Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Materialists Know What They Say is False. They Say it Anyway

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Otherwise, they would have to give up their materialism.

Recently I posted about a woman who was charged with attempted murder when she put a newborn baby in a garbage bag and tossed him in a dumpster to die. Here is an exchange I had with Seversky regarding that post:

Barry:

Is it objectively evil to put a baby in a garbage bag and throw him in a dumpster or is it just your subjective preference not to do so?

Seversky:

the overwhelming majority regard dumping newborns in dumpsters as being evil

Barry:

Suppose the overwhelming majority regarded dumping newborns in dumpsters as good. Would it then be good?

Seversky:

Presumably, it would be good in the minds of the majority who approved of it. It would not be a good thing from my perspective.

There you have it. Sev’s position is this: They would prefer tossing babies in dumpsters and I would not. There is no basis on which to determine which preference is superior. Therefore, the preferences are objectively equal.

As I have said before, no sane person actually lives their life as if materialism is true. But Sev’s religious commitments compel him to pretend he believes it is true. Which leads him to say that he holds an outrageous position that we can be certain he does not truly hold. Sad that.

Comments
Origines “Do you agree with me that causation all the way down is an absurd “explanation”? IOWs do you, as I do, reject an infinite regress in causation?” I thought I answered this but I do agree. “And let me add this: if you do agree, does this imply that there are ‘uncaused’ (or ‘self-caused’) things?” I want to be precise as I can be. I don’t agree that there are uncaused finite, contingent effects or things. “Why do you think that it is required (or even possible) to be first aware of something that is not self in order to be aware of self?” I will once you answer my question ,how can one be aware of self if not first aware of something that is not self? Vividvividbleau
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Vividbleau @
VB: “Correct furthermore how can one be aware of self if not first aware of something that is not self? Origenes explanations are absurd, basically self creation.”
Why do you think that it is required (or even possible) to be first aware of something that is not self in order to be aware of self? BTW you did not answer the following question:
O: Do you agree with me that causation all the way down is an absurd “explanation”? IOWs do you, as I do, reject an infinite regress in causation?
And let me add this: if you do agree, does this imply that there are ‘uncaused’ (or ‘self-caused’) things? - - - -
VB: These are not the only two options the third option being the existence of a necessary existence, an existence that cannot not exist, that has the power of being in itself, it is eternal and self existing.
And everything else is caused? How do you explain free responsible persons?Origenes
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Origines “If we reject an infinite regress of causation as an explanation for all things, then it follows that there are at least two distinct ontological ways for things to be: caused and self-caused (or ‘uncaused’). .” These are not the only two options the third option being the existence of a necessary existence, an existence that cannot not exist, that has the power of being in itself, it is eternal and self existing. Vividvividbleau
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
Viola Lee
May I put the question this way: does not free will imply the ability to make and implement an uncaused effect?
What, in the name of sense, are you trying to say? There is no such thing as an uncaused effect. In the present case, the intelligent agent is the cause and the free will decision is the effect. However, as LCD tried to explain, and as I have indicated several times,. it doesn't end there. There is also a prior cause. Someone or something (I would argue, the Creator), had to provide the agent with the *capacity* to think, make decisions, and start a new causal chain. These capacities or powers consist of the spiritual faculties of intelligence and free will (and , of course, the physical organ of the brain). However, the Creator, the one who gives the creature these capacities, is not the one who makes the free-will decision. It is the creature who has been given the power to be his or her own causal agent that does that.. The Creator grants the powers of thinking and making decision to the creature. He does not think or make decisions for the creature (though He can and will help when invited to do so).StephenB
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
StephenB @333 If we reject an infinite regress of causation as an explanation for all things, then it follows that there are at least two distinct ontological ways for things to be: caused and self-caused (or ‘uncaused’). . Caused things can be understood in a space/time context. A self-caused thing cannot be understood this way. A self-caused thing is one thing, it has aspects but does not consist of parts. In my philosophy a person is self-caused, a unity. I must note that I do propose a context for this self-causation to come about. However, this context is not causative, instead it creates the conditions for this spontaneous act to occur. I have illustrated the self-causative nature of the person, by talking about self-awareness, which, as I have argued, does not consist of parts and cannot be understood in a time-context. Also, I have pointed out that freedom and responsibility points to self-causation.Origenes
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Origines “We are in agreement once more. It seems to me that freedom and responsibility cannot be explained without invoking “self-causation”, a concept which is ridiculed by StephenB & Vividbleau” The goalposts are moving, here is what is on the table Sb “You can, as the subject, be the source or origin of your thoughts and feelings, but you cannot, as you seem to believe, be the SOURCE or ORIGIN of your *capacity* to think or feel.” SB “How can a person who HAS NOT YET COME INTO BEING observe himself?” VB “Correct furthermore how can one be aware of self if not first aware of something that is not self? Origenes explanations are absurd, basically self creation.” Vividvividbleau
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
If a free act originates in a free person, then it (obviously) cannot be traced back to a source external to the person. Assuming that a free act can be regarded as a series of cause & effect events, this implies that a series of cause and effects events has a First Cause within the domain of the person. This First Cause is a pure act of freedom, “uncaused”, no prior cause, or put differently “self-caused.”Origenes
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Origenes: @329
Does your answer imply that the cause of a person’s free act can be traced back to a realm independent from the person?
Way back @310, I made a few inquiries about your philosophy and you asked me to hold them (temporarily) while you asked me two questions on your end. I tried to be gracious by answering both of them. You then followed up with another question, which I also answered. Now you are following up yet again. No problem. I will, in time, address any issue that is on your mind. However, you have not yet given me a response to my earlier inquiries. I think this would be a good time to do that since I may have a few follow up questions of my own.StephenB
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Origenes “But let’s wait and see what they come up with.” How about you coming up with answers to our questions which you promised to do in 312 if we answered your question posed in 312. Asking more questions is not an answer. SB and I answered your question now it’s your turn. Vividvividbleau
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Viola Lee @ We are in agreement once more. It seems to me that freedom and responsibility cannot be explained without invoking "self-causation", a concept which is ridiculed by StephenB & Vividbleau. But let's wait and see what they come up with.Origenes
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Yes, that is what I mean Origenes. The person is the cause, and nothing external to the person is causing the person's decision or action.Viola Lee
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
StephenB, Viola Lee @
O: Do you agree with me that freedom and responsibility implies self-causation?
SB: No.
Does your answer imply that the cause of a person’s free act can be traced back to a realm independent from the person? - - - - Viola Lee:
May I put the question this way: does not free will imply the ability to make and implement an uncaused effect?
I agree, providing that by “uncaused” you mean “uncaused by something other than the free person.”Origenes
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Origenes:
Follow-up question: Do you agree with me that freedom and responsibility implies self-causation?
No.StephenB
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
KF, so you agree that free will implies that our decisions are uncaused causes - true?Viola Lee
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
PS: Self-moved does not imply self origination. Only an existing agent can reflect, decide and act.kairosfocus
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
VL, our being self-moved, so reflexive with ability to act into the world implies being a first cause that can set in motion chains of onward effects. That is a big part of what the Smith, two tier controller cybernetic loop is about. Such things are aware of the world, of themselves and stance in the world, and can decide and act with the implied freedom. If that freedom fails, credible mind collapses with it, i.e. the implicit or explicit denial of responsible rational freedom is self-referential and self-destructive of reason. Agency is an antecedent to reasoned thought and undermining it breaks down credibility of such thought. KFkairosfocus
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
SB [attn Origenes etc], it seems we are seeing the onward challenge of logic of being and of recognising that there is what is impossible of being in any possible world and that of possible beings there are contingent and necessary ones. Where cause only attaches to contingency of being. Further to such, there is a failure to recognise that an infinite chain of cause-effect stages cannot have been traversed due to the logic of transfiniteness. Further to such, the concept of reflexivity of a self aware self moved creature is being improperly extended to self-origin. Circular, retrocausation of origin fails, the not yet causing itself. The already going concern reflecting on and acting through itself or rather oneself is quite different and goes beyond the now familiar feedback loop. Of course, the Smith two tier controller cybernetic loop is quite relevant but needs to be pondered. KFkairosfocus
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
That's a separate question, but that doesn't make Origenes' (or mine) a wrong question.Viola Lee
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
Viola Lee May I put the question this way: does not free will imply the ability to make and implement an uncaused effect?
Yes, but this is the wrong question. Where from came this ability/tool that allows to a person to be the creator of a completely new chain of causes that do not obey the physical laws of cause-effect mechanism?Lieutenant Commander Data
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
May I put the question this way: does not free will imply the ability to make and implement an uncaused effect?Viola Lee
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
StephenB, Vividbleau @ Follow-up question: Do you agree with me that freedom and responsibility implies self-causation?Origenes
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
Viola Lee I don’t think you comprehended my comments very well LCD but I won’t try to explain because I think things probably wouldn’t improve.
:lol: There is nothing to understand you just use a trickery to bring in your yin yang philosophy.Lieutenant Commander Data
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
Origenes said:
Chimpanzees are sentient and they occasionally kill and eat their own kind without expelling or punishing the perpetrators.
Yeah, it's not like humans have been known to stand by and do nothing while someone commits an evil act.
Again, many animals are sentient and exhibit no forms of morality, ethics, duty, etc. ...
.... except behaviors I described as fundamental forms of morality - enjoyment of life, beginning with survival, food, etc. Perhaps on the level of being an animal in the wild, enjoying life consists mostly of not being killed, not being in pain and not being hungry. As animals became domesticated and didn't have predators, food and avoiding pain governing virtually everything going on in their mind, they developed more human-like qualities and found new ways to enjoy life. I mean, if we're just going to attempt to read the minds of animals to make an argument. You're arguing from your concept of morality, not mine. It seems you also suffer from the same inability on display from so many others here: you keep mistaking your perspective for mine. If I believed in your perspective of morality, your objections and "animal mind reading" would be on-target criticisms. However, I have explicitly outlined that my form of objective morality is inextricably rooted in enjoyment (and avoidance of pain, hunger, etc - anti-enjoyable experiences.) As I said before:
Show me where the eventual product of moral behavior is not inextricably linked to some abstract, enjoyable ends, and then you’ll have a decent argument [that morality is not an extension of enjoyment].
I guess you couldn't come up with such an example.William J Murray
January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT
Origenes:
My aim is not just to find the truth. My aim is to find & understand the truth.
This is an admirable goal. If you pursue it with all your heart, it will happen. --- “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you." --- Matthew 7:7StephenB
January 29, 2022
January
01
Jan
29
29
2022
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
Origenes:
Before I respond to your criticisms questions to you both.
Go for it.
Do you agree with me that causation all the way down is an absurd “explanation”? IOWs do you, as I do, reject an infinite regress in causation?
Absolutely
If so, do you agree with me, that it can be said that God is his own cause?
Absolutely notStephenB
January 29, 2022
January
01
Jan
29
29
2022
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
Origenes “If so, do you agree with me, that it can be said that God is his own cause?” No. Vividvividbleau
January 29, 2022
January
01
Jan
29
29
2022
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
Viola Lee @
Our ability to conceive of this cause is limited by our experience, so it is natural to assume that the cause must be something like how we experience ourselves. I don’t think this is a good assumption. I think it is more likely that this cause is something beyond our ability to conceive, and that assuming a deliberative intelligence like ours is an anthropomorphism.
My aim is not just to find the truth. My aim is to find & understand the truth. Because a truth which I cannot understand is of no value to me. So, I want foremost understand the truth and this has profound consequences in my search for truth. Allow me to illustrate this with an example. What is understanding? I am able to understand something fully if I can see it in front of me in its entirety. Put another way, if some of the causative elements, of what I am trying to understand, are out of my sight, hidden from me, I am not able to fully understand what I am looking at. On this ground I reject e.g. an infinite regress in causation. I cannot see an infinite regress “in front of me” in its entirety — it is too big. I cannot grasp, encompass infinity with my mind, there is no entirety of infinity, IOWs I cannot understand it. So, in line with what I said earlier, I reject an infinite regress in causation because it is not understandable by me, I seek alternative explanations, and I sincerely hope that an infinite regress is not part of the truth, because that would mean that the truth, which I seek, is not understandable by me; a profound dissapointment. And on the same ground I reject your idea, that there is a cause “beyond our ability to conceive.” I am not saying that you are wrong, but I do hope you are, because I desperately want to understand. So, before I arrive at your conclusion I will explore all other understandable options first. Because, again, my aim is to find & understand the truth.Origenes
January 29, 2022
January
01
Jan
29
29
2022
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Viola Lee
Our ability to conceive of this cause [An intelligent agent as the cause of nature’s design features] is limited by our experience,
Everything in our experience tells us that design features are always the product of an intelligent agent. A design is understood as a purposeful arrangement of parts. It can be detected in the sequential arrangement of nucleotides in a living organism, or something as simple as the Letters S.O.S. written in the sand.
so it is natural to assume that the cause must be something like how we experience ourselves.
It isn’t natural at all to make such a self centered assumption. The whole point of conducting an investigation is to learn something about the object of the investigation, not to wallow in the experience of the investigator.
I think it is more likely that this cause is something beyond our ability to conceive, and that assuming a deliberative intelligence like ours is an anthropomorphism.
A purposeful arrangement of parts will always indicate the work of a designing agent. This is even true for animals. Do you think it is an exercise in anthropomorphism to recognize the purposeful arrangement of twigs, grass, and leaves found in a bird's nest? If not, then why make that same attribution to the purposeful arrangement of nucleotides found in a living organism?StephenB
January 29, 2022
January
01
Jan
29
29
2022
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
StephenB & Vividbleau Before I respond to your criticisms questions to you both. Do you agree with me that causation all the way down is an absurd "explanation"? IOWs do you, as I do, reject an infinite regress in causation? If so, do you agree with me, that it can be said that God is his own cause?Origenes
January 29, 2022
January
01
Jan
29
29
2022
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
SB “How can a person who has not yet “come into being” observe himself?” Correct furthermore how can one be aware of self if not first aware of something that is not self? Origenes explanations are absurd, basically self creation. Carry on this is fun to,watch. Vividvividbleau
January 29, 2022
January
01
Jan
29
29
2022
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 14

Leave a Reply