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

_{Barry Arrington
January 21, 2022

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

But no one yet has addressed the question of where in nature do we find the origin of morality--of right and wrong. The Golden Rule is not found in nature--a mountain lion doesn't consider whether taking down and killing a deer hurts the deer, only that it's hungry and needs to eat. Certainly, they can experience emotions such as territoriality, rage, fear, and so on. But not, for example, the Ten Commandments. Isn't describing morality as "our essential nature" ducking the issue of where the concept of right and wrong originated? It's like asserting that planets move in circular paths because "it's their nature" to do so. Isn't our "essential nature" as humans to deceive, steal, dominate and kill as much as any random acts of kindness? Just read the newspaper. Don't people driving cars exhibit aggression as much as kindness when, for example, two lanes merge into one? -QQuerius_{January 28, 2022
January
01
Jan
28
28
2022
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PST}

SB “How can a person who has not yet “come into being” observe himself?” Easy, as I pointed out on another thread before I was told to shut up by KF Origines existed before he existed. “To be or not to be” is now “To be or not to be at the same time and in the same relationship.” He is and he isn’t. I predict that the next thing to go will be the denial of the LNC and logic itself. Vividvividbleau_{January 28, 2022
January
01
Jan
28
28
2022
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PST}

This really is the central issue: Stephen and KF believe there is a God who is, among other things, the moral lawgiver to whom we have responsibilities and duties. But, speaking for myself, I am not "eager to rid [myself] of God”, because I don't believe there is any such entity to rid myself of. My position is based on an acceptance that an essential aspect of our nature is that we have to choose how to live, using our mind, our will, our rationality, and our moral sense (all in the context of the physical world in which we live): there is no rule book given to us by any extra-human entity. We’re on our own. This is just something we have to live with. Making up mythical narratives about gods, of all forms, to structure our understanding and rationalize our choices has strong social and psychological value, and makes our lives easier, but those narratives are not true. Probably not necessary or reasonable for me to say any more than that here.Viola Lee_{January 28, 2022
January
01
Jan
28
28
2022
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PST}

KF @273 writes:
PS: Your right implies my duty.
Yes, indeed, Kf. That brief comment deserves more than a PS. It dramatizes a point that our subjectivist adversaries always miss. Natural rights depend on, and must be linked to, the Natural Moral Law. Put another way, rights and responsibilities always go together. The subjectivists, ever eager to rid themselves of God, the lawgiver, are equally prepared to rid themselves of God, the rights giver. If they were a danger only to themselves, I wouldn't mind it so much, but their irrational world view puts all of us in jeopardy.StephenB_{January 28, 2022
January
01
Jan
28
28
2022
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PST}

Origenes:
the self-aware person comes into being by the creative act of observing oneself.
How can a person who has not yet “come into being” observe himself?
Enigmatically self-awareness is due to a (“already”) conscious person observing itself. So, there is no created unconscious thing observing itself before self awareness. There is no person before this act of self-observation.
In the first sentence, you say that an “already conscious person” observes itself and becomes self aware. In the third sentence, you say that the act of observing one’s self precedes the existence of that person. Which is it?
No aspect of observing oneself can be delegated to anyone else. No outsider of any kind can be involved. Absolute unity with oneself.
If no creator or designer from the outside is necessary, how do you explain the existence of the preexistent conscious person? Are you saying that all persons, including you, are the cause of their own existence? Equally important, how do you explain the capacity of any person, self-aware or not self aware, to perform a “creative act of observation?”StephenB_{January 28, 2022
January
01
Jan
28
28
2022
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PST}

We disagree, KF. I know you "find yourself under law". I have a different philosophical perspective, which I am working at articulating here.Viola Lee_{January 28, 2022
January
01
Jan
28
28
2022
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PST}

I hold that most ppl converge on e.g. “torture is wrong” because no one likes to be tortured
:lol: This is a non explanation.
I wouldn’t want to argue that some things are really not a choice, but even if one does make the argument, it would be because the context of the choice in the world we live in is so compelling, not because that particular choice had a different type of “objective” ontological status.
:lol: This is a non-explanation. These are childish non-explanations because " the pain" is not an ultimate self-governing reality .On the contrary depends of other variables but materialist theology (or incoherency ) have to do what have to do.Lieutenant Commander Data_{January 28, 2022
January
01
Jan
28
28
2022
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PST}

VL, we find ourselves under law, we do not invent the governing principles of duty, right conduct etc and impose them on others, we find ourselves already under duty to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, sound conscience [direct testimony!], neighbour so too to fairness and justice etc. Do you find yourself as having rights beyond what your might and clever manipulation impose or seduce? Start, with the right to life, innocent reputation, honestly acquired property etc. KF PS: Your right implies my duty.kairosfocus_{January 28, 2022
January
01
Jan
28
28
2022
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PST}

Yes, I mentioned how input from our nature and nurture are the context in which we make our choices, and some aspects of that input are so universal that virtually all of us make the same moral choice. But, as I wrote, "ultimately, philosophically, the output of affirmed moral values comes from our free and responsible moral nature." I wouldn't want to argue that some things are really not a choice, but even if one does make the argument, it would be because the context of the choice in the world we live in is so compelling, not because that particular choice had a different type of "objective" ontological status.Viola Lee_{January 28, 2022
January
01
Jan
28
28
2022
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PST}

Viola Lee @270 I agree with your general viewpoint. One comment though.
The difference is between confirmation and affirmation. We can confirm that a tree exists through common experience of it as an object. But we affirm that moral values are true: we choose a commitment to them, and they only become an object, so to speak, because of that affirmation.
I hold that most ppl converge on e.g. "torture is wrong" because no one likes to be tortured and most of us apply the golden rule. The point I would like to make is that the preference to not be tortured can arguably not be said to be a "choice." Perhaps in an ultimate sense it can, but the preference not to experience excruciating pain is largely forced upon us by our nature.Origenes_{January 28, 2022
January
01
Jan
28
28
2022
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PST}

Bowing back in: your point is essential. As free-willed moral creatures, we are the cause of morality: all the consensual moral understanding in the world, or within cultures, comes from the individual people who are choosing and actualizing their morality. It all comes from the subject. The idea that moral truths have some independent existence apart from their existence in individual people is false. The difference is between confirmation and affirmation. We can confirm that a tree exists through common experience of it as an object. But we affirm that moral values are true: we choose a commitment to them, and they only become an object, so to speak, because of that affirmation. Of course we come to various degrees of consensus about moral values because of common input into our lives from nature and nurture, but ultimately, philosophically, the output of affirmed moral values comes from our free and responsible moral nature.Viola Lee_{January 28, 2022
January
01
Jan
28
28
2022
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PST}

If X creates your faculties of intelligence and free will so that you will have the capacity to think and make decisions for yourself, then X is the source of your capacity to think and make decisions and you are the source of your thoughts and decisions.
This scenario is IMO logically impossible. To be free, to be responsible, implies self-causation. If A is the sole cause of B, then B cannot cause itself. - - - But, again, I doubt that these issues should be part of the discussion about objective vs subjective.Origenes_{January 28, 2022
January
01
Jan
28
28
2022
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PST}

Stephen, I see that you were addressing Origenes, not me, so I apologize for pressing you on responding to me. I don't agree with everything he says, but I do agree with the general viewpoint he has taken, and have supported him in his arguments. I've had my say about some main points from my point of view, and will bow out now.Viola Lee_{January 28, 2022
January
01
Jan
28
28
2022
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PST}

SB@ //on the claims “I, Origenes, exist” & “I, Origenes, am self aware”//
O: I arrive at a self-evident truth. For me it is impossible to coherently deny my own existence. You don’t have access to this self-evident truth.
SB: We both have access to the same truth.
In what sense is it the “same truth”? The truth I arrive at is a *self-evident truth*. You arrive at a *fact* by means of an inference to the best explanation. This is the first difference. Is it about the same thing? I make an ontological claim about my inner self, to which I have access and you do not. For you the inner self of Origenes is a concept, for me it is direct experienced reality. Your truth is about a concept, my truth is about direct experienced reality. We are pointing at different things.
That is what makes it objective. If it was subjective, it would be known only by you.
From my perspective, it remains subjective. My existence is self-evident to me also if no one else knows about my existence. Whether or not others are aware of my existence has nothing to do with the truth I arrive at. From your perspective, it is objective, because it is about something external to you. So, whose perspective dictates what kind of truth it *is*? Are we saying it is an “objective truth”, in accord with your perspective, or “subjective truth”, in accord with my perspective? To me this question illustrates (again) that we are dealing with two distinct truths.Origenes_{January 28, 2022
January
01
Jan
28
28
2022
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PST}

SB: Meanwhile, you have not yet addressed the major problem with your hyper-subjective philosophy: 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. Origenes:
If everything about me is created by X, then X is the one and only source, and it makes no sense to say that I am the source of anything.
If X creates your faculties of intelligence and free will so that you will have the capacity to think and make decisions for yourself, then X is the source of your capacity to think and make decisions and you are the source of your thoughts and decisions.
If all I am is a creation by X, then X is the source of everything that comes next.
Obviously, that is not the case, If X was the source of everything that comes next, then X would be doing all the thinking and making all the decisions. Your capacity to think and make decisions would be meaningless.
Just like Viola Lee I am wondering why you bring this issue up and what it’s relevancy is, if any, to subjective vs objective.
I am challenging your claim that you are the source of your intellectual capacities.StephenB_{January 28, 2022
January
01
Jan
28
28
2022
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PST}

SB @
The problem with your position is that you seem to reduce everything to the subjective realm, even to the point of thinking that you are the “source” and the “origin” of your self awareness. You are not. Logically the source of your self awareness, your consciousness, and your existence must come from the outside. Someone or something external to you had to bring those qualities into being.
Perhaps me saying a bit more is appropriate here. You are correct that in my philosophy one is the source/origin of one’s own self awareness. A short sketch: the self-aware person comes into being by the creative act of observing oneself. Enigmatically self-awareness is due to a (“already”) conscious person observing itself. So, there is no created unconscious thing observing itself before self awareness. There is no person before this act of self-observation. No aspect of observing oneself can be delegated to anyone else. No outsider of any kind can be involved. Absolute unity with oneself. A lot more can be said about all this if appropriate.Origenes_{January 28, 2022
January
01
Jan
28
28
2022
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PST}

SB, Viola Lee@
SB: Meanwhile, you have not yet addressed the major problem with your hyper-subjective philosophy: 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.
As I have stated before, I don’t agree with this. If everything about me is created by X, then X is the one and only source, and it makes no sense to say that I am the source of anything. If all I am is a creation by X, then X is the source of everything that comes next. Just like Viola Lee I am wondering why you bring this issue up and what it’s relevancy is, if any, to subjective vs objective.Origenes_{January 28, 2022
January
01
Jan
28
28
2022
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PST}

SB, as a note, testimony of a responsible, credible witness often provides adequate warrant, and this may apply to internal, first person states. Multiple testimonies may suffice for other cases. Of course, such is generally not certain beyond correction but most knowledge is like that, but few things relatively speaking are self evident, analytical, tautological or the like. This brings us to validity of introspection or contemplation as reported, including self awareness, where we all experience same personally and have current and historical reports etc, establishing it as fact beyond reasonable doubt on the second or third person general case. For one's own self awareness we each have self evident truth. But that then reinforces the report and leads to the inference such is a general human characteristic, which we even measure on say the Glasgow coma scale. As for the more restrictive, person X experiences love of vanilla ice cream, the first person experience is subjective and private save that God will be aware. The experience honestly reported by credible person suffices for simple day to day warrant to accept as true and as fact, of course defeasible but good enough for government work or family life or friendship etc. Associated behaviours reinforce the evidence of testimony. Knowing preference, we purchase and serve X ice cream. Error proneness is of course a key issue leading to right reason towards warrant, e.g. our eyes and other senses are prone to defects, but we are warranted to trust their results in general unless defeated by particular circumstances. Hyperskepticism here leads to notions such as the denial of an in common independent physical world that some have tried to argue for at UD, then we have seen some put up claims about experiences of the spirit world etc. expecting such to be taken as reliable report. My comment there is we have one highly credible witness, Jesus of Nazareth. KFkairosfocus_{January 27, 2022
January
01
Jan
27
27
2022
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PST}

Viola Lee
Stephen, I responded to that last paragraph
Meaning no disrespect. but I didn't ask you to respond to that last paragraph, I asked Origenes to respond - and I have made that request several times. The reason is that, as I recall, he said that he was the source and origin of his self-awareness. That would be an example of radical subjectivism. As far as I know, you have not said anything like that, but you appear to agree with everything he says without exception. So If you would like to take his place and write the clarification for him, perhaps he would appreciate it.StephenB_{January 27, 2022
January
01
Jan
27
27
2022
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PST}

Origenes
Amazing. Subjective is anything as long as it is not factual or true. What a ridiculous definition.
Bad logic. It wasn't a definition. It was a qualifier. To say that A could be similar to B in some respects, is not at all the same as saying A = B.
Why not say it? Objective is just another word for “true.”
Because objective is related to, but not synonymous with, true. Again, intellectual distinctions are important.StephenB_{January 27, 2022
January
01
Jan
27
27
2022
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PST}

I think I have explained that I do recognize that there are causes connected with my existence, but given those, the significant thing to my is how I experience the being that I am. So I don't understand the significance of your repeated point that I cannot, "as you seem to believe [but I don't], be the source or origin of your *capacity* to think or feel." I think I've been pretty clear that I don't know the source of the consciousness, or mind, that I experience, but given that I have those qualities, what is of interest to me is how they work in respect to my life as a human being. Maybe you can explain more? Or maybe you think something here is obvious? I'm puzzled, but I won't pursue it further unless you have more you'd like to say.Viola Lee_{January 27, 2022
January
01
Jan
27
27
2022
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PST}

Viola Lee
Stephen, you write, ............ Then, Stephen, what is the relevance of your point that ,,,,,,,,,,,
In the first example, I was responding to a specific question that you asked. In the second example, I was responding to a specific question that Origenes. Please read for context since the nuances are different.StephenB_{January 27, 2022
January
01
Jan
27
27
2022
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PST}

Stephen, I responded to that last paragraph when I wrote,
Of course, my “subjectivist” world view (not a term I use) recognizes that I, as a human being in this universe, exist due to external causal factors. However, I don’t know what those factors are, at least in the ultimate sense, but I don’t see how that changes the existential nature of my experiences.
I also responded back earlier when I wrote,
Stephen, you ask two things: what do I think about the source of self-awareness and about the source of my existence. I’m not sure whether you mean ultimate or proximate cause. I believe consciousness (or more broadly, mind) is a part of human nature, and our self-awareness is one of the manifestations of consciousness. So our mind is the proximate cause of our self-awareness. The biological world is the proximate cause of my physical existence as a specific physical being. I do not know, and I don’t think anyone does, how the mind and the body exist as a complementary whole, and how they interact back-and-forth with each other. I do not know, and don’t believe anyone does, the ultimate cause of consciousness and mind, any more than we know how the physical world came to be. I know, of course, that Christians believe both were created by God, but other religions have other ideas, and I personally think this is unknowable. But I take my conscious, willful experience as a given, a core of who “I” am: as an experiential given. And I believe that moral truths (I believe you wanted to call them values to distinguish them from the kind of truths you believe in) are products of my conscious, willful mind: choices I make and experience internally and then manifest outwardly. I also believe that I (everyone) takes multiple things into consideration in forming their moral values, from deep core commonalities with all other human beings to idiosyncratic beliefs from our culture, all tempered by our reason and familiarity with various wisdom traditions to varying degrees.
So I don’t understand the significance of your complaint that I (or Origenes) don’t take the cause of my existence into account. I start with my own experience as a mindul, will-ful human being: of course many external factors have gone into making me who am I, but given all that, I am the source of my recognition and adherence to my own moral values. So can you explain more why you think the last paragraph of 250 and 257 is significant?Viola Lee_{January 27, 2022
January
01
Jan
27
27
2022
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PST}

Origenes:
In principle you can observe me choosing and enjoying vanilla ice cream every time. Those are behavioral effects of my taste glands. What is the principle difference with the behavioral effects of my intellectual faculty? Why do you say that you can experience the latter but not the former?
Even if I was in your physical presence, which I am not, I could not observe you choosing or preferring vanilla ice cream *over* chocolate ice cream. I could only observe you choosing vanilla ice cream. My experience of observing the behavioral effects of your taste glands would not inform me about your preferences. Even if you swooned with delight at the experience, I would have no way of knowing that you prefer vanilla over chocolate. You could behave that way even if you didn’t know chocolate ice cream exists. Or, maybe you would prefer to eat chocolate ice cream and would swoon even more at that experience. With your intellectual faculty, it is different. From my experience of observing its effects, such as your written prose and your arguments, I can conclude, with a high level of confidence, that you do, in fact, exist. Indeed, I do not even need to be in your physical presence to make that calculation. Meanwhile, you have not yet addressed the major problem with your hyper-subjective philosophy: 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. These capacities or faculties, such as the faculties of intelligence and emotion, were bequeathed to you by something or someone outside of you. They certainly did not come from inside of you. As far as I can tell, your subjectivist world view does not recognize these external causal factors.StephenB_{January 27, 2022
January
01
Jan
27
27
2022
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PST}

Stephen, you write, “Here are a few more examples of things that exist in the subjective realm: feelings, opinions, hopes, dreams, experiences, preferences, or moral values (as opposed to moral truths)” Then, Stephen, what is the relevance of your point that
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. These capacities or faculties, such as the faculties of intelligence and emotion, were bequeathed to you by something or someone outside of you. They certainly did not come from inside of you. Your subjectivist world view does not seem to recognize these external causal factors.
Of course, my "subjectivist" world view (not a term I use) recognizes that I, as a human being in this universe, exist due to external causal factors. However, I don't know what those factors are, at least in the ultimate sense, but I don't see how that changes the existential nature of my experiences. And of course the key issue here is, to use your distinction, I have moral values, which arise and reside within me, but I don't see any evidence that moral truths exist that are outside of me (other than in other persons who have similar values). Someplace above you wrote, “A claim rises to the level of objective fact only if it is knowable by those other than the claimant.” That a tree exists outside my window is an objective fact its existence is knowable by virtually all human beings. My existence is an objective fact, you say, because that is knowable to both you and I, even though you know it only from the outside, without access to my conscious experience, and I know it both from the inside and the outside. But I don’t see how the objective moral truths that you claim exist are knowable in the same sense: you believe some significant things are moral that I don’t (we’ll avoid examples for now), and I don’t see how you can claim your truths are knowable by me other than by claiming they are your moral values, and trying to convince me to adopt them. I know you make arguments about why your moral truths have some better claim to being right, but really they have exactly the same existential nature as mine: they are subjective in the sense that the arise and reside in you just as mine arise and reside in me.Viola Lee_{January 27, 2022
January
01
Jan
27
27
2022
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PST}

SB@
Here are a few more examples of things that exist in the subjective realm: feelings, opinions, hopes, dreams, experiences, preferences, or moral values (as opposed to moral truths) It could be almost anything that doesn’t rise to the level of fact or truth.
Amazing. Subjective is anything as long as it is not factual or true. What a ridiculous definition. Why not say it? Objective is just another word for "true."Origenes_{January 27, 2022
January
01
Jan
27
27
2022
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PST}

StephenB, Viola Lee@ Talking about vanilla flavor ice cream subjective preferences, you didn't answer my question SB. I repeat it here for your convenience:
SB: On the other hand, if you make a claim about your preference for vanilla ice cream, its truth value is unknowable by others. Even if they take you at your word and believe you, they cannot know it for a fact.
O: Why is that they cannot know it for a fact Stephen? Because they do not have access to my taste?
SB: Precisely. I cannot experience the effects of your taste glands the same way that I can experience the effects of your intellectual faculty, from which I can infer your existence..
O: In principle you can observe me choosing and enjoying vanilla ice cream every time. Those are behavioral effects of my taste glands. What is the principle difference with the behavioral effects of my intellectual faculty? Why do you say that you can experience the latter but not the former?
Origenes_{January 27, 2022
January
01
Jan
27
27
2022
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PST}

Viola Lee
Stephen, is there anything then that is truly subjective only? Can you give an example?
I have been giving examples all along. Where has everyone been? The list is almost endless. Here are a few more examples of things that exist in the subjective realm: feelings, opinions, hopes, dreams, experiences, preferences, or moral values (as opposed to moral truths) It could be almost anything that doesn't rise to the level of fact or truth.StephenB_{January 27, 2022
January
01
Jan
27
27
2022
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PST}

KF @
… is it not important to enhance reliability by applying a filtering process towards adequate warrant?
With certain things surely. However, obviously you cannot have warrant all the way down. Foundational to all knowledge is the subject.
5: If you admit yes, then you know the difference between subjectivity and objectivity and why the objective is credibly independent of our subjectivity, having been adequately warranted.
I have already addressed your proposal that ‘objective’ has only to do with warrant. Once more, perhaps you will grasp it this time: … suppose you make the claim “I prefer vanilla ice-cream over chocolate ice-cream” We all agree that this is an archetypal subjective claim, right? Now suppose further that there is adequate warrant for your claim independent from your subjectivity; witnesses, recorded behavioral patterns and so on. Does your claim shape-shift from subjective to objective due to the existence of this warrant? And then there is an even more profound problem with your idea of warrant independent from subjectivity. You accept that “I exist” & “I am self-aware” are self-evident truths. However the warrant [it’s self-evidency] is not independent of one’s subjectivity, which you demand it to be. The warrant lies within the subjective experience of not being able to coherently deny one’s own existence/self-awareness. But I repeat myself. This is my last post to you on this matter. You are free to proclaim once more that I have been adequately answered a long time ago.Origenes_{January 27, 2022
January
01
Jan
27
27
2022
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PST}

Stephen, is there anything then that is truly subjective only? Can you give an example?Viola Lee_{January 27, 2022
January
01
Jan
27
27
2022
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 14 Next