[quote mine] Charles Darwin: “all has been intelligently designed”

_{Salvador Cordova

August 20, 2007

Humor, Intelligent Design}

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

From Letter 3154 Ã¢â‚¬â€ Darwin, C. R. to Herschel, J. F. W., 23 May [1861]

One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed

Charles Darwin, 1861

I think that would make a perfect textbook sticker.

Comments

Phinehas #159: Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
...KF is not saying: II. Mind cannot be reduced to the physical. but something more like: II. Materialists must explain thought only in terms of the physical.
Both of these formulations look logically equivalent to me. The essential point is whether there is a substance, which we call "thought," that exists independently of the brain. Methodological materialists (scientists) haven't found such a substance yet, as far as I know, but none would deny the possibility that it might be found, and I personally would appreciate learning of any such discovery. The jujitsu being applied in your formulation of II puts the burden of explanation on scientists. A burden they have actively undertaken to carry. To deny that there are naturalistic explanations for mental activity is to deny that there are libraries full of data and analysis in neuroscience and psychology. Attempts to paint this mountain of scholarship as blind reliance on "chance and necessity" look to me like a reductionist caricature, deserving of the designation "strawman." This is why I dissected it away in my analysis.Daniel King_{August 28, 2007
August
08
Aug
28
28
2007
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

Heya Daniel, I don't want to speak for KF, but your points I - III don't look to me like they are anywhere close to KF's points I - IV. I think you may be tilting at a strawman. If you read past the part that you bolded in KF's point II, it is easy to see that KF is not saying: II. Mind cannot be reduced to the physical. but something more like: II. Materialists must explain thought only in terms of the physical. So, the entire argument would be closer to this: I. Materialists believe that everything is physical. II. That means materialists must explain thought only in terms of the physical. III. The physical explanation for the origin of thought relies heavily on chance plus necessity. IV. There is no warrant for believing that chance plus necessity will result in accurate thinking patterns that lead to truth. V. Materialistic beliefs about thought are self-referentially incoherent since following them to their logical conclusion brings into question the reliability of thought itself. Phinehas_{August 27, 2007
August
08
Aug
27
27
2007
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

I now proceed to analyze kf's argument. kf #144:
a Ã¢â‚¬Å“solidÃ¢â‚¬Â argument is one that warrants its conclusions, by logically valid deduction from reasonable premises, and/or that adequately supports its inductions relative to good evidence, and/or provides a best abductive explanation.
Well said and agreed to. I will show that kf's argument fails on its premises. kf #49:
I. materialism . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance. II. But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as Ã¢â‚¬Å“thoughtsÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“conclusionsÃ¢â‚¬Â can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance and psycho-social conditioning, within the framework of human culture.) III. Therefore, if materialism is true, the Ã¢â‚¬Å“thoughtsÃ¢â‚¬Â we have and the Ã¢â‚¬Å“conclusionsÃ¢â‚¬Â we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence Ã¢â‚¬â€ but we have no rational grounds for relying on the Ã¢â‚¬Å“reasoningÃ¢â‚¬Â that has led us to feel that we have Ã¢â‚¬Å“provedÃ¢â‚¬Â them. And, if our materialist friends then say: Ã¢â‚¬Å“But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,Ã¢â‚¬Â then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited! IV. Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion.
In the above quote, which I believe contains the thrust of kf's argument, I have numbered the paragraphs for clearer reference. Paragraph I provides a premise that I will simplify to the following: I. Materialists believe that everything is physical (material). Paragraph II embodies another premise, bolded in the original for emphasis, that I take to be the crucial claim (restated for clarity): II. But mind cannot be reduced to the physical. (The rest of paragraph II focuses on mind, stating that materialists believe the mind to be physical. So it is logically included in premise I.) III. Conclusion: Therefore, materialists deny that they have grounds for believing they have minds. ( The first sentence of paragraph IV simply emphasizes the conclusion.) I think this is a fair representation of kf's argument, but to make it clearer, I will reorder it, with premise II, which I consider to be the major premise, on top: I. Mind cannot be reduced to the physical. II. Materialists believe that everything is physical. III. Therefore, materialists deny that they have grounds for believing they have minds. In a nutshell: Materialists can't account for minds, because minds are not physical (material). I argue that premise I is unfounded. A premise is either an a priori truth or a hypothesis. Since a priori truths are true by definition, they are tautologies. Since I do not believe that kf is arguing that premise I is true by definition, it must be a hypothesis. However, hypotheses are statements about the world of experience that must be tested for truth. As such, they require evidence and they can never be proven with certainty. Evidence against premise I: There is much empirical evidence against premise I in the medical literature, and an easy test for the person who doubts the physical basis of his mind is to try to do arithmetic when he is unconscious. Unproven nature of premise I: If there is empirical evidence for an entity (mind) that exists independently of the brain, it must be presented. Unprovable nature of premise I: Since the premise is a hypothesis, it can never be absolutely proven. If its proponent accepts this limitation and then says, "Premise I is probably true," then the conclusion (III above) is also a hypothetical and its truth is not logically binding. In summary, kf's premise that mind cannot be reduced to the physical is fatally flawed, and therefore so is his argument. I have already argued in this thread that any claim of intellectual or moral incoherence on the part of materialists has no practical consequences (the pragmatic test) and now I have disposed of the logical basis of that claim. A final note: Premise II is also flawed, because it imputes to "materialists" globally a belief that some (philosophical) materialists may hold, but this is not true of methodological materialists. The latter do not categorically deny the possibility of a non-material mind; they simply await evidence that such an entity or substance exists.Daniel King_{August 27, 2007
August
08
Aug
27
27
2007
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

Thanks, Mr Cordova. It was kind of you to write that.Daniel King_{August 27, 2007
August
08
Aug
27
27
2007
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

, I thank the management for its hospitality and this threadÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s participants for their thoughtful and courteous contributions to a debate that I have enjoyed.
And I thank you for participating Daniel. Even though it's a bit late to say this, at this point in the discussion (post #156) I officially give my blessing to let the conversation go wherever the participants decide. I think we've exhausted the original topic and BarryA has started revisiting it in another thread already. So have at it gentleman! Talk about whatever is on your mind (within civil limits of course).scordova_{August 26, 2007
August
08
Aug
26
26
2007
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

kf #144:
We could go on, but the point is plainly made on what a solid answer should look like and why this is yet another case of how evolutionary materialists fail at the bars of comparative difficulties: explanatory scope, coherence and power. Okay, I really gotta go.
Oops, I missed this (buried in the underbrush). I'll go ahead and post my devastating critique anyway, just for the record, and when kf returns from his well-deserved vacation, he can respond, if he wishes, and if this thread has not expired from old age and neglect.Daniel King_{August 26, 2007
August
08
Aug
26
26
2007
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

God willing, I intend to post tomorrow a solid rebuttal of kf's argument that "materialism is based on self-defeating logic." I will show that his argument is fatally flawed by an unproven, unprovable, and disproven assumption. With the demise of his argument, there is no onus on materialists to provide any answer pertaining thereto. In the meantime, I thank the management for its hospitality and this thread's participants for their thoughtful and courteous contributions to a debate that I have enjoyed.Daniel King_{August 26, 2007
August
08
Aug
26
26
2007
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

"he does not believe that materialists are less moral than theists" I am not so sure I agree with this claim that materialists are as moral as theists. While you can claim that some materialist lead exemplary lives and there are many theists who have caused much harm to society I am not sure they balance out as two on a see saw. I could point to events, struggles, policies since the beginning of the 20th century that have caused hundreds of millions to die and I am not sure theists are behind many if any of them. For example: Abortion - 100 million plus AIDS - 30-50 million and climbing Malaria - 30-60 million and still climbing as a result of banning DDT. World War I and II - 60-90 million Communism - 100 million You can definitely point to non-theist support in all these whether you want to call it materialistic is another issue, however I believe non theistic thinking is behind most of these. When people point to religious excess or wars, things like the Inquisition, 30 Years War, Crusades etc come up. Hey folks, the most recent of these is 400 years ago and even these were mostly political or in the case of the Crusades, self defense.jerry_{August 26, 2007
August
08
Aug
26
26
2007
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Back to the pragmatic defense of morality and rationality: kf #122:
no-one Ã¢â‚¬â€œ for well over 50 posts now - is seriously arguing that evolutionary materialists by virtue of not being theists do not have moral intuitions that hye try to live up to. Ã¢â‚¬â€œ> As to the claim to be a Ã¢â‚¬Å“moralÃ¢â‚¬Â person, a fairer summary is that you, too, have moral intuitions just like the rest of us, but do not wholly live up to the standard you set for others or even yourself; just like the rest of us. (How do I know that? Because I know on very good grounds that we are finite, fallible, fallen and too often ill-willed. In short that holds for me too, and for all of us in this thread.)
I am grateful to kf for emphasizing that he does not believe that materialists are less moral than theists. (He does not say the same about rationality. I take his silence as tacit admission that he is not accusing materialists of being less rational than theists. Indeed, if they are less rational, a fair-minded judge would be lenient about punishing them for the imputed incoherence of their beliefs. "Give us a break, Your Honor, we're doing the best we can with what we've got.") So, if materialists as a class are as moral and rational as theists, then theists as a class need not have a global fear of persecution from materialists any more than materialists need have a global fear of persecution from theists. It depends: some people on either side are more militant than others, and all arguments to the contrary are fallacious.Daniel King_{August 26, 2007
August
08
Aug
26
26
2007
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

kf # 143:
6] DK, 134: kf has assumed something that is incorrect and easily refuted. Try entering the following search terms in Google . . . You will see, onlookers, that I asked for a SOLID EM answer. As the case of Sober and Fitelson, the former a president of the American Philosphical Association [as has been Plantinga] at 123, responded to in 127 shows, SOUNDNESS in the attempted answers is precisely what is missing in action. Recall, they resorted to a self-refuting argument, then assumed what was to be shown. Materialists, being made in the image of the God they reject, have moral intuitions and can think logically, at least some of the time. But the problem is to explain that relative to their premises.
kf #144:
PPS: I see I have been accused of circularity above, on the dismissal attempt that by a Ã¢â‚¬Å“solidÃ¢â‚¬Â argument I simply mean one that agrees with me. This is of course a strawman [just look at the links I have provided on method, much less the summary notes above] and an unjust, even disrespectful, ad hominem [think of what it would mean to try to define soundness by agreement with oneself, being both finite and fallible!] argument.
No disrespect intended. Just a prediction based on observation. I should have said, a solid argument to kf is one that he agrees with, but he has demonstrated the truth of my assertion well enough. Further:
I did a yahoo search on one of DKÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s terms, and soon came up with a link at strongatheism.net, to an article...
Remember that kf's claim in #118 was:
...if there were a solid answer, it would be everywhere across the Internet, just a search and a click away.
My searches on Google gave the following numbers of hits: Plantinga: 464,000 Plantinga presuppositionalism: 9,690 presuppositionalism: 43,400 If only a fraction of these hits are to rebuttals, kf's claim is refuted. Note that kf did not acknowledge this refutation. Other searches, on specific "materialist' Web sites, such as IIDB, and on theism-friendly sites, such as thesciphishow, also contain rebuttals. None of these rebuttals can possibly be "solid," according to kf. He presumably knows that without reading them.Daniel King_{August 26, 2007
August
08
Aug
26
26
2007
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

mentok #128:
How many evolutionary materialists claim that evolutionary materialism can warrant morality? I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think you will find that they claim that evolution creates a basis or ground for morality. If you want to claim that theism is superior to materialism because it directly addresses morality in a profound way whereas materialism does not, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think that will matter in the least to a materialist. They donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t care that theisitic based concepts might be more moral then the law of the jungle. To them itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just mental concoctions created by humans, not divinely inspired revelation. So regardless of the moral inequality or relativity of materialism the reality is that materialists donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t care. Whether they can justify morality from evolution or materialism doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter to them because they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see theistic metaphysics as having relevance due to their non belief in a transcendental reality. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why Daniel King replied to you: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Irrelevant word gamesÃ¢â‚¬Â. What you are saying is irrelevant to them because to them your philosophy is based on fantasy, not reality.
An insightful and eloquent comment, mentok. Having been a materialist, you know the terrain.Daniel King_{August 26, 2007
August
08
Aug
26
26
2007
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Morality is a very simple concept. It is adherence to a standard. Now one can choose all sorts of standards and nearly every society in history has chosen a standard which is generally accepted by all in the society. We happen to exist in a society whose culture has and is changing very rapidly so the traditional standard is in shreds and most do not know what to replace it with. Many here do not think any good new standard will arise out of the ashes of what many in this society are trying to burn down. A materialist can choose amongst a smorgasbord of standards and do what ever seems at the moment to be attractive. But there is no compulsion for the materialist to adhere to any standard completely because they are by definition arbitrary and they can modify it as they like or even change standards. This modification of standards even applies to religious people as well as there is always a flourishing of new religious ideas with different standards of behavior. Religious standards are different from other standards since they are supposedly imposed from without and therefore not theoretically individually modified. But as we know, individual's interpretations of these standards which are imposed from without is quite variable. Consequently, we get what might be called the "Religion of the Month Club." One of the problems with the materialists point of view is what is passed on to the next generation. It has always been the responsibility of parents of one generation to ensure that their children have received the standards by which to lead their life so they too can pass them on. But I am afraid that this essential human activity is now in chaos as many many children have not received or know how to pass anything along.jerry_{August 26, 2007
August
08
Aug
26
26
2007
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Jack -- Why canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t love exist without God? Something else for you to ponder: If you believe in God and you accept the reality of love, the equation balances nicely. Now, if you don't believe in God but accept the reality of love you may consider it a some mystery yet life's highest virtue, whcih means you may be on your way to finding God. Or it may mean the source of love will always remain a mystery. OR, it may mean you eventually conclude it is just a temporary state and a mere chemical reaction, which would mean you will justify cheating on your wife, ignoring her, ignoring the kids, being dishonest with your employees and customers or students, and generally looking out for Number 1. Which means so much for love, and that, yes, it can't exist without God, or at least the recognition that there is something beyond the material.tribune7_{August 26, 2007
August
08
Aug
26
26
2007
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Jack and Daniel, I just watched Darwin's ly Legacy on TV. It was very enlightening. The foundational justification of 's genocide against Jews was to "purify the German of inferior genes". At the meeting planning the "final solution of the Jewish problem" one of the architects of the plan said "Darwin would be astounded at what we are going to accomplish in just one year" You claim a moral foundation in materialism, Yet if materialism is strictly adhered to it produces moral blindness. Whereas for a theist to justify such a morally reprehensible position as genocide he would have to somehow ignore and cloud over the Judeo-Christian foundation of Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You can tell the truth of your claims of morality for materialism by the fruit it has produced in civilization!bornagain77_{August 26, 2007
August
08
Aug
26
26
2007
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

thought simply cannot ground morality relative to its premises Ã¢â‚¬â€ other than reverting to some version of relativism/ subjectivism or might makes right, etc. And don't forget leeching to Judeo-Christianity by declaring that the value system it mandates is but the mere result of evolution.tribune7_{August 26, 2007
August
08
Aug
26
26
2007
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs has said "I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe in the magical generation of anything." I think that nearly all that support ID agree with you here which is at the heart of ID. All these complex systems couldn't have just magically happened but must have been guided by an intelligence which we don't believe is magic. It is evolutionary biologists who believe in magic because they constantly assume that magically, many things just happened in the past which defy logic. Despite knowing how the universe works they continually invoke unknown processes as "if they were magic". Also when Daniel King says that both evolutionary biology and theism are not faith based then he must be assuming that theism is not faith based because evolutionary biology based on Darwinian ideas certainly is faith based. To say that Theism is not faith based is an unusual admission.jerry_{August 26, 2007
August
08
Aug
26
26
2007
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

PPS: I see I have been accused of circularity above, on the dismissal attempt that by a Ã¢â‚¬Å“solidÃ¢â‚¬Â argument I simply mean one that agrees with me. This is of course a strawman [just look at the links I have provided on method, much less the summary notes above] and an unjust, even disrespectful, ad hominem [think of what it would mean to try to define soundness by agreement with oneself, being both finite and fallible!] argument. It works to cloud the atmosphere of discussion, and to distract from the focal issue that EM plainly and on serious evidence has at least possibly insuperable problems grounding morality and the credibility of mind more generally. So, let us note, linking again an already linked discussion of the toolkit used for such work: a Ã¢â‚¬Å“solidÃ¢â‚¬Â argument is one that warrants its conclusions, by logically valid deduction from reasonable premises, and/or that adequately supports its inductions relative to good evidence, and/or provides a best abductive explanation. Second, we can put this point to work quickly, by a further illustration of the problem that the F & S atempted rebuttal to Plantinga already manifests. To do so, I did a yahoo search on one of DK's terms, and soon came up with a link at strongatheism.net, to an article Ã¢â‚¬Å“Cutting Off One's Head: The Theological Attack Against Cognition.Ã¢â‚¬Â I will now comment on a few points in the article, by way of further illustration: --> The very title contemptuously and arrogantly misrepresents and disrespects Plantinga, whose major work as a philosopher includes a massive three-volume work on epistemology, on Warrant; and it goes sadly downhill sharply from there; never mind the picture and cite from Lord Russell. First, the opening point of presuppositional reasoning is that we have worldviews with cores or foundations that are first plausibles [as I discussed in part] already. --> Contrast Tremblay's loaded opening definition: presuppositionalismÃ¢â‚¬â€the idea that human understanding could not come to exist or be justified without a god [oh how tellingly they resent the effort of a capital letter here, as Solzhenitsyn aptly pointed out] . . . Naturalism poses a problem for theologians because they cannot understand its emergentist consequences, being caught in the mindset of personal causation First problem, Plantinga, presumably the main person being addressed, is a distinguished PHILOSOPHER. -> Second, the question of emergence is begged [CONSEQUENCES demands antecedents and valid chains of logical deduction, of which we find nowhere the faintest trace; we see here a classic non-sequitur] while dismissing as too intellectually closed-minded to understand, those who challenge moving from the known properties and patterns of behaviour of matter to the radically different ones of mind and morals. [This I already summarised in brief above; e.g. at a basic level, neuronal potentials and firing rates are not true or false, right or wrong. Neurons are located at particular points, truth and falsity or right and wrong are not, and much more.] --> This is a rich example of turnabout rhetoric: here, accusing the other Ã¢â‚¬â€œ- again using a pejorative term in this context -- of begging the question then proceeding to beg the question spectacularly: Ã¢â‚¬Å“theologians [Look, 1984 has been around since 1948, we know all about doublespeak] usually simply assume that matter, being impersonal, cannot give rise to personality, but this reasoning commits the fallacy of composition. Since human minds are complex systems, we have to affirm that the mind and its entities are emergent properties of groups of atoms, not simply atoms banging around randomly.Ã¢â‚¬Â --> In fact the whole may be distinct from its parts, but in this case if the Ã¢â‚¬Å“partsÃ¢â‚¬Â are mater-energy and its characteristic interactions, in a matrix of chance + necessity, one properly expects material interactions not emergence of radically different properties, in the sort of strong sense being jumped to. So, the claim that radical emergence has happened is a big one, and needs detailed warrant. Of this we find nowhere the faintest trace, only repetition of an assertion made from the outset. --> This unmet challenge to provide detailed accounts relative to material entities and known laws of interaction under chance + necessity starts at he level of the fine tuned cosmos, proceeds to the functionally specified complex information required to originate life, and to produce body-plan level diversity, and includes accounting for mind and morals as a part of mind. Of such a properly worked out description we see nowhere the faintest trace, only blind faith-assertions. In short, Tremblay richly earns the title: A-theologian! [For details on these issues, cf. My always linked.] --> The article goes downhill as it gets to the focus of our interest. Observe first the repeated loaded accusation without warrant, as highlighted:
Some theologians [read here, Plantinga as philosopher] also try to undermine the basis for rational thought by using evolution. Cognition, they would claim, is unreliable because evolution does not ensure truth-based processes in the human mind. Therefore we must believe in God, who has an interest in maintaining truth-based processes in our minds, because it wants us to apprehend nature. But this is a mistake that, in the title of this article, I call Ã¢â‚¬Å“cutting off oneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s headÃ¢â‚¬Â. By undermining cognition itself, the theist also undermines the basis for theistic belief. If we cannot trust the human mind, then we cannot trust the theistÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s apprehension of theistic truths, from the Bible or otherwise . . .
--> In fact, P. has challenged EM thinkers to provide warrant for their assumption/ assertion that relative to evolutionary mechanisms the emergence of mind is not a problem. That is a reasonable challenge, and he raises the important point that if RM + NS etc reward reproduction-enhancing BEHAVIOUR, belief is plainly transparent to behaviour, and that leads to a situation where it is very possible for successful behaviour to follow from plainly incorrect and unreliable thought and belief -- or even from the absence of such thought and belief. But on the other hand if our origin is under the guidance of an intelligent agent, then it is reasonable to see that such an agent in making creatures with minds would make the minds fit for function in their environment, including accuracy of perception, thought and belief-forming mechanisms. In short Agency is a better explanation for mind, much less morals. --> the same pattern continues, e.g as T takes on instinct: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Instinct is primary, since it predates rationality. Our rationality is in some ways informed by instincts, such as our instincts of logical thought, and can be hindered by instincts, such as the desire for belief. But the opposite interaction is mostly irrelevant in this context.Ã¢â‚¬Â (Excuse me, whence cometh such an Ã¢â‚¬Å“instinctÃ¢â‚¬Â for logical thought? Or, is Ã¢â‚¬Å“instinctÃ¢â‚¬Â here not simply another bit of word-magic, covering up: we don't know but must believe something, so let us assume and confidently assert: IT'S AN INSTINCT, STUPID. Oops . . .) _________ We could go on, but the point is plainly made on what a solid answer should look like and why this is yet another case of how evolutionary materialists fail at the bars of comparative difficulties: explanatory scope, coherence and power. Okay, I really gotta go.kairosfocus_{August 26, 2007
August
08
Aug
26
26
2007
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

5] DK, 133: Note the equivocation on the term Ã¢â‚¬Å“law.Ã¢â‚¬Â There is no equivocation. I am speaking here to laws of our nature, as in how the likes of Locke, Hooker, Blackstone , the Dutch founders of 1581 and the American ones of 1776 etc used that term. (Contrast, here, the attempted Nazi defence at Nuremberg, that cultural relativism prevails so their actions were lawful and just under their legitimate Government.) You will note that from how we quarrel, we expect and observe and generally accept that we are bound by key moral principles [and BTW, there is a pretty general consensus on the heart of these principles, e.g. fairness and harmlessness, the usual issues in a quarrel]. What accounts for that, on inference to best explanation, other than a Lawgiver -- Might makes right? Intensity of emotions? Chance plus necessity as mediated through accidents of biology and culture? Socio-cultural conditioning generally? Neurons firing off in our CNS [cf here Crick!]? Or the like? 6] DK, 134: kf has assumed something that is incorrect and easily refuted. Try entering the following search terms in Google . . . You will see, onlookers, that I asked for a SOLID EM answer. As the case of Sober and Fitelson, the former a president of the American Philosphical Association [as has been Plantinga] at 123, responded to in 127 shows, SOUNDNESS in the attempted answers is precisely what is missing in action. Recall, they resorted to a self-refuting argument, then assumed what was to be shown. Materialists, being made in the image of the God they reject, have moral intuitions and can think logically, at least some of the time. But the problem is to explain that relative to their premises. 7] JK, 135: Why canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t love exist without God? Trib, 137: What is the material basis of love, AND if it is some device merely to perpetuate the species why, according to evolutionary materialism, cannot it not be trumped by some stronger mechanism? JK, 138: Love is an emotion that we feel towards other people Trib has raised a key issue here Ã¢â‚¬â€œ how do you ground and show love to be of any consequence, on EM premises? Also, as noted at 1, love is far more than an emotion! [It is precisely that offhand, assumed Ã¢â‚¬Å“obviousÃ¢â‚¬Â reduction of a lynchpin virtue and moral mandate to an emotion that is ever so telling about the want of proper grounding of evolutionary materialist thought on morality.] BTW, JK, welcome home from your vac. 8] JK, 138: I understand, I think, that most anti-materialists believe that materialists have no grounds (other than pragmatic) for morality, because the belief is that without a lawgiver, there can be no law. That is the topic that I had a few things to say about earlier in this thread . . . Of course, to see what is going on, go through the chain from quarrelling to the issues at stake, fairness and doing no harm, onward to the question: why is it generally and intuitively accepted as a binding obligation Ã¢â‚¬â€œ moral principle -- to be fair and harmless? What worldview best explains that? And, how do materialists attempt to GROUND Ã¢â‚¬â€œ logically and epistemologically warrant Ã¢â‚¬â€œ morality relative to their premises? On the evidence, do they succeed on a comparative difficulties basis? Educated theists, and even a great many thoughtful materialists, have had to conclude that EM has a major and unmet problem grounding morality within its system of thought; indeed, there is a serious question that the system of thought is fundamentally and inescapably incoherent. (It's not just a mater of Ã¢â‚¬Å“antimaterialism.Ã¢â‚¬Â) 9] Trib, 139: it depends to what you claim to be the source of those emotions [in context, of Ã¢â‚¬Å“loveÃ¢â‚¬Â] Ã¢â‚¬â€ a mere chemical reaction designed to perpetuate the species or sanctifying bonding with anotherÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s soul leading to a realization that there is a purpose far greater to our existance than acquiring bits of matter. Thus lieth nakedly revealed the sere impoverishment of materialism as a worldview. 10] Joseph, 140: What is Ã¢â‚¬Å“moralÃ¢â‚¬Â in one society isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Ã¢â‚¬Å“moralÃ¢â‚¬Â in another. This comes to the issue of reformation vs relativism and associated pragmatism etc. Societies do have divergent perceptions of morality, and reformers see that something is wrong and challenge the Ã¢â‚¬Å“consensus.Ã¢â‚¬Â Now, how is the decision to be made? Power/ might makes Ã¢â‚¬Å“rightÃ¢â‚¬Â? Or, do we not recognise a higher law that often calls for sacrifice even martyrdom in witness to the right? Thence, a Giver, behind that law . . . ? And, that extends to the international arena pretty directly Ã¢â‚¬â€œ for sometimes, just force (not mere talk) is required to stop vicious and ambitious aggressors of the ilk of an Adolf Schicklegruber. Okay, let me stop here, now. See you all in about a week or so. GEM of TKI PS: Here is my own reflection on morality and ethics, in the context of a course I taught a few years back. I think it may prove helpful in onward reflections on the topic, including the part on sustainability of development, which is an application of the ethics of the Kantian CI, in turn an expression of the principle in the Golden Rule. (Never mind the Watermelon thinking Ã¢â‚¬â€œ green outside, a significantly different colour inside -- that too often subverts the point . . .)kairosfocus_{August 26, 2007
August
08
Aug
26
26
2007
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT}

All The onward exchanges since yesterday, sadly but aptly, underscore that evolutionary materialist thought simply cannot ground morality relative to its premises -- other than reverting to some version of relativism/ subjectivism or might makes right, etc. which simply underscore that tit cannot account for ought based on is -- as a part of the larger problem it faces grounding the credible mind we need to think rationally at all. Remember, the issue is not whether materialists can think or have and try to live by moral intuitions, it is that here is a deep problem grounding these in their worldview Ã¢â‚¬â€œ i.e. there is a question of logical and broader intellectual coherence; part of why there is such an intensity in their responses above. So, we can ask, relative to the premises of EM: [i] In light of say the issued Plantinga raised [hurled elephants and lit bluffs etc notwithstanding] why should we trust he deliverances of Darwin's overgrown monkey-mind? [i] Why should we see ourselves as actually bound by moral principle, beyond emotions, conventions of the community or prudence int eh face of power? [iii] Is such a person reasonable and principled in any serious sense? Now, on a few points: 1] Love must come first Love is not merely an emotion. She is the queen of the virtues, and at core, a commitment to value and to cherish and care for the other, doing the other good, not harm. (Indeed, the tendency to think of love in terms of feelings only may help explain skyrocketing divorce rates and disintegration of families all across the West, and a lot else, none of it good.) That is why Locke could cite Hooker et al on the Golden Rule, i.e neighbour love, as the foundation of mutual respect and natural justice and good neighbourliness in the community. But of course, as also excerpted, all of that is in light of Locke's largely Biblically shaped Creation-centred worldview. And, now that many in the elites of the West have turned their backs on the roots of our vaunted liberty in God and in the endowments, responsibilities and charges he gave us, is it any wonder that we see a falling apart of the foundation and praxis of virtue? [Cf here, Rom 1 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ 2.] 2] Mentok, 128: How many evolutionary materialists claim that evolutionary materialism can warrant morality? I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think you will find that they claim that evolution creates a basis or ground for morality. But if materialistic evolution is to explain Ã¢â‚¬Å“allÃ¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬â€œ one of the challenges/ objectives of a worldview, then it must address morality and mind, grounding it relative to its premises. In short, here we see a question of inadequate explanatory scope relative to vital facts, and because of the self-references entailed in the centrality of mind and of intellectual virtues in reason and knowledge, also a question of deep, self-defeating incoherence. Thus, on the evidence, evolutionary materialism, with its monistic reductionism [all is Ã¢â‚¬Å“matterÃ¢â‚¬Â and its properties and behaviour] is evidently seriously wanting in explanatory power as well. In short, it is being seriously challenged to surmount the three comparative difficulties bars in the worldviews hurdle race. We should be aware of that, and should take it under serious consideration when going worldview shopping. 3] So regardless of the moral inequality or relativity of materialism the reality is that materialists donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t care. Whether they can justify morality from evolution or materialism doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter to them because they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see theistic metaphysics as having relevance due to their non belief in a transcendental reality. We care [for all too telling reasons on the track record of the past century], and we should know that Ã¢â‚¬â€œ especially before putting power [which, as the early reformation thinkers on liberation pointed out from Duplessis-Mornay on, is original with the people as a body and is only entrusted into the hands of officials, under terms of covenant] into the hands of people who think, view and value like that Ã¢â‚¬â€œ given, e.g., what we just saw on neighbour-love. 4] DK, 132: No [Replying to Jerry's: Does this mean that you are arguing that both theism and evolutionay biology are faith based. ] H'mm. Let's briefly sum up. A claim A is made. Why accept it? Generally, because of B, a further claim relative to evidence and reasoning. Why B? Well, C. And so on. We thus face an infinite regress, impossible for the finite and fallible. In praxis, we reach a faith-point of first plausibles F. To avoid circularity, such should be open to comparative difficulties analysis across live options. And that brings us back to the issues at stake. But, we now see that all men live and think by faith, explicitly or implicitly, the question is: which one, and why? . . .kairosfocus_{August 25, 2007
August
08
Aug
25
25
2007
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

Jack you say that you "don't see how having emotions is dependent on the existence of God", and that is perfectly understandable if you don't know how God is relevant to our reality. It's like my cats not understanding how their meals are dependent on the pet food corporation which makes their meals. They only know that I feed them, they have no conception of the importance of the pet food corporation in sustaining them. Likewise people who either are atheists, agnostics, or even theists without a real understanding of how God works, do not understand the extent of that which sustains them (God) because they do not see God directly sustaining them or they don't understand how it could possilby be true. So yes, you do need God to have emotions or love because everything is dependent on God. We can examine this a bit closer if we want and look at how the mind works. The mind and emotions work together. What is the mind? What substance are thoughts comprised of? How do we understand thoughts? How do we receive memory which is thought? Can thought be stored in cells? If so how and where? Can cells read your mind and understand language, grammar, word meanings, etc? If not where does memory come from? How does the mind and therefore emotion function if the mind is solely dependent on the interactions of chemicals in cells? Can cells really understand what you are thinking and give you information that you want in a language? If I ask you where you were last night how does that memory become available to your mind? If that memory is stored in cells in your brain are you telling me that those cells understand and can communicate with me so that if I ask you a question they can supply the answer? Well if they can't then where does memory come from? Without memory we would be like new born babies at all times. In order for us to be able to be intelligent and function as we do we need a very sophisticated memory management system. Yet our memory is based upon thought and communication which cells are unable to do because they do not possess the required means which would enable them to talk to us and understand our thoughts and our language. Can cells in your brain communicate through thought and are they able to understand language, grammar, vocabulary etc. Of course not. So how do we exist the way we do with memory and mind and thought all working together to form an intelligent person? That is understood when you understand how our minds are part of a larger (universally) all pervading field of consciousness/mind who enables us with our memory and the ability to function as intelligent persons. That is why we need God to have emotion or love. Our minds cannot function without being a part of God's mind and without God supplying us with memory through our mind connection.mentok_{August 25, 2007
August
08
Aug
25
25
2007
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

First morality is in the eye of the beholder. What is "moral" in one society isn't "moral" in another. As for "love" do other organisms experience it or is it entirely a human thing? I know there are other species that mate for life but is that because of "love"? Do we need it to survive? No. Do we need it to hunt or gather food? No. Do we even need it to find a mate? No. Do we need it to successfully mate? No. Compassion can get one killed. Help the weak so that the gene pool is muudied by their genes goes against the heart of the theory of evolution. Sorry JK but the materialist position can only explain love, compassion and morality with a hand-wave and a wink.Joseph_{August 25, 2007
August
08
Aug
25
25
2007
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

I ask the question because IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m trying to understand the reasoning of anti-materialists. That's a strange way of describing us since I don't think any of us here are anti-material. Most of us do have objections, however, to the claim that morality is, or can be, based solely on what is measurable. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see how having emotions is dependent on the existence of God I guess it depends to what you claim to be the source of those emotions -- a mere chemical reaction designed to perpetuate the species or sanctifying bonding with another's soul leading to a realization that there is a purpose far greater to our existance than acquiring bits of matter.tribune7_{August 25, 2007
August
08
Aug
25
25
2007
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

I don't believe in the magical generation of anything. I ask the question because I'm trying to understand the reasoning of anti-materialists. I understand, I think, that most anti-materialists believe that materialists have no grounds (other than pragmatic) for morality, because the belief is that without a lawgiver, there can be no law. That is the topic that I had a few things to say about earlier in this thread. But I don't understand how that reasoning would apply to love. Love is an emotion that we feel towards other people, usually the strongest towards people close to us, although in some people in can be generalized, at least in the abstract, to all people and even the universe as a whole. I don't see how having emotions is dependent on the existence of God - this seems different than the morality issue.Jack Krebs_{August 25, 2007
August
08
Aug
25
25
2007
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Why canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t love exist without God? What is the material basis of love, AND if it is some device merely to perpetuate the species why, according to evolutionary materialism, cannot it not be trumped by some stronger mechanism? Something else for you to ponder, Jack -- evil can't exist without God, for God is the one who defines evil. Look at nature. A alpha female can kill the children of a beta female in a pack and who is anyone to judge? She's just giving her pups a better chance.tribune7_{August 25, 2007
August
08
Aug
25
25
2007
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Jack Do You think love just magically generated from a material basis?bornagain77_{August 25, 2007
August
08
Aug
25
25
2007
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Why can't love exist without God?Jack Krebs_{August 25, 2007
August
08
Aug
25
25
2007
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

kf #122:
if there were a solid [evolutionary materialist] answer, it would be everywhere across the Internet, just a search and a click away.
kf has assumed something that is incorrect and easily refuted. Try entering the following search terms in Google: Plantinga presuppositionalism Plantinga presuppositionalism (Note also the question-begging use of the word "solid." If does not support kf, it is not "solid.")Daniel King_{August 25, 2007
August
08
Aug
25
25
2007
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

kf #119:
we appeal to Moral Law, which requires, in the end, Lawgiver.
Not at all. Note the equivocation on the term "law."Daniel King_{August 25, 2007
August
08
Aug
25
25
2007
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

jerry #124:
Does this mean that you are arguing that both theism and evolutionay biology are faith based.
No.Daniel King_{August 25, 2007
August
08
Aug
25
25
2007
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

One does not have to believe in God to believe that love, compassion, and respect are central to the human condition, and that exercising those qualities resonates the best with the truth about what human beings are.-Jack Krebs
Would love, compassion and respect even exist without "God"? Compassion seems to go against natural selection. Love just gets in the way. And respect must be earned.Joseph_{August 25, 2007
August
08
Aug
25
25
2007
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply