are all falsified at one sweep. (This includes any species of radical relativism.)
Now, the issue properly is, are we morally governed beings — as we appear to be from how we quarrel to how we disagree to how we find ourselves compelled towards the truth and the right.
Such a broad appearance carries with it a presumption of core truth, on pain of the consequences of its denial.
To wit, if we were to presume this widespread pervasive phenomenon delusional, it would instantly let grand delusion loose across our life as cognitive agents, that is it would undermine even the ability to argue as here.
So, we know on pain of instant, patent self referential absurdity that we indeed are morally governed.
That points to sobering conclusions about the nature of reality, as the only place where OUGHT can be grounded is by its being inextricably fused into the root of reality. (This is how the IS-OUGHT gap is bridged.)
This instantly rules out evolutionary materialism as a serious worldview, as such simply cannot ground ought. Bosons, fermions and interactions, or electrochemistry in neural networks programmed by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity are simply not under moral obligation, but instead under blind forces such as those outlined.
Such an IS has only a very limited list of serious candidates, indeed only one: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.
This may be unpalatable to many who seem to have a visceral hostility to God.
But hostility does not change the force of the logic on the key facts.
Facts, that seem to be habitually overlooked or even suppressed.
So, we have very good reason to acknwledge moral truths to be well warranted, and to further see that there is a reciprocity of oughts between beings of like morally governed nature, thence we see why rights obtain to life, liberty, innocent reputation etc.
None of this is particularly new.
But we live in a day where it is often dismissed with visceral hostility.
Not good.
KF
PS: Someone was trotting out the outdated problem of evil, and needs as a 101 to cf here on: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.....u2_gdvsevl
RB writes,
Yes, as has been pointed out (but kf doesn’t seem to hear),we are not talking about scientism. Human beings have moral beliefs and moral concerns that arise from, among other things, innate human emotions such as love, compassion, the need to be a part of a social group, etc. There are many important things in the life of people that are not part of science. (And human beings have all sorts of other qualities such as values, preferences, etc. which are not part of scientific knowledge, also.)
So the arguments being made here about morals are not advocating for scientism.
And I agree with what RB says succinctly,
KF
Who is suggesting that morality is delusional? Here, let me provide some definitions:
I believe that we all have deeply entrenched beliefs in what constitutes good (i.e., moral) behaviour.
I hold these beliefs with strong convictions.
When I think that killing and stealing and lying are wrong, I am thinking clearly and can even provide logical arguments as to why doing so will not be beneficial for me or my family in the long run.
If this can be easily explained by subjective morality (and it can), and supported by objective evidence, where is the delusion?
Such a view provides no basis at all for universal human rights. Such rights are based on our moral obligation to treat our fellow human beings with dignity and respect regardless of our sentiments and feelings, not because of them. In other words, whether or not it causes us any kind of compassionate feelings or distress we are obligated to treat our fellow man a certain way. Without real and true moral obligation the very concept of human rights becomes transient, man made and therefore completely arbitrary. Unfortunately that is the way western civilization is presently moving. Our only hope is that people, who truly value freedom, wake up before it’s too late.
JAD:
Just because something is unpleasant doesn’t make it false. Cancer is unpleasant. Malaria is unpleasant. Halitosis is unpleasant. Justin Beaber is unpleasant.
I agree, the world would be much better if morality was objective. But since there is no evidence to support it, the best we can do is to maximize communication amongst nations and cultures in an attempt to come to common ground on human rights.
In my opinion, and it is just opinion, we are much better off not pretending that morality is objective and live our lives knowing that we all bear responsibility for everything that we do in our lives.
rb writes,
Excellent statement. We would work better together, I think, at all levels up to the international level, if we didn’t divide ourselves by at least some (many) thinking they are objectively right and others are delusional.
‘Excerpt: It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.
And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial…’
– Prof Richard Conn Henry
It seems to lend weight to my conjecture that we each live in a little world of our own, all of which worlds seemingly being integrated and coordinated, spatially and temporally, i.e. to make our world, its present, past – and potentially, future, since our lives are dynamic.
Axel referenced this quote:
The words I bolded above speaks volumes.
“The words “I” bolded above speaks volumes.”
Exactly whom is this “I” that you are referring to in your sentence?
I do wish you materialists/naturalists would at least be consistent in your writings towards your worldview beliefs. To avoid confusion, “You” should have instead written:
“The words “the illusion of I” bolded above speaks volumes.”
But then again, even being able to grasp the possibility that you may actually be a ‘neuronal illusion’ requires a perspective that is outside the material order. So in reality, it is impossible for atheists to write meaningful sentences as if agent causality did not actually exist:
And although Dr. Nelson alluded to writing an e-mail, (i.e. creating information), to tie his ‘personal agent’ argument into intelligent design, Dr. Nelson’s ‘personal agent’ argument can easily be amended to any action that ‘you’, as a personal agent, choose to take:
The denial of agent causality by atheists is simply insane
I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s following presentation to get a full feel for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s (atheist’s) position actually is.
RB, we both know and count on the fact of consciousness termed conscience as a key part of the inner life of normal people. We both know that sociopathy and psychopathy are severe disorders that are destructive. We further realise that this sense affects our whole thought life, not just on traditional moral issues but on matters of reasoning, warrant and the like; whereby we find ourselves urged to truth and right. You and your ilk consistently back away from or dodge the long known import of evolutionary materialism, that might and manipulation make “right.” The point is, if such a key and pervasive sense of being governed by and accountable to ought is false to reality then this is a grand delusion spreading across our inner life. Living in a moral Plato’s cave. This instantly would undermine our entire life of the mind. Grand delusion. KF
JDK, from the OP on the shaping context is evolutionary materialistic scientism. Which is exactly the well known driving force behind trying to reduce truth to knowledge. Notice, Lewontin’s blunder in his classic 1997 remark, that hoi polloi were to come to view science as “the only begetter of truth.” KF
KF:
I assume that you are referring to my ilk of delusional sociopaths and psychopaths. You obviously have no intention of seriously engaging on this issue, preferring to infer mental illness to those who disagree with you.
But I also notice that you are dodging my “third” option, that our moral assemblage is based on some innate characteristics, early learning/indoctrination, parental and peer interactions, positive and negative feedback, etc.
“
Who said that the sense of being governed by and accountable to ought was false to reality? Again, not me. Unless you are suggesting that our early observations, feedback, learning, parental and peer interactions are not based in reality. To be bluntly honest, many of the things that have proven to be distanced from reality (although entertaining and otherwise educational) were the things I learned in Sunday School and church.
RB, twisting words to find an offense that is not there. Above, I spoke to the exceptions to a general rule; which by definition will be just that, exceptional. Evolutionary materialism supporters and fellow travellers face the problem that their worldview foundations lack the resources to support ought. But most have functional consciences, subject to the usual provisos about errors, struggles, gaps and benumbing. For that matter, such a worldview lacks resources to support the conscious self. But that is only to show yet another way such becomes self referentially incoherent and self-falsifying. Yet another issue that is routinely ducked or dodged. KF
PS: innate blind forces of chance and necessity, psychosocial accidents and/or conditioning are simply more detailed ways of saying, Plato’s cave delusional. Not a third option.
PPS: Will Hawthorne warns:
PPPS: Plato warned 2350 years ago:
KF:
Let me repeat the beginning of the comment that I responded to.
So, you refer to me and “my ilk” after a spew about delusional sociopathic psychopaths, and I am supposed to conclude that they are unrelated. If they are unrelated, why are they in the same paragraph? English grammar 101.
Let’s be honest here. I did not twist your words. You just don’t like the logical consequences of your words. Just man-up and admit it. Even if it was unintentional, it was extremely offensive. A simple apology for a poor choice of words would suffice. I don’t expect to receive one, but it would be appreciated.
RB, doubling down, projecting and more. Severe disorders are almost by definition rare. (Enabling behaviours would be far more common as a problem.) I have already clarified — actually, corrected your gross error of twisting words — for reasonable responsible people. Meanwhile, the issue in the main lies ducked and dodged. Telling, but in the end quite sad. Plato’s point stands. KF
PS: The point I made stands, the deeply disturbed are the exceptions who — because something is severely mal-formed — do not reliably sense the voice of conscience. (NB: I used psycho for the apparently congenital, socio for those damaged by life experiences. Some use the two as synonymous, and there are debates.)
PPS: Just to remind of what is being obfuscated by the rhetoric of twisting, here is 43:
The point being made is explicit, stated and follows on the context of the primary argument — warrant for the objectivity of moral government by ought and of moral truth. The attempted denial ends in self-referential incoherence by implying grand delusion.
PPPS: The original (lest it be lost in a blizzard of toxic distractors, at 34:
RB:
And did KF, being the upstanding, honest individual he claims to be, apologize for the unintentional inference of mental illness towards myself?
Uh, no. He was accusational, followed by a PS, a PPS, and a PPPS. All I did was ask him to acknowledge that it was inappropriate to infer mental illness for those who disagree with him about objective morality.
Just to remind anyone who bothers to actually read these posts, I answered KF’s challenge. In detail. And he has not responded to it. Until he does so, I don’t see any point in continuing a discussion where I provide honest responses to his questions and he responds to mine with inferences of mental illness and doubling down.
1. First of all, the original argument is an analogy, which is considered the strongest argument and the weakest proof. Reconsider
Have people ever been wrong about something within the realm of science? Does this impugn the scientific method in any way or it objectivity? Of course not. The statement and its permutations is nonsense.
2. To insist that the earth orbits the sun rather than the reverse is false, and demonstrates a fundamental and profound ignorance of orbital mechanics. Both masses deform space-time and thus they orbit each other.
3. According to current inflationary theory, the entire universe once occupied a single point. So which of the stars and planets in the universe is NOT at the center?
-Q
RB, it is clear that we are morally governed and that you have tried to appeal to that above. Either that is grounded in the roots of reality or is lets loose grand delusion undermining reasoning, argument, our inner life. Thus, it must be grounded. Where, evolutionary materialistic scientism cannot, as say Hawthorne summed up. But, ethical theism does, the only worldview that does. As for your repeated twisting of words and projection of false accusations that I imply that atheists on the whole are socio-/psycho- paths, the very context in which I spoke to such as deeply disturbed exceptions to the general pattern of the testimony of conscience in our inner life suffices to show that the talking point is utterly without merit. However, it seems that the visceral hostility to God too many atheists have is often turned into trying to find ways to rhetorically taint theists. No, I do not owe you an apology for your twisting reasonably clear descriptions of rare exceptions to a dominant pattern into an imaginary accusation. Instead, in addition to addressing the merits, — with all due respect — you clearly need to read more reasonably, in context. That said, it is quite clear that you acknowledge moral government by implication of trying to quarrel and demand apologies. You need to face the grounding challenge of bridging the IS-OUGHT gap. Which, your scheme of thought simply cannot. KF
PS: I have pointed to the core issue, only some of the time is there time to do a point by point rebuttal. Nothing above from you shows an adequate response to the core matters. As for the difference between being able to accurately describe reality and currently being able to warrant truth claims, that is almost trivial. Moral truth can exist in the face of error. And moral error, when shown to be so, implies moral truth. Where, to deny our moral governance ends in absurdity. This demands grounding.
Delusional materialists. Thinking themselves wise, they became fools.
BA77 Your #42
Don’t confuse Rationality’s bane, there’s a good chap. He’s made a good start in recognising that he is the bane of reason. An excellent starting point, I know you’ll agree.
Bornagain77
Pure poetry 🙂
However there might be a minor complication. Which contenders are there for the title “The Cause Of The Bolding Of The Words”? I would put it to you that — under materialism — there is no special central position for neurons or ‘neuronal illusions’ in the causal story. Like all the players in the long causal chain — starting at the big bang, leading up to the bolded words — they simply act in compliance with the laws of nature. So, why give neurons any special attention?
IOWs, under materialism, it makes equal sense to say e.g. “Firefox 47.0.1 bolded the words”.
O, you are right of course, thanks for the correction, as if there were any correction possible. 🙂
kairosfocus @ 34
I agree, although we should note that BA77 appears to believe, based on his understanding of quantum theory, that consciousness precedes objective reality.
Essentially, yes. Although, again, it is worth noting that truth resides in our descriptions of reality and that descriptions obviously require a describer. This means, of course, no describer, no descriptions, no truth.
I’m not clear what you mean by “moral governance”. If it means that human beings in society are bound by moral codes, that is not contentious. To me, the real question is whether this moral governance is democratic or autocratic? Is it imposed by divine command or is it constructed by and assented to by the governed?
I can’t speak for other atheist/materialists but I don’t regard it as delusional but I do regard morality as subjective as I see no evidence that it exists outside human consciousness.
What does it mean to claim that “ought” is “inextricably fused into the root of reality”? I’m afraid you don’t bridge the IS-OUGHT gap with rhetoric.
I doubt that there are any materialists, being aware of the problem of the IS-OUGHT gap, who would disagree with the proposition that “ought” cannot be grounded in objective, material reality. That doesn’t preclude a materialistic worldview that includes moral injunctions that are grounded in common human needs and interests.
I don’t know of any long-term atheists who are angry at or have a visceral hostility to God. It would be as irrational as hating the Dark Lord Sauron or Emperor Palpatine.
As for that research that found that atheists were more likely to be angry at God, a closer look reveals that the anger was mostly felt by people who had been believers but were turned to atheism by some tragic and/or traumatic event in their lives. Settled, long-term atheists didn’t indicate anger towards God which is what I would expect.
Moral injunctions prescribe how people ought to behave towards one another, they are not descriptions of objective reality so, by the correspondence theory of truth, they are not capable of being either true or false.
Seversky, truth says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. Reality is what is. Truth is whatever accurately describes such. And, there is no inherent problem with agency (thus, mind) as root of reality. Indeed, this is our best explanation, esp in a world with moral government as an integral part of the responsible rational freedom we need just to argue seriously such as in this thread. Where, best explanation on comparative difficulties across live options, is not an arbitrary question begging assertion or blind belief. It is a reasonable, responsible view. KF
Wow! This is quite a discussion.
I would like to see what you folks would do with an article like “An Atom or a Nucleus?” It takes the position that the thing that has virtually all the mass of the atom, and which accounts for all the properties of the atom, is actually the atom itself, not some sort of “nucleus” of something. This goes contrary to what we have been taught for the past 100 years.
And it illuminates again the issue of ontology vs epistemology.
The link is http://scripturalphysics.org/4v4a/ATMORNUC.html
If we are wrong about THAT, we could be wrong about A LOT of things, even in an objective science like physics.