On Moral Progress In A Materialist World

_{Barry Arrington
November 13, 2007

Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

A commenter in my last post gave a very nice summary of the current state of thinking about moral progress among matrialists. Obviously, by definition, materialists cannot point to a transcendent moral code by which to measure moral progress. Indeed, it is difficult for them to account for moral progress at all because if materialism is correct, the “is” in a society defines the “ought.” The commenter took a stab at it nevertheless and came up with this:

In terms of progress: I would say that progress is measured by the increase or decrease of the sphere of human recognition. We today recognize the humanity of African-Americans — a recognition that was denied to their ancestors. It is the contrast between the present and the past, not between the present and an imagined future, that indicates whether or not progress has occurred. Although such recognition still has some ways to go, as measures go, it’s not a bad one.

In response I would like to pose two questions:

1. On what basis do you say that the recognition of the humanity of African-Americans is “progress” unless you have held up the previous nonrecognition and the present recognition to a code and deterermined the former was bad (i.e., did not meet the code) and the latter is good (i.e., does meet the code)? In other words, when you say we have “progressed” it is just another way of saying that the previous state of affairs was bad and the present state of affairs is good. But how can you know this unless there is a code that transcends time and place by which both states of affairs can be measured. Certainly to say that things were previously one way and now they are another is not the same as saying there has been progress. Change is not the same as progress.

2. Increasingly in our society pornography is viewed as an affirmatively good thing. Perhaps that is even the majority view today, so let us assume for the sake of argument that the majority of people in America think pornography is a good thing. Does the fact that the majority of people believe pornography is a good thing in fact make the exploitation and objectification of women for the sexual gratification of men good? Would you say that there has been moral progress because now our society recognizes that the exploitation and objectification of women for the sexual gratification of men is good wheras before we believed that was bad?

Comments

Stephen, I take it, from (241), that you refuse to accept my attempt to distinguish between objectivity and absoluteness. I don't expect to convince you, but would you be willing to clarify your criticisms of this distinction? And for what little it may be worth, I actually think that virtue ethics is the best approach to thinking about ethics. In that respect I've learned a lot from Alastair MacIntyre and from Iris Murdoch (who I find vastly underrated). But MacIntyre clearly doesn't think that neo-Thomism approach to ethics and politics requires teleological biology. So he's an interesting figure for you, and I'm curious as to what you think of him.Carl Sachs_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PST}

----Professor Smith writes "......but materialism also leads to an ends justfies the means mentality, which is highly immoral. For example, a Darwinist on my blog has become so obsessed with me that he’s paranoid about who I am and coming up with all kinds of weird trials for me to “prove” myself to him." Many on this blog are on record saying that they do not believe in objective/absolute reality or, by extension, objective/absolute morality. In effect, they make it up as they go along. This whole mess was set up over four hundred years ago. If philosophy had not abandoned reason/realism, and supplanted it with skepticism/subjectivism, there would have been no intellectual void for the materialist/Darwinists to fill. As I have tried to point out, we must return to something like a neo-Thomistic world view, under which good science and objective morality may flourish. Or, perhaps the success of ID scientists will clear the way for a philosophical revolution. I don’t care which happens first as long as we get our sanity back. The investigator must stop intruding on the investigation, and the philosopher must stop confusing one with the other. Meanwhile, we can explain to all those who will listen that we are rational (or can be), that we live in a rational universe, and that there is a correspondence between the two. That is another way of saying that we are noble, but humble creatures--we are not Gods. We must respect “the laws of nature and nature’s God.”. As our founding fathers pointed out, this is a self-evident truth, and the only way to miss it is to be educated out of it. There are only three kinds of people in the world; the well- educated, the uneducated, and the badly educated. If I must choose between one of the last two, I will choose the uneducated person every time. That is because, unlike the badly educated person, the uneducated person is educable.StephenB_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PST}

I'm showing up very late for this thread and haven't gone through all 239 comments, so hopefully I'm not treading over old territory, but materialism also leads to an ends justfies the means mentality, which is highly immoral. For example, a Darwinist on my blog has become so obsessed with me that he's paranoid about who I am and coming up with all kinds of weird trials for me to "prove" myself to him. This is where the morality comes in, however. Because the end result is so important to him, he thought nothing of asking me to violate copyright law in order to pass some arcane test, and even defended it in comments that I've had to moderate because of his ever increasing tones of hostility and paranoia. FWIW, the commenter is Olegt here. Is he on moderation here as well? Also, off-topic, but does someone here know how to link my name to my blog when I post? Thanks to anyone who can help.professorsmith_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PST}

kairosfocus: When Miller and Barr hopefully get to heaven, Aquinas will be waiting there to pour a bucket of Gatoraide on them.StephenB_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PST}

A few notes: It seems the issues on objectivity of morality and on the discernibility of design in nature require a remark or two. 1] Mike1962, 235: we have imagination and insight with fear with respect to a future assault to ourselves or someone we care about. Is there a need to invoke a transcendent morality to explain that. First, why do we care at all, and why do we expect that others will respect that caring -- apart from that we got enough force to back it up to scare off an attack? [As in, what happens when you can only cower in your apartment as you hear the classic 4 am knock on the next door over . . . y'know, as the old SMERSH and NKVD [later, KGB] officers used to say: you can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs.] In short, slowy, out of the mists, there arises a very familiar monster: might makes "right." The very opposite of morality -- and one of the main roots of the destructive Darwinism (as "science" based worldview)-driven tyrannies of the past 100 years! Putting that another way, evolutionary materialism reduces us to being particularly clever animals, so it reduces morality to a sophisticated form of the classic law of the jungle. 2] Enter, stage left . . . To see where -- and who -- that traces back to, here is Darwin, in a letter to one William Graham dated July 3, 1881:
I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turk, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. [Hitler -- and note his fascination with how high German culture was -- is but a step away here, and to get to Stalin or Mao, substitute classes for races or tribes or nations -- not forgetting what Stalin tried to do to say the Chechins.]
And, if you wish to say that CD was mistaken for the selection in question is plainly intelligent so artificial, look again. For, on the evo mat view, what we do is the natural result of what we are -- apes jumped up through random variation and natural selection and in races/tribes/nations that serve as competing gene pools. So it is the same "natural selection" in the end. (BTW: Maybe, that is part of why examples of artificial selection keep on cropping up as examples of NS in the lit?) In short, and as C S Lewis pointed out, animals fight, we quarrel -- which requires a common acknowledgement of morality and duty to the right. Evo Mat cannot tell the difference between the two and collapses the latter into the former, thence leads to massive undermining of public morality. Rummel's 212 million democide deaths are the result. 3] Stephen B, 236: Thanks. 4] Stephen B, 237: I am convinced that Aquinas would agree with ID theorists that those things that appear designed are often, though not always designed.. It is more likely, in my judgment, that Aquinas would say that God creates through contingency when snowflakes and moon craters FORM—not when a DNA molecule is DESIGNED. Of course, it is a matter of common-sense that we infer from the appearance to the credible presence of design in every day life. Indeed, no-one reading this thread takes the lucky noise hyp seriously [cf. my always linked] as the best and default explanation for the posts in the thread. So, we can go on to construct an explanatory filter -- specification [esp. by functionality based on configuration] plus complexity [sufficiently large configuration spaces to make hitting such islands or archipelagos by chance maximally unlikely] -- which in EVERY case where we know the causal process directly, it detects design accurately. [Of course, we cheerfully accept many cases where it rejects design because the relevant probabilistic resources are not exhausted.] Now, extend to cases where we for good reason infer that we were not around to directly observe. The EF rules: design, for origin of life, for the origin of body-plan level biodiversity, and also for many subsystems in life that are irreducibly complex. It, or reasonable extensions thereof, rules that the existence of an observed cosmos that is life habitable is similarly designed for that purpose. Why -- apart from worldview level a priori assumptions and associated selective [thus inherently inconsistent] hyper-skepticism to reject unwelcome implications, do we see the rejection of the filter's results in these cases? I hear the ghost of that old "dumb Ox" [not!] laughing! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PST}

Barry A: I read the points by Stephen Barr. He basically makes the same points as Ken Miller, albeit with a little more eloquence and a little less arrogance. Here are the problems I have with it. Yes, God can use contingency when he cares to. The issue here, though, is a) how often, if ever does he do it and b) how does he apply it. Miller/Barr would have us believe that we can confidently apply this principle to biological organisms that, as they would have it, only appear to be designed. As “believers,” It saves them from the infamy of being accused of subscribing to an “undirected” process. Well, this approach may seem to render neo-Darwinism plausible, but I don’t think is does, nor do I think that is what Aquinas had in mind. I am convinced that Aquinas would agree with ID theorists that those things that appear designed are often, though not always designed.. It is more likely, in my judgment, that Aquinas would say that God creates through contingency when snowflakes and moon craters FORM---not when a DNA molecule is DESIGNED. Besides, they conveniently leave out Aquinas’ other (derived from Aristotle) views on causality—in #3 Also, keep in mind Aquinas is the very same one who argued that we can prove the existence of God through the use of unaided reason. What does that prove? Well, it proves that, for Aquinas, design can be detected in nature, because it is God’s designs that allow for the proofs. So how logical is it for Miller/Barr to try to use him to prove that design is NOT detectable in nature, when Aquinas is Mr. design himself. When you think about it the Miller/Barr scheme is anti-Catholic and downright schizophrenic—God reveals himself in Scripture; God hides himself in nature. It makes no sense. (Hence my harping on design in another context). Further, I question their premise here. What they are saying is that a “Catholic” understanding of causality requires us to focus on two factors, necessity and contingency. Well, yes in part, but that is not the whole story. That would be the liberal catholic way of looking at things. The catholic tent is also big enough to include, in fact, does include, the notion of Aristotle’s four- fold causality (efficient, material, formal, and final.) True enough, enlightenment thinkers decided to dispense with formal and final causes, and so would Miller/Barr prefer to keep them off the table. Obviously, they don’t want to revisit any idea, scientific or otherwise, that would challenge their paradigm and point to intelligent design. But not so fast! Function and teleology are still in play as far as I am concerned. Further, I resent this notion that the Miller/Barr contingent (I couldn’t resist) speaks for Catholics. Since I am Catholic, I will speak for myself, thank you. Besides Cardinal Schonborn is also on board with ID.. Indeed, he has been raising the issue lately about “where we come from and where are we going?” Why would he be using language like this if he was not hearkening back to something like a teleological way of approaching science? And by the way, who do you suspect turned this daring thinker loose? Why, none other the Pope Benedict XVI. Although he is less conspicuous about it, there is no doubt that he is open to ID at some level. Does the Miller/Barr connection allow for Popes to weigh in on the “catholic understanding of causality? Finally, there can be no doubt that this matter must be settled scientifically. However, some of us have become paranoid about discussing themes that direct our attention to the intersection of religion and science, which is precisely where ID resides. In fact, theological paradigms have provided the thought stimulators for both sides. Just about everyone who would presume to closethe door on ID appeals to a theological construct to get the ball rolling. Some bring up the problem of theodicy (God is too good to have designed such a terrible universe) and others clumsily and selectively invoke Aquinas’ notions about God’s providence (described above). Our theological and philosophical paradigms are equally useful to us. (Transcendent/immanent, mind/brain, Creator/creature, revelation/nature, form/matter etc.).StephenB_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PST}

kairosfocus: Your comments about science on #233 fulfill a desperate need.StephenB_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PST}

Borne [227] Borne: "If no pain followed the assault would you still find grounds to object? Why? Other than mere personal feelings. Would you claim the assault was intrinsically wrong?" This shows that we have imagination and insight with fear with respect to a future assault to ourselves or someone we care about. Is there a need to invoke a transcendent morality to explain that. "If a branch falls off a tree and lands on your head you will experience pain but you would feel no sense of blame against the branch." You might blame God, if you were so disposed. Many people have, I'm sure. I certainly have in my life. "Why me?" "What did I do to deserve this?" Etc. But does it demonstrate a transcendent morality beyond the fact that we don't like to suffer? "Are we to base moral rules upon feelings?" I can only give my opinion, which I've stated a couple of times here already, that our ideas of "good" and "evil" generally flow from our experiential knowledge of suffering. Beyond that it's specific proscriptions handed down by Yahweh through his prophets. And they may or may not make sense to us. "Why is it ‘good’ for soldiers, firemen police etc. to risk their lives for the ‘good’ of others? Or is it? Who decides the ‘good’ of others and upon what foundation? What exactly is this ‘good’ and ‘evil’ we intuitively understand?" I think that question is an utterly subjective one, that people try to argue various ways using their reason. Altruism is not a very consistent idea among humans, in my experience. But in any specific case, does an explanation beyond a manifestation of the pack mentality obtain here? And if were so obvious, why are we discussing it? Because it's not obvious. "Maybe it’s just irrelevant huh? After all, ‘no objective rule’ means all rules are subjective. Your view vs mine and winner take all? Is that it?" Some people do think like that. All I can say is that, I don't like to suffer, I don't like other people to suffer (unless they attack me), and I believe, for other reasons, that Yahweh is God, and so I try to obey his will. "Show me a nation that ever approved and encouraged cowardice or condemned bravery in general. There are none. Why? It could save billions of lives from the pains of war. Why should one man risk his life for another? Under the relativistic view there is no reason at all and doing so could never be considered either good or evil." Does any explanation beyond a manifestation of the pack mentality obtain here? This whole question, I think, depends on what one assumes. If we are the product of blind chance, then of course our sense of a transcendent morality is an illusion, and if we are the product of a transcendent creator, then our sense of morality is at least from a transcendent source, if not transcendent. So I would concede this: if Yahweh really created humans and dogs, then in a sense, all morality, even dog morality, is transcendent. But I don't think you can point to a particular moral code to demonstrate transcendence. You have to establish transcendce for other reasons first before morality has any non-illusory meaning. I think the real clue is, not any particular morality, or the idea of a transcendent *morality*, but that humans can think in terms of "transcendence" about anything. Dogs can't do it. Machines can't do it. But man can, and it doesn't fit into Nature at all.mike1962_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PST}

StephenB, if all you are saying is that the Bible teaches that God created the heavens and the earth and that this fact is manifest to all men, you will get no argument from me. Romans 1 and Psalm 19 are clear enough on that point. But I don't think you can get from there to "someone who believes in Darwinism can't be a Christian." But you assure me that is not your point. I think we agree mostly. But there is one point about which you seem to be sure and I am not so sure. You seem to be saying that a belief that chance and necessity (i.e., NDE) are sufficient to account for the complexity and diversity of life is incompatible with the scriptures’ statement that God’s work is manifest in his creation. In other words, God’s direct intervention (in whatever way) is manifest. I tend to agree with you, but I’m not absolutely certain. I’m not Catholic, but the Catholics (especially the Thomists) have some interesting things to say about this. In 2004 a commission headed by the current pope wrote Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, which states: “Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality . . . But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a purely contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: ‘The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity, happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.’ In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science.” In the article I linked above Stephen Barr writes: “Even within the neo-Darwinian framework, there are many ways that one could see evidence of that “finality” (the directedness of the universe and life) to which John Paul II refers. The possibility of an evolutionary process that could produce the marvelously intricate forms we see presupposes the existence of a universe whose structure, matter, processes, and laws are of a special character. This is the lesson of the many “anthropic coincidences” that have been identified by physicists and chemists. It is also quite likely, as suggested by the eminent neo-Darwinian biologist Simon Conway Morris, that certain evolutionary endpoints (or “solutions”) are built into the rules of physics and chemistry, so that the “random variations” keep ending up at the same destinations, somewhat as meandering rivers always find the sea. In his book Life’s Solution, Morris adduces much impressive evidence of such evolutionary tropisms. And, of course, we must never forget that each of us has spiritual powers of intellect, rationality, and freedom that cannot be accounted for by mere biology, whether as conceived by neo-Darwinians or their Intelligent Design critics.” On this view it is the existence of a universe where NDE could occur that manifests God’s creation, and one could believe life arose though true contingency (i.e., NDE, a form of created causality). Nevertheless, this belief would not be inconsistent with a belief that the universe as a whole was created in such a way that this created causality could play out (divine causality). They would say that the “manifestness” spoken of in Romans 1 and Psalm 19 is seen at a “higher level” than the complexity of life, which could have arisen though natural forces. I don’t think I agree with Barr, but his views can’t be dismissed so easily. But in any event (and Barr would agree with this), the issue must be decided by evaluation of the data, not on theological grounds.BarryA_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PST}

H'mm: Let's see if I make it past the mod pile this time around! 1] Barry, 213: Thanks. BTW, in 182, I have a link on the issue of trinitarian monotheism that may be helpful. 2] Steve B: Powerful points. I hope GAW et al heed them. 3] GAW, 206: Now, there are a number of different ways to specify what science is . . . . I think everybody agrees that ID is not science in terms of embodying most of the current socially dominant standards . . . What’s at stake is whether those standards are going to change — or, since I think they change all the time, whether they’re going to return to some older definitions. There's a name for what is underneath this discussion: If it succeed, none dare call it treason. For, what you are acknowledging is: [1] the "definition"/ demarcation of Science/non-science -- a notoriously ill-defined border -- evolves across time [e.g. circa 1500 - 1650, astrology was "science" (cf. here Kepler) but now it is not]; [2] currently, the institutionally dominant view -- bluntly, thanks to the dominance of atheists -- boils down to: that which is a "scientific" explanation must only make reference to entities acceptable to the evolutionary materialist account of the origin of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans; [3] historically, the definition of science was more or less along the lines of my Concise oxford, circa 1990, and sci method is as in my Mom's Webster's 7th Collegiate, circa 1965:
science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990 -- and yes, they used the "z" Virginia!] scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge ["the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind"] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster's 7th Collegiate, 1965]
Just observe the relevant dates: the current "consensus" is far more recent than say Judge Jones pretended in his ruling. Worse, it is question-begging, and not coincidentally just happens to exclude the third of the long-known possible causes of observed phenomena: agency. Chance -- okay. mechanical necessity via natural regularities, okay. But, agency [on matters of origin] -- no way! Sorry, I think for excellent reason, the alleged consensus is a pseudo-consensus even now, and I think it is plainly question-begging in the service of worldview and ideological agendas. Especially, it prematurely forecloses options on what would otherwise be very reasonable, empirically anchored possible explanations. I 'ent buyin dat "pig in a poke"! [I'se does think it is a squallin' cat in the bag, not a squealin' pig.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PST}

Barry A: A Clarification that I hope will help. I am probably wearing out my welcome, but I at least want to be understood. Let me offer an analogy. According to the Bible, God created the earth. HOW God created the earth is a matter for speculation, interpretation, and perspective. But it is a FACT that the Bible teaches God did indeed create the earth. There is nothing to interpret or speculate about that teaching. Any scientific theory that denies that God created the earth is incompatible with the Bible. Now. According to the Bible, design is detectable in nature. Whether that design signifies a guided evolution, front loaded or back loaded design, or any other possibility associated with design is a matter for interpretation, speculation, or perspective. But with regard to the teaching of design detection, there is no debate. It simply does. Just as it simply does teach that God created the earth. We are talking about two facts. God created the earth and design is detectable in nature. There is nothing to interpret, speculate, or guess about whether or not these are facts. They can be answered yes or no. I am not talking about a how, why, when, where, or how question. I am talking about a yes or no question.StephenB_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PST}

I"take it now that you are saying that believing in NDE is incompatible with your interpretation of the Bible. You believe the Bible cleary states that the Creator created in a direct interventionist way and that anyone who believes otherwise does not believe what the Bible says. This is like Ken Ham saying that the Bible clearly states that the Creator created on or about October 23, 4004 BC a little before breakfast, and anyone who believes otherwise does not believe what the Bible says." Barry A: Please. I said one thing and one thing only. The Bible says that design is DETECTABLE in nature. No more, no less. I said it is incompatible with any Darwinian model that says it ISN'T DETECTABLE. In other words, the Bible is ID period. Design can be front loaded or back loaded. Ken Hams notion about the dates involved is SPECULATION. My contention about DESIGN is FACT. Ken Ham could be and probably is wrong about is YEC. You can debate all night about NDE or anything else. There is no debate about the fact that the Bible teaches that design is detectable. That is not an interpretation of anything. Please stop making that comparison of my fact when Ken Ham's speculation.StephenB_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PST}

StephenB, "My point has nothing to do with salvation, and everything to do with public relations." I stand corrected. I had no idea where you were going with all this. It certainly seemed like you were trying to say that believing in NDE is incompatible with being a Christian. I take it now that you are saying that believing in NDE is incompatible with your interpretation of the Bible. You believe the Bible cleary states that the Creator created in a direct interventionist way and that anyone who believes otherwise does not believe what the Bible says. This is like Ken Ham saying that the Bible clearly states that the Creator created on or about October 23, 4004 BC a little before breakfast, and anyone who believes otherwise does not believe what the Bible says. Now that I understand what you're saying, let me respond by suggesting that God doesn't need a PR firm. As Phil Johnson says, our job is to make sure that the other side does not get away with lying about the theological implications of NDE. Don't ever let them get away with a "God helped evolution over the humps" sort of theistic evolution. If they say that chance and necessity are responsible for the diversity and complexity of life, make sure everyone understand that leaves absolutely no room for agency, including agency from God. I think it is a mistake to push our interpretation of the Bible off as compatible with this or that scientific theory while others or not.BarryA_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PST}

Borne writes: "God is the most reasonable and therefore the most admirable being there is or ever could be. We must therefore be careful not ask nonsense questions about him or make him look clownish by claiming the intrinsically unreasonable concerning him." That's exactly right Borne. The flip side of that is to admit that not only do we now comprehend God in his totality, it is, in principle, impossible for us to comprehend God in his totality. This is not to say that just because we cannot know everything about God it follows that we can know nothing about Him. That is a non sequitur. We see Him as "through a glass darkly" but we still see Him.BarryA_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PST}

---Barry A: "StephenB, Ken Ham consigns people to Hell if they are not YEC’s. You consign people to Hell if they are not direct interventionists. I’m not ready to consign, say, Stephen Barr to Hell for believing the things he writes here:" No. I wouldn't dream of consigning anyone to hell for any reason. How would I know how well they measure up to God's standards for salvation? I only hope I can meet that standard, and I am not at all sure that I do. Why would you say such a thing? I don't even think a person has to be a Christian to be saved if he or she follows the light that God gives them, provided that they do indeed follow it as far as they can. I believe that because I believe if they keep following, they will end up in the right place. So, frankly, I don't know where you are getting this stuff about condemnation. My point has nothing to do with salvation, and everything to do with public relations. I'll try to express it a little differently. The Bible is incompatible with neo-Darwinism. Darwinists who pretend to believe in the Bible are being disingenuous, insofar as they reject the Bibles teaching on design. Although they don't believe this obvious teaching of their publicly declared faith, they act as if they were devout believers of that faith to create the illusion that, as believers, they couldn't possibly be Darwinist ideologues. Further, and get this, they say there is no conflict between their faith and their science. Further, they assure other Christians that they too can do the same without any problem at all. Further, they know for sure there is no design in nature and they will do all they can to stop ID. Therefore, it seems fair to me that we ask them this question: "Mr. Darwinist, you claim to be a Christian, but the Christian Bible teaches design. You have stated publicly that there is no design in the universe, so why do you pretend that there is no real conflict between your faith and your science." What's wrong with asking that question and why do you think I am condemning someone to hell for asking it? You seem to misunderstand my second point as well. I have never suggested that we can probe the mystery of the Trinity or even conceive it through unaided reason. Once it has been given to us through revelation, however, it seems fair to say we know a little bit about it, or at least that we have aquired an infinitesimal bit of knowledge illuminated by faith. You language suggests that since we can know almost nothing that we can know nothing at all. I have no idea how small the portion would be, but to know a little bit about God is to know a lot. A Christian who comes to know Christ, for example, knows something of the other two persons of the Trinity. Inasmuch as I have never mentioned C.S. Lewis, I don't know where you are getting that either. But I do agree with the idea that we can approach these mysteries by analogy. In any case, I don't get why any of this compromises the law of non-contradiction.StephenB_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PST}

mike1962: "None of that matters when someone is assaulting you. Your inner animal simply objects, just like a dog would." I have to disagree strongly once again. Why does 'your inner animal' object to being stricken? Upon pain alone? No. A dog would not wish to sue one in a court of justice by referring to some law now would he? (Not unless dogs have some understanding of right and wrong and I'm not going to get into that thicket!) What about after the assault when the pain is gone? Just forget it right? No inherent (objective, real) wrong was done? A lot of atheists/relativists claim this but none act like it's true in real life. And if they did they would be sent to the 'funny farm'. What if the assault was on your property? Indeed, why would you assume the right to private property as a true right? Upon what basis? If no pain followed the assault would you still find grounds to object? Why? Other than mere personal feelings. Would you claim the assault was intrinsically wrong? Pain will cause a natural reaction, but you certainly cannot object to the assault based on temporary reactions of matter at work in the body, sending signals to the brain as a result of some exterior force alone can you, right? If a branch falls off a tree and lands on your head you will experience pain but you would feel no sense of blame against the branch. You might get angry and kick or swear at the branch. Why? Because you want to place blame for your pain somewhere even though you know logically that a branch can't strike of it's own volition - it has none! Are we to base moral rules upon feelings? That's what pain is - physical nerves reacting to abnormal pressure. Why is it 'good' for soldiers, firemen police etc. to risk their lives for the 'good' of others? Or is it? Who decides the 'good' of others and upon what foundation? What exactly is this 'good' and 'evil' we intuitively understand? Maybe it's just irrelevant huh? After all, 'no objective rule' means all rules are subjective. Your view vs mine and winner take all? Is that it? Show me a nation that ever approved and encouraged cowardice or condemned bravery in general. There are none. Why? It could save billions of lives from the pains of war. Why should one man risk his life for another? Under the relativistic view there is no reason at all and doing so could never be considered either good or evil. I really think you're fishing in all this. Your points are hardly valid with regards to objective values. You haven't thought this through deeply enough if you can't see these things.Borne_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PST}

getawitness: "People get along just fine in the physical world without ultimate rules. Now, are there some really precise, really stable rules? Well, yeah. But there’s no such thing as an actual absolute standard." 1. You're comparing apples & oranges here. Physical measurements as an analogy to moral value measurements are only useful until you need a Real measure rather than a subjective one. Subjective rules are all you are offering. All human invented units of measure - time, temperature, distance, weight etc. - are subjective and arbitrary. There is no absolute mile. No absolute meter. They are arbitrarily fixed units for practical use only and could be changed at whim. Not so with morals. You can't make murder 'right' overnight on a personal whim. But that's exactly what you could do if there were no moral Base Law. Standard units of heat or temperature measurements, for example, are based on someone's looking for a way to describe heat or energy characteristics. So they used the freezing point of water as a reference point. All those measurements are useful to human needs but are always changeable. Temperature could be measured by assigning some arbitrary unit to human body heat rather than H2O freezing temperatures. No absolutes are involved because there is no need for one. Arbitrarily fixed values of unit measure will do as long as there is consensus. Again, not so with morals. Moral values cannot be measured like this. It is in fact impossible to invent a new moral value. You must assume there exists a True Right and a True Wrong from point zero to even conceptualize from. If you don't then all else is relative and ultimately non-true, amoral. What is your foundation for determining moral values? Is there a moral inch or gallon? "Is it true?", is the ultimate question here. But if there are no ultimate, absolute truths then there are no 'true' truths at all. This is something atheist philosophers understood centuries ago! Where do you think relativism came from?!! Why do you think we live in this post-modern mentality that says, "if it's true for you that's fine, but it isn't true for me." or "if you wish to believe in God then it's true for you, but not for me." ? That may well apply to tastes in ice cream but listen man, for morals - if it's true it's true for everyone period. If rape is wrong it's wrong for all, always. Relativism must itself be relative - thus it abolishes itself as having any real meaning. But morality, if arbitrary (that is not based on some ultimate transcendent rule), is utterly irrelevant and no authority can be given to one rule over another. Indeed, there is no rule possible. Where did this idea of right and wrong come from? Why can't we get rid of it? Why are you using it here if it's all subjective since, if that's true, then nothing can be proven! "I say no. To deny that rule is to acknowledge that all reference points are relative, contingent, historical etc." You shoot your own argument here. If all reference points are relative then all things can be reference points. They are all arbitrary. But if everything can be a reference point then there is no reference point at all. "The ancient Greeks, inventors of the very logic you hold so dear, condoned and practiced pederasty of young boys and of male and female slaves including children, which I would classify as child rape. They also practiced leaving unwanted babies to die in the public square, which I would classify as child murder. So, no." Are u saying all ancient Greeks practiced this? I hope not. Here, once again, you have appealed to an external moral standard that you believe is true. You have implied that child rape and murder are inherently wrong! The first part of your statement is utterly ludicrous. The Greeks did not and could not invent logic! What have you been smoking? I hope it was 'good'. Perhaps you were thinking rather of the ancient Geeks? ;-) Logic is not something one may invent! And mere matter cannot be logical. Logic is a faculty only of mind. Think about that. Did logic not exist before the Greeks? Come on that was a dumb thing to say! All you are saying is that some cultures deviated from the ultimate rule - again to which you are in fact alluding in your statement by your implied condemnation of child rape and abandon! Or is child rape really inherently (objectively) wrong? If that is not an absolute objective wrong then why would you condemn the Greeks that practiced this for it?!! They simply made cultural, collective decisions different from, but by no means (under the relativist scheme) worse than, yours. Can you see that? For obvious reasons of selfishness Greeks, Canaanites, Canadians, Americans, Sodomites or who ever else you may wish to cite, deviated from the intuitively known external rule. Anyone can do this. "We have all gone astray. Everyone turning unto his own way". But condemning the mentioned practices as evil still requires that you refer to some external Moral Law. That you have clearly done all while denying it! Amazing. You cannot argue against an external objective moral law without assuming one in your very argument - as you have done in this response! This is not difficult. Think it through again. This time ask yourself whether you haven't some selfish personal reason for not wanting there to be an ultimate moral rule of Right and Wrong.Borne_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PST}

BarryA: "...my soul is not a separate and distinct person from my body and soul; ... in the same way that each of the three persons of the Trinity are separate and distinct persons." No but the analogy is as good as we can get to. Your spirit is a distinct entity from your body. Using the word person only changes the level of abstraction in the analogy. I think you know this. Besides my point is not to analyze that which cannot be analyzed. My point is not make God a self contradiction or claim that he may contradict that which is not contradictable. "I do not presume to know what God can and cannot do to accomplish His purposes." I can't disagree on that but there are things which naturally impossible for God but that have no relationship to his omniscience or omnipotence. My whole point there was to take notice that God is the most reasonable and therefore the most admirable being there is or ever could be. We must therefore be careful not ask nonsense questions about him or make him look clownish by claiming the intrinsically unreasonable concerning him.Borne_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PST}

StephenB, you keep mentioning C.S. Lewis. I am quite certain Lewis never averred that one can grasp say, the Trinity, through pure reason. If I'm wrong I would be happy to be enlightened. In my understanding Lewis believed one can approach -- but never fully grasp -- these mysteries by analogy.BarryA_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PST}

StephenB, You'll not be surprised that I'm with BarryA here. Specifically on the issue of the paradox, I think if paradoxes remain paradoxes, they cannot be logically reconciled. As I said before, I think Paul is talking about this when he says the gospel is "foolishness to Greeks." On another issues, have you read Richard Foster's book Streams of Living Water: Celebrating the Great Traditions of Christian Faith? Foster is most well known for Celebration of Discipline. Foster's a lot more orthodox than I am, but even he acknowledges the rich diversity of belief and practice. I'd say that what he calls the "contemplative" and "incarnational" traditions both affirm the continuing mystery of the paradox.getawitness_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PST}

StephenB, Ken Ham consigns people to Hell if they are not YEC's. You consign people to Hell if they are not direct interventionists. I'm not ready to consign, say, Stephen Barr to Hell for believing the things he writes here: http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=238 I think Barr is wrong -- demonstrably wrong -- but I am unwilling to break fellowship with him.BarryA_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PST}

Barry A: Ken Ham has a whole system of fundamentalist beliefs that hardly can be called uncontroversial. So I don’t think it is fair to use that example. There are, however, a great many things in the Bible that are not controversial or subject to various theological perspectives. One of them is the teaching of design in nature. How controversial is the following: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” Does it sound like St. Paul is equivocating here? This doesn’t require any interpretation, nor can any reasonable person propose that it means anything different than it means. So, let’s compare your example with mine: . Can a reasonable person suggest that Scripture require us to believe that the world was made in seven days? Of course not. On the other hand, Can a reasonable person suggest that the Bible requires us to acknowledge design in nature? Yes, indeed. What is it about “they are without excuse” that doesn’t resonate here? If there is no line to be drawn between Christian and non-Christian, then what is the point of calling oneself of anyone else a Christian? We can be either too demanding or not demanding enough. Surely a definition requires us to draw the line somewhere. The only question is, where should that line be drawn? Most people would say Kan Ham’s line in unreasonable. Are you suggesting that my line is equally unreasonable? Believing in design is a pretty minimal requirement for being a Christian. Or, are you saying that anyone can believe anything they like and still call themselves Christians without being challenged? If so, I don’t agree, unless, you can provide me with another perspective. Ken Miller has hurt the ID movement a hundred times more than Dawkins could ever hope to, because Miller peddles his Darwinism as a Christian friendly world view, when it is no such thing.. His religion says there is design—his science says there is no design. Further, he militates against ID on the grounds that design, for him and EVERYONE ELSE is and must remain undetectable, while his claimed religion says that design is inescapable. He is the one who is always carrying on about how devout he is, not me. I say hold him accountable..Do you say, let it go? With regard to our other discussion on the law of non-contradiction, we will just have to agree to disagree. The passages in 1:13 Corinthians tell us that we can understand very little of any of these mysteries. I concur. But I don’t think that our limited perception of the universe changes that fact that it is a rational universe, nor do I think that the laws of rationality can be compromised by our ignorance. But I am still open to changing my mind. I am not being recalcitrant or contentious for the fun of it. On the contrary, I am a sucker for a good argument.StephenB_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PST}

BarryA, "I do not believe we can EVER resolve the matters we have been discussing (the Trinity, the hypostatic union)" Often one can resolve an issue by rejecting it as valid in the first place.mike1962_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PST}

BTW, my view is backed by scripture. Look at the last few verses of I Cor. 13.BarryA_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PST}

StephenB "We “resolve” two natures in Christ by unifying them into “one” divine person. We “resolve” “three persons in on God by unifying them in one Divine nature. We resolve Transcendence and immanence by recognizing God’s capacity to be both “above” and “in” nature." Every one of these is a linguistic dodge to try to escape the apparent contradiction. I disagree with you. I do not believe we can EVER resolve the matters we have been discussing (the Trinity, the hypostatic union, immanent/transcendence, free will/predistination) in human categories. We can come up with more or less apt analogies (as Borne took a stab at), but all of the analogies fail in the end. These truths are profound mysteries that are accepted by the faithful by faith. At the end of the day, despite your best efforts, you will fail to put God in a box.BarryA_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PST}

StephenB: "No argument here. I am not even sure if we have a disagreement at this point." Ken Ham says if you don't agree with his interpretation of Genesis (i.e., if you're not a YEC) you can't be a Christian. How is his assertion different from the position you have been arguing for?BarryA_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PST}

Barry A: I submit that we need not fully understand an issue to resolve it. A paradox is an "apparent" contradiction that can be reconciled; contradictions cannot be logically reconciled. That is the difference. We "resolve" two natures in Christ by unifying them into "one" divine person. We "resolve" "three persons in on God by unifying them in one Divine nature. We resolve Transcendence and immanence by recognizing God's capacity to be both "above" and "in" nature. That is why the Son of God, could remain at the right hand of the Father while offering up his life on earth. The second person of the Trinity did not leave heaven when he became man, because the three persons in God are inseperable. These propositions do not violate the law of non-contradiction because they are resolved, but not necessarily fully understood. We need not concede the law of contradiction on the grounds that some mysteries are not fully understood.StephenB_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PST}

----"StephenB, I reject the idea of young-earth creationism outright, thus I’m left with (A) the physical evidence and (B)belief in God as the source of the “D” in “ID.” From that position, one must consider the possibility that “descent with modification” is a possible method for design. God works in wondrous ways his miracles to perform, and I’m not about to try and fence Him in." No argument here. I am not even sure if we have a disagreement at this point.StephenB_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PST}

StephenB, I reject the idea of young-earth creationism outright, thus I'm left with (A) the physical evidence and (B)belief in God as the source of the "D" in "ID." From that position, one must consider the possibility that "descent with modification" is a possible method for design. God works in wondrous ways his miracles to perform, and I'm not about to try and fence Him in.Stanton Rockwell_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PST}

kairosfocus, [re 182] as always, your comments are greatly welcomed and edifying.BarryA_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply