Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

People who doubt “evolution” are more likely to be racist?

Categories
Culture
Darwinism
Intelligent Design
Racism
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

So academic elite types claim in a recent study:

A disbelief in human evolution was associated with higher levels of prejudice, racist attitudes and support of discriminatory behavior against Blacks, immigrants and the LGBTQ community in the U.S., according to University of Massachusetts Amherst research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Similarly, across the globe — in 19 Eastern European countries, 25 Muslim countries and in Israel — low belief in evolution was linked to higher biases within a person’s group, prejudicial attitudes toward people in different groups and less support for conflict resolution…

“People who perceive themselves as more similar to animals are also people who tend to have more pro-social or positive attitudes toward outgroup members or people from stigmatized and marginalized backgrounds,” Syropoulos explains. “In this investigation, we were interested in examining whether belief in evolution would also act in a similar way, because it would reinforce this belief that we are more similar to animals.”

University of Massachusetts Amherst, “Disbelief in human evolution linked to greater prejudice and racism” at ScienceDaily (April 4, 2022)

The paper requires a fee or subscription.

A friend who has read the paper kindly writes to say,

I think this study is a prime example of the temptation to make the correlation equals causation fallacy. What this paper is measuring has nothing to do with evolution or belief in it. It is measuring parochial attitudes among people in insulated groups who don’t have much contact with the outside world. These people tend to be prejudiced against other races and also have little contact with evolution so they are skeptical. It just shows that isolation breeds prejudice against the other.

The principle that isolation breeds prejudice against the “other” is a truism. And you could find evidence supporting this truism from very different groups. If you surveyed attitudes of ivory tower types you’d find similar prejudice against conservative religious groups, you’d find similar discriminatory attitudes. Why? Because those evolutionary secular academic types who accept human evolution have very little contact with conservative religious people.

So what’s interesting isn’t the finding of this paper. What’s interesting is why they chose to study isolated people who happen to be religious and defined prejudice as attitudes towards certain privileged groups in society (eg LGBTQ). Why not study prejudice of secular types who accept human evolution towards religious consevatives? You’d find analogous prejudices. But the researchers weren’t interested in studying that…because they are evolutionary secularists with an agenda to make religious conservatives look bad.

Come to think of it, if you are here anyway, you may also wish to read: E. O. Wilson and racism: The smoking gun is found. Some have dismissed the findings but others say they fit a pattern. From Schulson’s story: “I don’t really care that Wilson had racist ideas, because I know pretty much all of the people that I dealt with, when I was coming up through the science system, had racist ideas,” said [evolutionary biologist Joseph] Graves, who in 1988 became the first Black American to receive a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. “Wilson was just one of many.” Oh.

And remember, Wilson was supposed to be the second Darwin. Funny no one talks about that now.

Comments
No, I have not been shown direct parallels with the laws of logic. If there are direct parallels then there should be short statements showing how each step logically follows from previous steps, with clear statements about beginning axioms. No quotes should be necessary.Viola Lee
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
VL, you have been shown, step by step, in detail how both are in fact branch on which we sit pervasive first truths and how in further fact the duties of reason embrace and take up the rules of reason. KFkairosfocus
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
P^4S, in case someone is tempted, here is something else from The Laws, Bk X:
Cle. Why, Stranger, what other reason [for the gross errors that ruined Athens through the Peloponnesian war and its aftermath] is there? Ath. One which you who live in a different atmosphere would never guess. Cle. What is it? Ath. A very grievous sort of ignorance which is imagined to be the greatest wisdom. Cle. What do you mean? Ath. At Athens there are tales preserved in writing which the virtue of your state, as I am informed, refuses to admit. They speak of the Gods in prose as well as verse, and the oldest of them tell of the origin of the heavens and of the world, and not far from the beginning of their story they proceed to narrate the birth of the Gods, and how after they were born they behaved to one another. Whether these stories have in other ways a good or a bad influence, I should not like to be severe upon them, because they are ancient; but, looking at them with reference to the duties of children to their parents, I cannot praise them, or think that they are useful, or at all true. Of the words of the ancients I have nothing more to say; and I should wish to say of them only what is pleasing to the Gods. But as to our younger generation and their wisdom, I cannot let them off when they do mischief. For do but mark the effect of their words: when you and I argue for the existence of the Gods, and produce the sun, moon, stars, and earth, claiming for them a divine being, if we would listen to the aforesaid philosophers we should say that they are earth and stones only, which can have no care at all of human affairs, and that all religion is a cooking up of words and a make-believe. [--> hasty, faulty generalisation?] Cle. One such teacher, O Stranger, would be bad enough, and you imply that there are many of them, which is worse. Ath. Well, then; what shall we say or do?-Shall we assume that some one is accusing us among unholy men, who are trying to escape from the effect of our legislation; and that they say of us-How dreadful that you should legislate on the supposition that there are Gods! Shall we make a defence of ourselves? or shall we leave them and return to our laws, lest the prelude should become longer than the law? For the discourse will certainly extend to great length, if we are to treat the impiously disposed as they desire, partly demonstrating to them at some length the things of which they demand an explanation, partly making them afraid or dissatisfied, and then proceed to the requisite enactments. Cle. Yes, Stranger; but then how often have we repeated already that on the present occasion there is no reason why brevity should be preferred to length; who is "at our heels"?-as the saying goes, and it would be paltry and ridiculous to prefer the shorter to the better. It is a matter of no small consequence, in some way or other to prove that there are Gods, and that they are good, and regard justice more than men do. The demonstration of this would be the best and noblest prelude of all our laws. And therefore, without impatience, and without hurry, let us unreservedly consider the whole matter, summoning up all the power of persuasion which we possess. [--> a rebuke to our sound bite and tweet culture: dialectic is not rhetoric, and the later has a deserved reputation as the arsenal of fools, deceivers, propagandists and manipulators] Ath. Seeing you thus in earnest, I would fain offer up a prayer that I may succeed:-but I must proceed at once. Who can be calm when he is called upon to prove the existence of the Gods? Who can avoid hating and abhorring the men who are and have been the cause of this argument; I speak of those who will not believe the tales which they have heard as babes and sucklings from their mothers and nurses, repeated by them both in jest and earnest, like charms, who have also heard them in the sacrificial prayers, and seen sights accompanying them-sights and sounds delightful to children-and their parents during the sacrifices showing an intense earnestness on behalf of their children and of themselves, and with eager interest talking to the Gods, and beseeching them, as though they were firmly convinced of their existence; who likewise see and hear the prostrations and invocations which are made by Hellenes and barbarians at the rising and setting of the sun and moon, in all the vicissitudes of life, not as if they thought that there were no Gods, but as if there could be no doubt of their existence, and no suspicion of their non-existence; when men, knowing all these things, despise them on no real grounds, as would be admitted by all who have any particle of intelligence, and when they force us to say what we are now saying, how can any one in gentle terms remonstrate with the like of them, when he has to begin by proving to them the very existence of the Gods? Yet the attempt must be made; for it would be unseemly that one half of mankind should go mad in their lust of pleasure, and the other half in their indignation at such persons. Our address to these lost and perverted natures should not be spoken in passion; let us suppose ourselves to select some one of them, and gently reason with him, smothering our anger:-O my son, we will say to him, you are young, and the advance of time will make you reverse may of the opinions which you now hold. Wait awhile, and do not attempt to judge at present of the highest things; and that is the highest of which you now think nothing-to know the Gods rightly and to live accordingly. And in the first place let me indicate to you one point which is of great importance, and about which I cannot be deceived:-You and your friends are not the first who have held this opinion about the Gods. There have always been persons more or less numerous who have had the same disorder. I have known many of them, and can tell you, that no one who had taken up in youth this opinion, that the Gods do not exist, ever continued in the same until he was old; the two other notions certainly do continue in some cases, but not in many; the notion, I mean, that the Gods exist, but take no heed of human things, and the other notion that they do take heed of them, but are easily propitiated with sacrifices and prayers. As to the opinion about the Gods which may some day become clear to you, I advise you go wait and consider if it be true or not; ask of others, and above all of the legislator. In the meantime take care that you do not offend against the Gods. For the duty of the legislator is and always will be to teach you the truth of these matters. Cle. Our address, Stranger, thus far, is excellent. Ath. Quite true, Megillus and Cleinias, but I am afraid that we have unconsciously lighted on a strange doctrine.
kairosfocus
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
KF, how are "first duties of reason directly parallel to the core laws of logic"? You continue to assert this, and then quote Cicero as if that were an answer. Explicitly show me the parallels.Viola Lee
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
PPPS, But you are just emptily regurgitating things you have said before. The answer comes back, these highly material historic remarks are key documentation that should have been heeded long since. That they were not is a material part of the many errors on display in this and other threads, so it is appropriate to place them as a current advisory of correction. It is telling that we are seeing persistent errors that were tellingly corrected over 2,000 years ago.kairosfocus
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
PPS, for reference, Plato's warning:
Ath[enian Stranger, in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos -- the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity; observe, too, the trichotomy: "nature" (here, mechanical, blind necessity), "chance" (similar to a tossed fair die), ART (the action of a mind, i.e. intelligently directed configuration)] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics, so too justice, law and government: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin"), opening the door to cynicism, hyperskepticism and nihilism . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
kairosfocus
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
PS, for reference, Cicero in De Legibus:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man.
[--> Note, how justice and our built in nature as a morally governed class of creatures are highlighted; thus framing the natural law frame: recognising built-in law that we do not create nor can we repeal, which then frames a sound understanding of justice. Without such an anchor, law inevitably reduces to the sort of ruthless, nihilistic might- and- manipulation- make- "right,"- "truth,"- "knowledge,"- "law"- and- "justice"- etc power struggle and chaos Plato warned against in The Laws Bk X.]
We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws. Quintus [his real-life brother]. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation. Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions. They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [--> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
kairosfocus
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
VL,
No, moral laws are not the same as logical laws. You assert that, but I see no argument or examples in respect to how they are the same. We can write down a set of logic rules which follow one after another according to those rules, and everyone who encounters them, no matter what their metaphysical view (Christian, Buddhist, atheist, materialist, etc.) agrees with them. There is no such analogous aspects of moral rules.
If you don't see evidence that the first duties of reason are pervasive, branch on which we all sit first principles, directly parallel to the core laws of logic (indeed, they embed, embrace and reinforce these) that is because you have refused to attend to what is on the table before you. Let me pause, to remind of how Euthyphro identified the first principles, self evident nature of core logic:
DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. We here see the first principles of right reason in action. Cf J. C. Wright]
In fact, notice, how the objector demanded warrant, proof as to why logic is necessary. That is, implicitly, he was appealing to duties to truth, to right reason and to warrant. Of course, from earlier remarks you experience principles and rules that you do not freely select as oppressive impositions. One could ask, do you find first principles such as distinct identity, non contradiction and excluded middle, to be oppressive impositions? If so, it's over, you have chosen irrationality. If not, why then do you choose to project that selectively against first duties, which are similar first principles in the roots of our rational, responsible, self-moved . . . free, conscience guided, morally governed lives? The very duties that are concomitants of our core rights and freedom? To see that first principle, branch on which we all sit pervasiveness, let's do a point by point annotation of your objection as just cited. Which, will be precisely yet another case of how even the would be objector is found appealing to the very first duties as was noted in say 21 above: >>No, moral laws are not the same as logical laws.>> 1 - actually, they embrace and enfold the logical laws as can be seen from Epictetus. Why should we pay 50c worth of attention to laws of logic? The answer comes back, because we are duty bound to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, so too fairness and justice. 2 - Indeed, one who refuses to be so bound becomes untrustworthy, ill advised, even destructive, opening the door to nihilistic misanthropy and enmity to civilisation. 3 - Yes, that is a hard thing to say, but it is high time it was frankly stated, we are playing with big matches here, matches that can burn down civilisation. 4 - Matches we can see the danger of, the evil character of, by pondering say Kant's categorical example on the case of habitual untruthfulness becoming pervasive; which would wreck the fabric of trust and facility of linguistic communication, ruining civilisation. 5 - Just overnight, I finally found my bug on the GPIO bus: someone giving key information neglected to say plainly that s/he was giving an alternate labelling of pins, creating needless confusion as say GPIO 5 seemingly migrated from pin 29 to pin 18. >> You assert that, but I see no argument or examples in respect to how they are the same.>> 6 - I take "same" as meaning, both are branch on which we all sit, pervasive first principles (and are therefore self evident, objectively true, knowable and binding). 7 - Of course, you here directly imply that SA and others including the undersigned have failed in . . . duty to warrant, using right reason and because of onward duty to truth. But, 8 - instantly, this is yet another case of objectors implying the binding nature of the ciceronian first duties of reason and illustrating their pervasiveness thus first principle status. 9 - To my certain knowledge this has been pointed out to you, using your own objections, and it has been highlighted for others in your presence, many many times here at UD. So, we may freely, initially conclude: __________________ 10 - If you have seen no arguments or examples, that is because you have refused to attend to them or acknowledge their presence. Which, is, pardon fair comment, an exercise in untruthfulness on your part. 11 - Had you instead said that you have seen examples and arguments but in your view they fail to adequately warrant, that would of course instantly demonstrate the pervasiveness of these first duties. Which, would 12 - have decided the case, against your position. >>We can write down a set of logic rules which follow one after another according to those rules, >> 13: Cicero, long ago, wrote down a list of just such rules or laws, and they have been listed in order as duties pivoting on truth (with right reason and warrant as its direct support with prudence as broader support), sound conscience, and neighbour (so, fairness and justice). 14: I have repeatedly listed them in logical order:
1st – to truth, 2nd – to right reason, 3rd – to prudence [including warrant], 4th – to sound conscience, 5th – to neighbour; so also, 6th – to fairness and 7th – to justice [ . . .] xth – etc.
15 - So, it is false in the face of readily accessible example such as 21 above, to suggest that no logically coherent list of first, pervasive, first principle duties has been or can be put. >>and everyone who encounters them, no matter what their metaphysical view (Christian, Buddhist, atheist, materialist, etc.)>> 16 - Notice, I have noted the literary source as Cicero, C 55 - 50 BC, in two major works. Cicero was summing up and extending received Greco-Roman wisdom. Paul of Tarsus, a foundational Christian figure who embraceed Hebrew and Christian thought, endorsed the concept that conscience guided reason reveals that these principles -- especially those tied to sound conscience, neighbour love and so fairness and justice -- are seen by people of diverse traditions. As they are. 17 - When Buddhism was recently raised as an objection, I highlighted Buddhist ethics in your presence. Let's use Wiki as a convenient source:
Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha.[citation needed] The term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is ??la or s?la (P?li). ??la in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue,[1] moral discipline[2] and precept. S?la is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). S?la is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement; s?la, sam?dhi, and paññ? as well as the Theravadin foundations of s?la, d?na, and bhavana. It is also the second p?ramit?.[3] S?la is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of s?la are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of s?la is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being.[4] Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics.[5] . . . . The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bh?van?).[7] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as [-> I guess, even] more important than the action itself . . . . The Four Noble Truths . . . . When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[22] which are:[23] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness.
18 - One may have points here and there but the pattern is instantly recognisable. 19 - As for atheists etc, some months ago now, I took time to explore how a significant new atheist, Stefan Molyneaux, has in fact publicly stumbled on said principles: https://uncommondescent.com/culture/lfp-48-former-new-atheist-stefan-molyneaux-and-his-universally-preferable-behavior-2007-illustrate-inescapably-binding-intelligible-and-identifiable-first-duties-of-reason/ >> agrees with them.>> 20 - Highly misleading, you cannot but know that many dispute the first principles of right reason, including as seen here at UD over the years. 21 - Meanwhile, mere disagreement among a race of creatures who are finite, fallible, morally struggling, too often ill willed, stubborn and quarrelsome, is hardly reason to reject objectivity of key principles. >>There is no such analogous aspects of moral rules.>> 22 - False, as has again been shown. _______________ Again, an objection has been seen to be self referentially incoherent. Of course, you have repeatedly announced that you often refuse to read what I write, on various excuses and alleged real or imagined literary and reasoning faults. However, that raises fairness and truthfulness issues. You cannot fairly or truthfully claim there are no relevant arguments or examples if you have refused to look at said arguments and examples. Some of the latter, as in this case, being drawn from your own comments. Perhaps, the time has come for rethinking the path our civilisation, rather ill advisedly, is taking. KFkairosfocus
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Racisim is a form of tribalism, and everyone has tribal impulses. Fight those impulses. The best outcome for all involved is individualism. It's broad spectrum and totally empirical. Don't judge individuals by some cherry-picked variables in the service of your emotional bigotry. P.S. don't forget to agape your neighbor as yourself. --Ramram
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
VL That’s what transcendent means, and that’s what I say doesn’t exist
1. ViolaLee says( his and others) morality is subjective. 2.ViolaLee says that subjective morality of others(who happens to believe in transcendence) is false...because of ViolaLee own subjective morality that don't accept subjective morality(of others) that don't match to his own subjective morality. Make sense.Sandy
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
but that doesn’t elevate the belief itself that X is wrong to a new transcendent status.
I think we are into mumbo jumbo with the use of the word “transcendent.” So maybe it’s best to retire it. If I ever used it in a conversation or a paper. I don’t remembered it. Morality is just what facilitates the objectives of the entity. Immorality is what frustrates those objectives. Human have common objectives, some of these objectives are more prevalent in some individuals more than others. For example, everyone wants to survive. (Please don’t bring up suicide because nearly everyone that does and it’s a extremely small number do so for reasons they wish didn’t exist. People want to continue living.) So morality is just what fosters those objectives. I’m trying to simplify a previous discussion on this before someone enters with technical terms that are not needed and which actually obscures the discussion. Definition of moral – Merriam Webster
a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment e : capable of right and wrong action
This should suffice for a discussion of the world moral. We take it for granted but in 4 of 5 definitions the word “right” and “behavior” are used. So what is “right?”
How about what facilities what is consistent with the objectives of the person
jerry
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
No, moral laws are not the same as logical laws. You assert that, but I see no argument or examples in respect to how they are the same. We can write down a set of logic rules which follow one after another according to those rules, and everyone who encounters them, no matter what their metaphysical view (Christian, Buddhist, atheist, materialist, etc.) agrees with them. There is no such analogous aspects of moral rules. And you write, "They are not personal, private subjective rules that just by chance everybody accepts." I have no idea why you inserted "by chance" into that statement. In an earlier post you mention the value of intellectual honesty, which I value also. It is not intellectually honest to declare, contrary to all that has been said by me and others, that people choose their moral values "by chance." And you agree that you are using the word "transcendent" to mean, in my words, "exist[ing] independently from their presence in individual human beings', so I'm glad we have that cleared up.Viola Lee
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
It's a parallel with the first principles of logic. Those are transcendent. This is not because every single one of 7 billion human beings agree with them. But it's because they do not originate with human beings. No humans invented them - they're part of human nature. The moral laws are the same. They are not personal, private subjective rules that just by chance everybody accepts. They come as part of human nature. That's why they're transcendent values - just as the reasoning process is a function of our rational nature and is a transcendent value.
there are universal moral truths that exist independently from their presence in individual human beings
Yes. And you are saying, in opposition, that the moral truths we observe are subjective and are created within each person or else are referenced from a group of people. But we are not bound in conscience to moral laws that are independent of our own opinion.Silver Asiatic
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
No, it doesn't "rattle" me. It says what you mean: that there are universal moral truths that exist independently from their presence in individual human beings. That's what transcendent means, and that's what I say doesn't exist. Even if every single one of 7 billion human beings agree that X is wrong, that is just 7 billion subjective beliefs that X is wrong. It is an objective fact that 7 billion people believe that, but that doesn't elevate the belief itself that X is wrong to a new transcendent status.Viola Lee
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
Jerry
The morality whatever it is does not depend on anything transcendent.
Transcendent comes from the word "transcend" which refers to a higher order or higher level. To say that "morality is transcendent" is not to say anything about what morality "depends on" but about what morality is. It's a "transcendent" value since it is of a higher order than the individual, subjective, personal opinion. It rises above to be a "universal characteristic". Rationality is also transcendent. It's a higher level value. Here's what Maslow says about transcendence. It just refers to universal, higher-order characteristics in the hierarchy of human values. Morality and rationality are transcendent values. This is not talking about religion or the Bible, which I'm afraid is what some people are thinking. https://www.sloww.co/transcendence-maslow/Silver Asiatic
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
The word transcendent comes from "transcend". It's similar to the word "universal". When I say that morality is universal with regards to human nature, that means "it transcends subjective opinion". That's what "transcendent" means in that context. Apparently, that term rattles people so I can easily avoid it. Morality is not subjective it extends beyond [transcends ... ok?] the personal opinion.Silver Asiatic
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
We don’t “create an abstract understanding”, we see the reality. Yes, the reality is revealed to us, and we are taught/formed by it. Andrewasauber
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
VL, strawman, subjectivism or relativism open the door to nihilism, both in theory and as we have seen on horrific history. Precisely because we are neither capable enough or old enough to grounde morality, as the Hume guillotine argument inadvertently shows. Only something at the root of reality can ground moral government and it must be inherently good and utterly wise to also answer the Euthyphro dilemma. KF PS, this is a survival of civilisation issue.kairosfocus
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
SA, I don't think I'm "hung up" on the word "transcendent". It’s a central word, in my understanding, to the differences in our philosophies. If what you just said is all you mean by transcendent, then I would say that is not the usual use when one says moral values are transcendent. I take the word transcendent in this case to mean that you are claiming that moral values exist independently from their existence in any one human, and are accessed by us: they exist outside of us and we access them. Maybe you don't mean that, but I think you do. Also, you write, "We don’t “create an abstract understanding”, we see the reality. Every human being is different, and exhibits even the most common core characteristics slightly differently from every other human being. Each one of those people is part of reality. However, when we create an idea about all people, focussing on the similarities and leaving out the differences, that idea is an abstraction. Almost all our ideas about reality are abstractions. We have some direct experiences of reality, but it is a central process of our rationality to create abstractions in our minds to represent generalities about certain aspects of reality. But those abstractions are in our minds. They are not outside of us. They are not transcendent in the sense of existing as some kind of independent entity separate from their existence within human beings.Viola Lee
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
are the one’s claiming some transcendency
Ok! Sounds a lot like the same old problem, lack of common definitions. I see “ontological” and “transcendental” and my BS meter goes up. The morality whatever it is does not depend on anything transcendent. Which I take to mean a source outside of humans. It can be transcendent but the argument over morality does not depend on it. If human beings were formed by some completely natural process, the end result is what is the basis for morality. If the end result was due to some guided process and not to just a natural process, the morality is still the same but the origin of it was possibly in the guiding process. This guiding process if it exists, could be using the morality embedded whatever it is to reach objectives for the species. If it’s purely a natural process, some how this process is helping to reach some objectives.jerry
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Jerry, my remark was to SA. He (and others) are the one's claiming some transcendency.Viola Lee
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
VL
Do you understand this distinction?
I don't think it's clear as I read it. For example, you say:
They do not get some new ontological status just because we create an abstract understanding of them by noticing their prevalence as common to all human beings.
We do assign a new ontological status to human life because we notice a characteristic common to humans and not present in other organisms. We say that humans are rational-beings, so human nature is rational. It's the same for the moral conscience of humans. We don't "create an abstract understanding", we see the reality. We possess moral conscience, judge good from evil, and are oriented to the truth.
Why do you think that recognizing some common features of human beings, or anything for that matter, creates something that is transcendent?
I think you're hung-up on the word "transcendent". It just means in a sense "rising above", in the sense that an immaterial essence transcends the material. Or human life is transcendent over non-living matter. The common, objective, natural moral values present in human beings "transcend" what we find in animal life. Animals act by instinct, not by moral choice.Silver Asiatic
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
Why do you think that recognizing some common features of human beings, or anything for that matter, creates something that is transcendent?
Haven’t a clue what you are saying. Starting to sound like some others here who are often incoherent.jerry
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
SA, materialism and transcendent moral beliefs are not the only two options, as I pointed out when I wrote,
The universe may be designed, and life may have been designed and mind may be a designed immaterial component of the world, but none of that necessarily implies that some objective moral standards exist, or that human being’s behavior and beliefs aren’t entirely internally motivated and chosen by each individual.
The fact that human beings have some common core moral characteristics, such as caring for at least some circle of people close to oneself, does NOT mean those are transcendent characteristics. As I wrote above, which has not been addressed:
All people have some common aspects of their nature: we use logic in our thinking, we have moral concerns and beliefs, we desire in most cases to ascertain the truth about things, etc. All of these qualities reside in billions of people, but that fact does NOT elevate those qualities to some type of transcendent, self-evident duty that exists in some way outside of the people who exhibit those qualities. ... They do not get some new ontological status just because we create an abstract understanding of them by noticing their prevalence as common to all human beings.
1. Do you understand this distinction? 2. Why do you think that recognizing some common features of human beings, or anything for that matter, creates something that is transcendent?Viola Lee
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
VL
This is not an ID/anti-ID issue.
Echoing what Jerry said - we can look at the existence of the natural, objective moral law and see it as evidence for ID. It cannot be caused by materialist evolution, for example. In the same way, our rational nature cannot be reduced to mutations and selection - it's transcendent and universal, thus supporting arguments for ID.Silver Asiatic
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
JHolo
In that sense, morality is objective because it is within our nature.
That is good to hear. Yes, that's right. It's something we observe within human nature and is not beaten-into-us in that sense. It does not need to be taught (in its most basic form).
Why couldn’t the designer have imbued us with this moral sense but let each of us figure out how best to use it? It would certainly explain the variations and fluctuations we observe. My moral values have certainly changed over time.
Yes, that makes sense. "Figure out how best to use it" would mean, we take the roots of the moral laws and then have to apply them to various situations. Our human nature provides our conscience that directs us to the good and away from evil - but we not only don't follow that conscience all the time, but also the exact details of what the best choice is can be difficult to figure out. The designer made it that way so each person could work through those challenges. Making moral decisions is part of the design - that's how we make progress in character and virtue, etc. So, every person gets a chance to discover life. Otherwise, if everything was planned out in exact detail, we would barely have any free will. The natural moral law is a foundation and root of morality coming from our human nature. It's like how our reasoning process is built into human nature. But we still have to apply it to various arguments to see what is right or wrong.Silver Asiatic
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
You are certainly entitled to believe this.
But I have evidence and logic on my side. In other words my beliefs are justified. Subjective beliefs have no justification.
but let each of us figure out how best to use it Why couldn’t the designer have imbued us with this moral sense but let each of us figure out how best to use it?
How one acts on morality is certainly cultural based. But not the basic moral values which are universal across all cultures. They are two different things.
My moral values have certainly changed over time.
That is certainly true for everyone as they learn what specific actions are conducive to doing what is right. For example, a typical action by many especially when one is young is to put another person down either verbally or physically in the belief that such an action will elevate them. Learning one way or another can show that this is actually counter productive for yourself or for your social setting.jerry
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Jerry: It’s still incorrect thinking.
You are certainly entitled to believe this.
Aside: moral values are not necessarily religious.
I don't think anyone is suggesting this.
Yes and no. Morality flows from human nature/natural law. It is in no way subjective.
Why can't it be a combination of both? I don't think that anyone will disagree that humans have a deep sense of right and wrong, moral and immoral. Whether we are born with this or whether it is "beaten" into us at an early age is certainly up for debate, but I am willing to concede that it is built into us. In that sense, morality is objective because it is within our nature. Why couldn't the designer have imbued us with this moral sense but let each of us figure out how best to use it? It would certainly explain the variations and fluctuations we observe. My moral values have certainly changed over time.JHolo
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
I'm going to try and respond to all the "subjective morals is nihilism" comments as the day progresses, but I'll quickly comment now to say JHolo is right. The universe may be designed, and life may have been designed and mind may be a designed immaterial component of the world, but none of that necessarily implies that some objective moral standards exist, or that human being's behavior and beliefs aren't entirely internally motivated and chosen by each individual. This is not an ID/anti-ID issue.Viola Lee
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Thinking that moral values are subjective and not objective is not anti-ID.
It's still incorrect thinking. Subjective moral values are nonsense. If it is held by a pro ID person, it is still incorrect or nonsense. Aside: moral values are not necessarily religious. One can derive what is moral by examination of human nature/natural law and that has nothing to do with any religion. But because there is a distaste for religion by many, they believe this distaste applies to that which most religions espouse. So if a religion espouses morals, one becomes against any standard for morals not realizing that morals can have nothing to do with religion. It is a typical knee jerk response. Without any thought.
This is not an ID/anti-ID issue.
Yes and no. Morality flows from human nature/natural law. It is in no way subjective. The question then becomes, is human nature designed?jerry
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8 9 13

Leave a Reply