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

StephenB, I won't quarrel with you on Christology except to say that paradox is a kind of contradiction with a lid on it. The various early teachings (Arianism, Docetism, etc.) stumbled on the issue of non-contradiction. But anyway, one last. You write:
Now let me give you a little history so you will get the context. I have interacted with subjectivists on this blog who cannot follow an argument from beginning to end. Each time a logical conclusion is called for, they fall back on some vague condition that amounts to a change of definition in the middle of the discussion. Other times they will choose terms that are calculated to give them wiggle room if they need to shift the ground when an inconvenient conclusion seems inevitable. It was my impression that you were doing that, so my purpose for asking the question was to find out if believe in the laws of logic.
First, I'm not a subjectivist, I'm a relativist. :-) Seriously, though, I think this account is very instructive. The way you tell the story, when people disagree with you and you can't come to terms, it's because they are being unreasonable. How about maybe they may have a point? What if they weren't changing a definition to get wiggle room but either clarifying what was meant in the first place or coming to a more interesting and nuanced understanding? What if you simply understand things differently? What if it's your reasons that need to change and not theirs? The entire narrative here presents you, with a lock on rationality, faced with all these unreasonable people who insist on disagreeing with you! No wonder you're annoyed! I've referred before to the work of B.H. Smith. Her book Belief and Resistance: Dynamics of Contemporary Intellectual Controversy does the best job I know of showing why relativist accounts are treated as "unreasonable" in precisely the ways you demonstrate, and why those accusations of unreasonableness are both problematic and predictable. To crudely summarize her claim, when a relativist refuses to answer a question on the terms of the objectivist, that refusal is not necessarily a refusal of rationality, but only a refusal of a certain account of rationality as the objectivist understands it -- which is precisely the point at issue. Anyway, it's a much better book than that suggests. I'm not trying to palm off the consequences of our disagreement onto some authority, though I can anticipate being accused of that. I'm just saying that playing out that disagreement probably requires a much longer forum than we have here -- and as we've already seen, playing out disagreements extensively runs the risk of seeming evasive or squirrelly.getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

My first sentence in #176 was written too hastiy. What I should have written was this: The hypostatic union which unites Christ's divine nature with his human nature does not violate the law of non-contradiction.StephenB_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

Borne [172] "All of the ancient written dictates of moral law agree with a certain standard of moral conduct. All. Egyptian, Babylonian, Chinese, Hebrew etc." In all these cultures slavery was an accepted norm. The Law of Moses allows for it, albeit, with humane strictures. I ask you: Is slavery right or wrong? If we accept the Torah as Yahweh's revealed will, and Yahweh says it's OK to own slaves, provided they be cared for within certain parameters, then what relavance is any particular person's emotional attitude with regards to answering the right or wrong of it? (Except, perhaps, an application of the Golden Rule - If I wouldn't want to be a slave, then I should not own a slave. Love your neighbor as yourself, etc. However, keep in mind that the Torah has the injunction to love your neight as self, and also provides for owning slaves.) I like what Lewis said, in effect, in the Abolition of Man, that while societies have disagreed about whether you may have one wife or several, they have always agreed that you may not have any woman you feel like having. The point is, not that any *particular* mortality is the Right One, but the fact that humans have morality at all is the clue that there is "real meaning" beyond the collision of atoms. (And the meaning comes from consciousness, itself, IMO. Machines, however sophisticated, could never have this sort of discussion.)mike1962_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

Borne [172] "Smack an atheist relativist in the face and he will squeal, “by what right…?!”, just as quickly as a theist. But upon what rule of true right and wrong does he claim this? One he really does assume exists in spite of his logically absurd denials!" He probably objects on the basis that he feels pain and doesn't like it. Like we all immediately do. Only by abstract thought and chains of reasoning do we come up with an idea of absolute right and wrong. None of that matters when someone is assaulting you. Your inner animal simply objects, just like a dog would.mike1962_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

getawitness: That law of non-contradiction does not apply to the Son of God. God is both fully human and fully divine. There is nothing in the hypostatic union that violates the law of non-contradiction. There is a difference between a paradox and a contradiction. I am both animal and human. Your example proves nothing except that you think there are exceptions to a law you now claim to believe in, sort of. My question to you was not a Christian trick, nor was it a parlor trick. Your anti-religious bias is showing. Either you believe it or you don't. You told me maybe, and you gave Barry A a conditional yes. Was that damage control? There is no room in a syllogism for maybe, so what am I supposed to think. Now let me give you a little history so you will get the context. I have interacted with subjectivists on this blog who cannot follow an argument from beginning to end. Each time a logical conclusion is called for, they fall back on some vague condition that amounts to a change of definition in the middle of the discussion. Other times they will choose terms that are calculated to give them wiggle room if they need to shift the ground when an inconvenient conclusion seems inevitable. It was my impression that you were doing that, so my purpose for asking the question was to find out if believe in the laws of logic. Perhaps, I vented my frustration in the wrong way. If so, I apologize. When I asked the question, I promised that I was not trying to corner you, and I meant it. But you didn’t answer the question, you said maybe. That frustrated me more, so I felt that a follow up would not be unfair. There are certain things that all of us must assume in order to have a rational discussion, including the following: We have reason; we live in a rational universe; our rationality corresponds to the rational universe; we can attain real knowledge through reason. To deny any one of the four is to forfeit the battle even before we enter the arena. I have debated people who do not believe in even one of these principles, so nothing ever gets settled. Modern philosophy has been very destructive to the human mind, because it has caused many to deny obvious truths. Design in nature is one of those things. It would not bother me a bit if I shocked a few people out of the unnecessary skepticism that was brought on by Kant and company. No, I am not simplistic. I understand epistemological concerns. Nor am I a dogmatist. But I tend to hold people accountable and I don’t mind if they hold me accountable. Perhaps I have been presumptuous. If so, I am willing to begin again, and I hope that you will take this correspondence as an attempt at bridge building. I do no one any good if I make enemies unnecessarily and I hope I have not made one here.StephenB_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

Borne [172], I said I wasn't going to keep talking about this, but your post is irresistible. There is no escape from this. Either there is an ultimate rule by all other sub-rules are measured or there is no valid basis for any rules at all. Let me explain why I don't think this is so. As an analogy, I'll take the concept of "rule" literally to mean a physical measure. Throughout the history of the world and measurement, there have been no absolute physical measures of length, time, volume, etc. We have always used relatively stable local measures: measures that are not perfect but "good enough." Houses, roads, maps -- indeed, all of human civilization is built on such relatively stable, "good enough" measures. Until the last century most people didn't even use a nearly-universal system (the metric system) -- and the metric system itself uses not an absolute measure but a specific, relatively stable measure (for example, a certain bar under certain heat and other conditions in Paris for the metre) as a standard. 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. In part IV of the Discourse on Method, Descartes looks at geometry as a rule: he takes the absence of actual absolute rules, but the presence of the idea of such rules, to be proof positive of God:
I was disposed straightway to search for other truths and when I had represented to myself the object of the geometers, which I conceived to be a continuous body or a space indefinitely extended in length, breadth, and height or depth, divisible into divers parts which admit of different figures and sizes, and of being moved or transposed in all manner of ways (for all this the geometers suppose to be in the object they contemplate), I went over some of their simplest demonstrations. And, in the first place, I observed, that the great certitude which by common consent is accorded to these demonstrations, is founded solely upon this, that they are clearly conceived in accordance with the rules I have already laid down In the next place, I perceived that there was nothing at all in these demonstrations which could assure me of the existence of their object: thus, for example, supposing a triangle to be given, I distinctly perceived that its three angles were necessarily equal to two right angles, but I did not on that account perceive anything which could assure me that any triangle existed: while, on the contrary, recurring to the examination of the idea of a Perfect Being, I found that the existence of the Being was comprised in the idea in the same way that the equality of its three angles to two right angles is comprised in the idea of a triangle, or as in the idea of a sphere, the equidistance of all points on its surface from the center, or even still more clearly; and that consequently it is at least as certain that God, who is this Perfect Being, is, or exists, as any demonstration of geometry can be.
That's as good an expression of an ontological proof for God as I know, and it comes close to what I think you want to say. But I think that what you say points toward the longing for such rules, which is pretty widespread, rather than their existence. So when you say "To deny that rule is to abandon all reference points," I say no. To deny that rule is to acknowledge that all reference points are relative, contingent, historical etc. God trumps such local contingencies of course, but the Gospel is, as Paul said, "Foolishness to Greeks" -- that is, illogical. One final point: you write, "There has never been a civilization, outside of demonic worship cultures, that has ever condoned child rape or murder for ex[ample]." 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.getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

Borne asks: "What is this? So now God can contradict himself?" Well, if God says He is ONE GOD in the Shema, is it a contradiction for him to say that He exists in three persons? If God is immanent in his creation how can he also be transcendant over his creation? God says He has absolute (not probablistic but absolute) foreknowledge that I will do X. Do I have a choice about whether to do X? God says I do. How can that be? Can singularity both exist and not exist at the same time? Can transendance both exist and not exist at the same time? Can free will both exist and not exist at the same time? All I'm saying (and I think all getawitness is saying) is God is too big to put in the box of our categories.BarryA_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

In an earlier post I said the following and no one answered it. "It might be time for everyone to step back and define what is evil and how that differs from what we find unpleasant or undesirable. And does what we find unpleasant or undesirable change with circumstances and is really relativistic. And if something is evil what does it apply to. Is it the act or is it what happens to someone or is it the person who is responsible for the action. We do use the expression an “evil person.” Does it only apply to humans or can it apply to animals and if it applies to animals how do we distinguish between a slug and man’s best friend. Supposedly the main issue in Christianity is salvation and given that, there is only one true evil, the lack of salvation. So are the other things which we are considering evil only worldly things and not really truly evil but only reflect our squeamish feelings and what makes us squeamish changes as we get more technological advanced or our environment changes." Would the holocaust be any different if the victims were not some speciific group? Would it have been different if the perpetrators were not so systematic? Was the holocaust more evil than anything Tamerlane or Stalin did and why? I could go on but are what we are reading on this thread just the venting of people's feelings and what is personally repugnant to them?jerry_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

ellazimm: "I still don’t understand how Christians living in the southern United States in my life time could lynch black people. I don’t understand how some Christians I know can look me in the eye and say they think that all homosexuals should be lined up against a wall and shot. I don’t understand why the school board members in Dover seemingly (I accept the qualification) lied after swearing on the Bible to tell the whole truth. I don’t understand why Christian Germans sanctioned the Holocaust. I don’t understand how... " Boy that's a lot you don't understand! There are easy however obvious answers to this. All of your points are to the actual actions of professing Xians. All of your points assume that all professing Xians are real Xians. But nothing is more evident in the teachings of Christ than there will be hypocrites, 'wolves in sheep's clothing' and false christs and false 'brethren' who claim Christianity. So what do you do with the actual teachings of Christ - which btw, are all based on the ancient Hebrew scriptures? Do as you would be done by. Love your neighbor as yourself. Love your enemies, bless them that curse you...? Or on the negative commands of the moral law - Do not steal, do no murder, do no rape, do not give false witness etc.? The question is not whether someone can act contrary to the moral law they claim to believe in. The subject is whether there is a moral law or not. Scripture never tries to prove the transcendent Moral Law. It always takes it for granted. Just as you yourself do here in supposing that there really is a real right and a real wrong. No objective moral values clearly means no transcendent moral law and vice versa. There is no escape from this. Either there is an ultimate rule by all other sub-rules are measured or there is no valid basis for any rules at all. If matter is all there is then morality is indeed, "an illusion fostered upon us by our genes to get us to cooperate" - all for mere survival's sake. But this can never be argued upon logical grounds since arguing on logical grounds also assumes a transcendent rule of logic. Materialism can never explain the existence of logical absolutes. Only theism can. Even deism can't since it pretends the deity may have no personality. You cannot make morality a mere collective cultural agreement for upon what basis of right or wrong would you base your judgment of who is giving the right moral value? The very possibility of moral debate is evidence of an external rule to which all must refer. Each side claiming to be closer than the other to that external rule they must necessarily assume exists. Otherwise no moral debate is even possible. All moral debate assumes an ultimate rule of measure to which some values come closer than others. To deny that rule is to abandon all reference points. Survival advantages are materialist Darwinism's only reference point. And why should we survive? By what rule do we claim survival to be of True, Real import? Whenever you say anything like, "you're wrong to have done that" you're automatically referring to some external rule of measure by which you have judged an action - not just your own personal feelings. And you must also assume the other party also knows that external rule. Otherwise why mention it? They will merely say, "who cares what you think is wrong or not! I disagree." Smack an atheist relativist in the face and he will squeal, "by what right...?!", just as quickly as a theist. But upon what rule of true right and wrong does he claim this? One he really does assume exists in spite of his logically absurd denials! If it's all merely my opinion and will vs yours then how can any moral conclusion be attained that bears any true value? There has never been a civilization, outside of demonic worship cultures, that has ever condoned child rape or murder for ex.. If morality is to judged on mere collective consensus this rule can be changed on a whim! All of the ancient written dictates of moral law agree with a certain standard of moral conduct. All. Egyptian, Babylonian, Chinese, Hebrew etc. Where does this idea of proper and improper conduct come from anyway? Matter has no morals. Rocks are not moral. Nature has no mind, it does not dictate conduct. Only a mind can conceive of right and wrong - only a mind with will and purpose. A mind that prefers one course over another based on the product of the highest good under the circumstances. Benevolence - seeking the highest good - is sum of the absolute moral Law. Love is another term for it. But unselfish good willing love. Not some funny way of feeling. I really suggest you read CS Lewis' "Abolition of Man" or at least the laymen oriented "Mere Christianity".Borne_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

Talk about going from the sublime to the ridiculous! "I grant your point that no Christian can believe in the law of non contradiction absolutely, because, as you point out, it does not bind God." What is this? So now God can contradict himself?
Asks the foolish man: "So if God is all powerful can He create an unmovable rock ? But if the rock is unmovable, then God can't be all powerful, can He ?" Answers the wise man: "Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. How many hours are there in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask - half our great theological and metaphysical problems - are like that."
CS Lewis: A Grief ObservedBorne_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

Thanks. Whew! [wipes brow]getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

getawitness, no, I'll take your "yes" as meaning "yes." If you had said "no" I would not have beaten you. I would have just ignored you from now on.BarryA_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Hi BarryA. I'm not sure down what dimly-lit rhetorical cul-de-sac you think you're leading me, but I'm keeping one hand on my wallet. :-) My answer to your question with the stipulations you provided is Yes. But (you knew that was coming, didn't you?) I have mentioned that fuzzy logic, by my limited understanding, makes some claims along these lines. So I'm not going to say with certainty that there are no exceptions. I've already mentioned mystical and poetic language, which can live with -- indeed, which is enlivened by -- such exceptions. Within the rather narrow purview of propositional language in this world, therefore, I would say Yes. Now: should I prepare for a beatin'?getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

getawitness, I grant your point that no Christian can believe in the law of noncontradiction absolutely, because, as you point out, it does not bind God. Your point came to mind with respect to the old saw: "Can God think of something He can't do?" The answer, of course, is "Yes, and He can do it too." ;-) How about this question: Setting aside questions of whether the Deity is bound by our categories, do you agree that a statement cannot be at the same time true and false under the same formal circumstances?BarryA_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

StephenB, As I suspected, your question was a set-up to dismiss me as irrational. As I suggested, by this dismissal you also dismiss all Christians (if Jesus is both fully God and fully Man, he violates the law of non-contradiction) as well as fuzzy logic scientists. Now you also say that all those who question "objective truth" deny reason is to dismiss the entire skeptical tradition of philosophy. Here again, as you explained above, you are coming up with a rationale for not talking with people. As for syllogisms, they are a fine form of reasoning; syllogisms are great in very limited cases. The syllogism has been acknowledged as limited pretty much from the get-go. The particular syllogism BarryA constructed was, as Bob O'H maintained, poorly defined, and also, as I have suggested, depends on a fundamental equivocation on the meaning of "truly evil." You conclude that I deny reason because I answered your parlor trick question in Christian terms? Give me a break.getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

To deny objective truth is also deny reason. That is because truth is a destination, and reason is the vehicle that facilitates the journey. If there is no journey to make, what good is the vehicle? In one way or another, skeptics on this blog have been suggesting, in metaphysical and epistemological terms, either that we have no place to go, or else there is no way of getting there. There minds are intolerably open, and I think it is a phenomenon unique in the history of thought. In my judgment, modern philosophy has warped their minds. As G. K. Chesterton said, “the purpose of opening the mind is to close it on something solid (truth). Yesterday, Barry A spent a good deal of time developing a logical argument, the purpose of which was to prove to our critics that objective morality really exists. During that period, I had asked a blogger this question:: “Can a thing be true and false at the same time.” The answer followed, “I am not sure.” So there you have it. We invest the whole day crafting a delicately constructed syllogism only to have someone waffle on the law of non-contradiction, the foundation upon which syllogisms are built. This, people, is our problem. Anti-intellectualism disavows the very self-evident truths that make dialogue possible in the first place.StephenB_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

I must be coming somewhat late to this "materialist ideology" (or at least Uncommon Descent)--it seems that "materialism" is being used as s synonym for "atheism" and for "amorialism" of some sort. But that makes no sense at all. Think of the ancient Stoics--those moralists were generally materialists: materialist pantheists. (To this one could also add Spinoza.) So materialists can even believe in God. Therefore, Materialism does NOT necessarily EQUAL atheism. Added to that, most contemporary atheists (as well as evolutionists, many of whom are not atheists) also believe in energy (ever heard of E=MC2?), and so aren't materialists. Therefore, Atheism does NOT necessarily EQUAL materialism. "Materialists are atheists and can't have an ethics" is simply false, and has been for thousands of years.blogresponse_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Carl Sachs in 131 — don’t want to leave the impression that I’m impressed by George Lakoff’s embodied mathematics — just wanted to say that his book is the first I know of by a linguist who shows any awareness whatever of the relevance of mathematical realism to his field. He’s against it, of course, and his materialist math may impress some but I doubt any physicist will favor it. The innatism championed by Noam Chomsky and his followers has been challenged by neuroscientists who see no evidence of biological hardwiring (of a “language organ” somewhere in the brain). Well I suggest that if the physicists are right then language — like mathematics — is discovered and not invented, the child’s mind is a receptor for understanding and not neurologically preprogrammed.Rude_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Paul Giem [159] : "we have to let mike1962 speak for himself" The crux of my view exists in post 95. But I will elaborate: We cannot properly deal with a term such as "truly evil" until we define what evil is. I come from Yahwist perspective, and reject any notion of a transcendent, platonic-like evil, apart from the suffering of consciousness. The Bible doesn't seem to deal with squishy transcendent philosophical concepts in this matter. Where ever you find the Hebrew RAH and it's variants it indicates suffering, loss, death, etc., circumstances that are unpleasant to experience. There is no notion of some kind of platonic evil aside from conscious sufferings. Aside from suffering, there is the matter of Yahweh's will. Yahweh, being the most powerful entity, has the power to enforce his will. Anything running contrary to that could be plausibly described as evil, in my opinion, but that's not consistent with Biblical usage. So was the Holocaust evil? It surely was with respect to the experiential, Biblical definition. The victims suffered. Since suffering by definition is an evil thing, they suffered evil. But was it Yahweh's will? Sometime Yahweh employs RAH, "evil", to achieve his ends. This is clear from several Biblical proofs. It's just another way of saying that Yahweh makes unpleasant things to happen to people because of rebellion, etc. I don't know if the Holocaust was his will. He certainly allowed it to happen. But beyond that I do not know. So is there a transcendent platonic-like evil? I don't know what that means, so I have to plead ignorance. And I don't think anyone else knows either. Did the Holocaust victims suffer evil? Yes they did. Was it repugnant to me? Yes it is. Would I have prevented it if I could have? Yes I would have, unless Yahweh made it absolutely clear to me to mind my own business.mike1962_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

So, when BarryA pointed to the Holocaust/ Shoah as a capital example of evil [and implying thereby that that which partakes of materially similar characteristics is also evil], he has in fact provided a valid definition.
Not a useful one according to the quote you found from somewhere:
For, our recognition of the reliability of such a precising statement or of progressive distinction within a broader set depend on our being able to recognise whether or not a particular instance the definition in-/ex-cludes is properly ruled in or out. (emphasis mine)
Barry was unable to show how one could decide whether an action is "truly evil", so the "definition" isn't reliable. BobBob O'H_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Carl Sachs: "I think that Nietzsche was right about humans as animals," There is no difference between this and stating that materialist definition of humans you yourself described. IOW, humans are mere animals = all is mere matter. You will no doubt say, "not so". But you must provide the evidence. How is it not so? And further, if it is not so then how do you define animal? Defined as being other than complex organizations of matter in motion?Borne_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

The desire to save one’s self is great. But I’m not perpetrating the crimes. It was Christians who stopped the lynchings, and it was Chrstians who provided much of the domestic opposition to the Nazis. While some SS members attended church most did not, and affiliation with Christianity was an impediment to advancement in Nazi-ruled Germany. I live in England; I am not a citizen and I can’t vote. I’ve got to scare up the money to apply. You have me baffled on that one. You are not a citizen of England but you are trying to be and need money to apply?tribune7_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, thanks for your thoughtful response. I can also appreciate your reluctance to absolutize morality. It is tempting, when doing so, to absolutize one's own morality. But it is not logically necessary. The point originally was that, if there is any objective morality that truly exists, as distinct from mere human desire, then materialism is untenable, as that morality would not be constituted by material. Apparently, you find it more difficult than I do to accept the concept of an objective morality. For now, I am willing to leave it at that. Perhaps we can discuss this later, on a post that doesn't have 150+ other comments already, and that doesn't accumulate comments quite so rapidly, so that we can afford to put more time into our comments (I do have a "day job"). getawitness before I sign off here, I should try to correct what I think is a misunderstanding. You say, "Paul Giem, "And so it comes: before I’ve even finished typing, someone — in this case, you — suggests that someone on the other side — in this case, mike1962 — is trying to suggest that the holocaust is not really evil. Of course it is. It does not, however, necessitate a universal moral code." You have misunderstood what I was doing, and why. I was not trying to suggest that mike1962 didn't believe that the Holocaust was not really evil. I was simply trying to get him to commit one way or the other. We'll discuss his response. But first, it is fair to point out that your last sentence is an assertion without a basis in fact, and against logic. If the Holocaust was really evil, as you state, then there must be some standard by which it is judged to be evil. That standard cannot be mere public opinion, as otherwise if neo-nazis or islamists take over the world, it will no longer be evil, and the term "really" will lose its meaning (or more precisely, will never have had meaning in the first place). But if the standard is not dependent on the brain waves of people, but exists independent of them, the standard is not material, and a material explanation of the universe fails. That fact would not necessitate a God (although it is compatible with one). It merely would falsify strict materialism. But there are some who are so wedded to materialism that they are willing to deny the objective evil of the Holocaust in order to keep their materialism. A question that could be asked was, does mike1962 believe in an objective moral code, or does he believe in materialism? From what I can gather, the answer is "neither". Mike1962 notes in comment 74 "but that (most) humans have a moral sense *at all*" argues for transcendence, and he follows it up in comment 110 (to you) by saying that "the idea of an absolute morality" is interesting and puzzling, and asks, "How can a sense of the absolute exist in a collection of atoms?" I take it from this that mike1962 is not a materialist. But he still argues that the Holocaust may not be truly evil (comment 91): "I readily assent that the Holocaust was evil relative to western morality, and my Baptist and Mormon upbringing. But “truly evil” assumes we know what Yahweh’s will was (assuming a Yahwist view here) regarding the situation." It is ironic that you seek to defend him from the charge of believing that the Holocaust was not truly evil, where he admits that he is at leat agnostic on that issue. His reservations on calling the Holocaust truly evil stem not from materialism, but from as he puts it in comment 90, "being a Yahwist". If Yahweh wills something, is it truly evil? Do we have a truly objective moral code that even Yahweh cannot alter? Those are difficult philosophical questions (which i will not further address here because of space reasons). But to get to that point, we have to let mike1962 speak for himself, and not assume (as you did) that he believes that the Holocaust was really evil. My question was not designed to accuse. It was designed to clarify. And I think that it did clarify.Paul Giem_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

Jerry in re #144, The debate between Nelson and Provine was pretty disappointing actually. They spent the night talking past each other. In usual form Provine tried to provoke Nelson by asking him about his beliefs repeatedly. They both presented what they see as the flaws of evolution but neither really debated how this supports or refutes ID. There were some good questions from the crowd, which was small, but for the most part neither speaker answered them. They both talked past the questions I thought the last question was quite interesting and would like to see what people here have to say. here is my loose summary version: If ID is found to be well supported then what? what do we do with the information that some things are intelligently designed for things such as developing vaccines or other biological and health issues?jdd_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, This is a repost since my comment just went into the moderation pit due to a link. So I put the link in parenthesis so it could go through. "I still don’t understand how Christians living in the southern United States in my life time could lynch black people." This has been going on since the beginning of time and why should it stop now. I don't mean to justify this but this behavior is not unusual and you can find pockets of this behavior today all over the world. Various things cause rage and hate and all people are not raised in a proper manner and when such things arise these attitudes find targets, probably even in the UK where you are. There is a vast underclass in the US produced by the goodwill of the do gooders and the consequences of this is a large section of the population who are full of rage. Similar pockets are all over the world and as such these will produce lots of examples of anti-social behavior. It is not hard to understand. However, attempts to correct it often end up producing even greater amounts of it. For example, see what the enlightened policy of de-emphasizing marriage has done in the US. If Paul's data is meaningful at all this is the source of it and it is not due to religion but contempt for it. "www.city-journal.org/html/16_1_marriage_gap.html"jerry_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, "I still don’t understand how Christians living in the southern United States in my life time could lynch black people." This has been going on since the beginning of time and why should it stop now. I don't mean to justify this but this behavior is not unusual and you can find pockets of this behavior today all over the world. Various things cause rage and hate and all people are not raised in a proper manner and when such things arise these attitudes find targets, probably even in the UK where you are. There is a vast underclass in the US produced by the goodwill of the do gooders and the consequences of this is a large section of the population who are full of rage. Similar pockets are all over the world and as such these will produce lots of examples of anti-social behavior. It is not hard to understand. However, attempts to correct it often end up producing even greater amounts of it. For example, see what the enlightened policy of de-emphasizing marriage has done in the US. If Paul's data is meaningful at all this is the source of it and it is not due to religion but contempt for it. http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_1_marriage_gap.htmljerry_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

Ellazimm - I still don’t understand how Christians living in the southern United States in my life time could lynch black people. Does a Christian say he follows Jesus Christ or does a Christian follow Jesus Christ? And what makes you so sure you wouldn't keep quiet and let things happen to Jews/blacks/whomever if the social pressure -- supported by law -- was strong enough? Even Peter denied Christ in His hour.tribune7_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

All: I am particularly concerned over a core point, namely that evolutionary materialism has a serious problem grounding morality and so its promotion as in effect unquestionable "fact" and/or "Science" is potentially destructive in our world. Now, I am also concerned over a side-point. For, I could take up many of the poorly informed attempts to raise Bible and/or theological difficulties above, but plainly this is well beyond the proper focus of this blog, and IMHCO would take us further and further away from it. [Patrick and Dave et al, what is the policy on responding to such increasingly common asides and responses to them?] While we wait for the policy announcement, I will note to Bob, on t5he main issue, that . . .
definitions come in at least two main flavours, and definition by apt concrete example and family resemblance thereto is a proper means of definition -- and one that is actually prior to definition by genus and differentia or precising statement. For, our recognition of the reliability of such a precising statement or of progressive distinction within a broader set depend on our being able to recognise whether or not a particular instance the definition in-/ex-cludes is properly ruled in or out.
So, when BarryA pointed to the Holocaust/ Shoah as a capital example of evil [and implying thereby that that which partakes of materially similar characteristics is also evil], he has in fact provided a valid definition. That brings us right back to the force of his syllogism [at no 28], and that of CB [no 10], which I will cite first:
1) Certain things are really wrong only if there is an objective Moral Law. 2) Certain things are really wrong [notorious case in point being supplied above]. 3) Therefore, there is an objective Moral Law. AND . . . The holocaust was “truly evil.” By “truly evil” I mean that even if in the opinion of any person or group of persons or an entire society, the holocaust was good, it would still be evil. Indeed, if everyone in the world thought the holocaust was good, they would all be wrong, and the holocaust would still be truly evil. Now the syllogism: [4] An action can be truly evil only if a transcendent moral code exists. [5] The holocaust was truly evil. [6] Therefore, a transcendent moral code exists.
The significance of this recognition of an objective, transcendent moral order is deep, as e.g. Koukl shows in his introductory level essay, which it would repay us all handsomely to read. I excerpt:
The presence of evil in the world is considered by some to be solid evidence against the existence of God. I think it proves just the opposite . . . . Evil can't be real if morals are relative. Evil is real, though. That's why people object to it. Therefore, objective moral standards must exist as well . . . . Atheism can't make any sense of it. Neither can most Eastern religions. If reality is an illusion [NB: we have already had the side-debate on to what extent this is so; it is sufficiently so to be material], as they hold, then the distinction between good and evil is ultimately rendered meaningless. Something like the Judeo-Christian or Muslim idea of God must be true to adequately account for moral laws. Morality grounded in God explains our hunger for justice . . . . Either we live in a universe in which morality is a meaningless concept and are forever condemned to silence regarding the problem of evil, or moral rules exist and we're beholden to a moral God who holds us accountable to His law.
Thus, we here see a materially independent line of reasoning to the design inference proper, that also points to a transcendent intelligent, purposeful Agent as a likely cause for our evidently designed cosmos [cf my always linked through my name], a cosmos in which there is also a generally recognised moral order, one that we find binds us and which we ratify so soon as we quarrel, trying to show others wrong or hypocritical -- as in much of the above. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT}

Moral progress in a material world? Moral vanity is more like it. A wonderful example of the moral vanity of the superman is found in the popular meme that the Bible somehow condones slavery. This accusation indicates a high opinion of oneself and one’s pristine attitudes toward slavery combined with a profound ignorance of history and the fact that slavery was universal until the modern age, with the advent of labor-saving devices and cheap energy. It was possible for the Abolitionists to revel in their moral superiority to the slave-owning South for the simple reason that the North was industrialized and could afford to be scornful. The actual cause of the conflict was the clash between an ancient agrarian way of life that lingered (or malingered) in the South and modern capitalism, not the simple fairly tale of good and evil that the revisionists love to tell in order to make themselves seem special. It was economics, not an increase in virtue or enlightenment, that made slavery an obvious anachronism and target for reform by the mid-nineteenth century. To fault the Bible for not insisting on abolition, then, is like expecting it to insist, as we now do, on universal literacy, which did not become possible until the invention of the printing press. Slavery is no longer necessary or desirable in the modern capitalized world. This is why it is universally condemned. But then to flatter oneself by comparing one’s modern, enlightened attitudes regarding slavery with those of the ancient world is nothing more than moral vanity, since opposition to slavery no longer entails personal risk of any kind. Slavery is mentioned in the Bible for two purposes: to limit its scope and make it more humane, and to commend submission. The first purpose cannot be properly understood unless the laws governing slavery are viewed in context. Those laws represented a vast improvement in the treatment of slaves. Even the famous law, so often cited by religion-haters, that punishes the slave-owner for killing a slave by beating him, but releases him from punishment if the slave lives for a few days after the beating, was an improvement over the utter disregard for the value of the life of slaves seen in other ancient societies, including the supposedly civilized states of Athens and Rome. The way that this law is distorted to discredit religion also reveals the fundamental dishonesty of the superman and the will to power. The Sam Harrises of the world would have us believe that the law condones beating slaves to the point of death. It does no such thing. It condemns severe treatment of slaves by making it punishable. But a hallmark of the superman is his belief that he has transcended the religious man, and this longing for distinction compels him to twist the meaning and intent of the text in order to make his moral superiority evident. The Bible also mentions slavery in the context of the exhortation to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” This exhortation commends submission as the route to happiness; it does not commend slavery per se. It reflects the notion that there is value in the life of the slave, that identity can be redeemed through service for its own sake and is not dependent upon the attitudes of others, and also on a realism regarding the human condition that is sadly lacking in the starry-eyed moralizing of the superman. Finally, the accusation that there is no mention of abolition in the Bible is simply false. True righteousness is said to be seen in the following actions: “to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke; to set the oppressed free and break every yoke.” The prophets are filled with a passionate love of justice and tender concern for the oppressed. If our supermen cannot see this, then perhaps it is because they are blinded by a lesser love.allanius_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT}

Barry,
I define the term “truly evil” and then I use it in exactly the same sense in both the major and minor premises.
You don't define it in any useful way. You explicitly refuse to give a definition that would allow someone to look at an act and say "that is truly evil". This is how you defined it:
The holocaust was “truly evil.” By “truly evil” I mean that even if in the opinion of any person or group of persons or an entire society, the holocaust was good, it would still be evil. Indeed, if everyone in the world thought the holocaust was good, they would all be wrong, and the holocaust would still be truly evil.
and this is how you try to avoid giving a pragmatic definition:
There are certain things, as the saying goes, that you can’t not know. That the murder of millions of innocent victims is evil is one such thing. You’ve asked me to argue for a first principle. I will not for the simple reason that I cannot and neither can anyone else. When it comes to affirming the statement “the holocaust was evil” there are two and only two kinds of people: 1. People who know it is true and therefore affirm it without reservation; and 2. people who know it is true and, for whatever reason, refuse to affirm it without reservation. Both groups of people know it is true.
From your definition, whether people know something is "truly evil" is irrelevant: "Indeed, if everyone in the world thought the holocaust was good, they would all be wrong, and the holocaust would still be truly evil.". So you've got us nowhere. Your syllogism can't even get off the ground until you can define "truly evil" in a useful way. I can't see how one can do that without appealing to some sort of transcendent moral code. That might be because I lack imagination, so I'd like to see how one does it. BobBob O'H_{November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply