Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

[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 — 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
6] Jerry, 90: I feel the same way about Darwinists and Theists on evolutionary science. They too are driven by ideology on anything related to evolutionary science. Most of understand the ideology basis for Darwinists but the more I read about the Theists, I see the same thing. If you mean that people are driven by their worldviews, that is plain. But the decisive issue is what is the state of the case on the merits of fact and logic, not accidents of personal psychology in light of core beliefs. Or else, we are back at the plainly destructive idea that if I can impugn your worldview and infer to alleged nefarious motives, I can dismiss what you have to say. (Consider just for a moment that sometimes, worldviews can motivate people to seek truth, and in some cases, to then change their minds about what they believe.) Indeed, that is in part why I am taking time to engage this issue in this thread at length like this. Let us put personalities to the side and engage the issues seriously on the merits. For instance, if my reasoning since the mid 80's on evolutionary materialism is wrong, help me see why, by correcting on the merits my reasoning as summarised in 49 above, down to the just above. 7] JK, 92: . . . the statement that theists have an inherent respect for others and materialists have nothing but pragmatic grounds for offering such [Kindly provide the post number for this . . .] If any Judaeo-Christian derived theists said that theists as a body of individuals all have such an inherent individual respect for others at all times, above, they are in error, and that was long since more than adequately corrected on our side of the discussion, with details given above. (I suspect though that what was being said or attempted was that theistic worldviews adequately GROUND respect for others as say the US DOI of 1776 summarises; but evolutionary materialist worldviews run into difficulties identifying such a value on the individual that confers rights etc beyond mere "might makes right" and whatever political agreements happen to across time derive from that which it is in the prudential interests of today's power brokers to for the moment preserve at least in name. But as the shadow shows in the Plato's caves of the Academy and the media shift perceptions and votes, across time, anything goes. Thence, cultural suicide.) As to your onward statement on Barry’s alleged lack of respect for the beliefs of the many people who hold materialist but non-Nietzschian ideas, I think this is not good enough. Barry may indeed have made mistakes and may have stumbled , but in essence his core challenge was that materialists have a problem with grounding their beliefs, a problem that has momentous implications as I described just above at point 4 in no 98. In that light your onward remarks on how this “doesn’t bode well for any further constructive conversation” sounds too much like inappropriately personalising an issue that is bigger than that, an easy, well-known rhetorical "out" when one cannot answer seriously on the merits. If Barry erred [as we all do], correct him then seriously answer to the merits, please. (Otherwise, sadly, you may be illustrating the precise things you most object to in his remarks.) 8] JK, 92: Barry is insistent that we discuss Nietzsche. His reason seems to be that because Nietzsche was a famous materialist philosopher he somehow is a spokesperson for all of materialist belief. But that is not true. There are many materialists, some famous and many not, who would disagree with Nietzsche about lots of things. Jack, Barry was a lot more nuanced than you imply, and my own summary of the issue has no reference to Nietzsche as such. The key issue was, is Nietzsche starting from the core materialist premises and do his conclusions stem from those premises? Asserting that other materialists disagree does not answer to that – they could be simply in denial, for instance. Why not take on my core summary – would Nietzsche and other materialists agree that matter-energy, purposeless laws and chance, through evolutions from hydrogen to humans are the driving forces of the “real” world in which we live? That reality as we observe it thus derives from these blind forces, including our minds and moral views, as filtered through chemistry, biology and accidents of history and culture – so, inter alia mind and morality are driven by forces irrelevant to truth, purpose and validity or soundness? If that is so, IMHCO, the consequences I outlined in 49 and that Nietzsche outlined in the cite Barry gave in 43 follow, not from Nietzsche's idiosyncrasies, but instead from the common-core theses of evolutionary materialism, and lead to utter incoherence and moral-cultural bankruptcy. THAT is the issue that needs to be taken up. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 24, 2007
August
08
Aug
24
24
2007
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT
3] Citing Haidt's paper in Science: People are selfish, yet morally motivated. Morality is universal, yet culturally variable. Such apparent contradictions are dissolving as research from many disciplines converges on a few shared principles, including the importance of moral intuitions, the socially functional (rather than truth-seeking) nature of moral thinking, and the coevolution of moral minds with cultural practices and institutions that create diverse moral communities. In short, the state of humanity is as Western Theism expects, explains and describes, but the currently academically dominant evolutionary materialist view struggles to explain morality and the challenge of being moral in the face of moral intuitions and experiences. Haidt then resorts to relativist explanations . . . (a) the pragmatics rather than the reality based foundations of morals [i.e if immoral behaviour spreads across a culture it is destructive so morality is functionally advantageous for a culture – and let's not discuss the moral and intellectual significance of truth as that which says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not], and (b) the impact of cultural institutions that seek to instill moral behaviour, all neatly blended with the term “coevolution.” In short, the Science paper in reviewing the state of the art in the discussion of morality in today's academy underscores the sorts of concerns raised by me starting in 49 above and by many others above. 4] Haidt's proposal: Morality is about more than harm and fairness. More research is needed on the collective and religious parts of the moral domain, such as loyalty, authority, and spiritual purity. He correctly intuits that morality is about more than harm and fairness, as these inter alia raise the issue of the value of the objects “harmed” or treated “fairly.” Thence, we see the links straight to the Creation-rooted, theistically articulated themes of the US DOI of 1776 (and in its underlying context, cf here too):
We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .
“Self-evident truths” is a vital concept in this cite –- deny the following truths and you end up in incoherence. And we can see that being abundantly demonstrated in this thread. Thus, too, the centrality of the issue of truth to the value of the human being thence her or his moral worth and the binding nature of his moral claims to life, liberty and the pursuit of his purpose in life [what “happiness” in this C18 context was about]. 5] DK, 8: for one thing, I would be suffering from cognitive dissonance! We do not have to go to discussions on YEC claims to get to evidence of cognitive dissonance on the part of evolutionary materialists, in this thread! (In fact this is the simple psychological consequence of the abundantly evident incoherence of the worldview, once it is challenged to ground its claims.) . . .kairosfocus
August 24, 2007
August
08
Aug
24
24
2007
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT
Following up: Let us first note how Sal, in trying to address the main issue from the head of the thread, is having to repeatedly deal with personalities that amount to saying “you are a lying -- so, bad -- man, so we don't have to listen to you.” This is not just an [IMHCO distracting and largely irrelevant] ad hominem, but it reveals that the issues at the core of the debates on design as a re-emerging scientific paradigm have a deeply moral character. So the other major theme in the thread -- the implications of evolutionary materialist premises for morality [and mind] -- are seen to be in fact very relevant to the overall issue. Now, too, on following the thread up to date, I cannot but see a consistent failure to address the actual core challenge to materialists in the thread, namely, on the logic of the implications of evolutionary materialist worldviews. Even the reply by JK to Barry A was in effect a bare assertion that it was some of Nietzsche's “other” premises that led to his problems, not his materialism per se. Of course, missing in action is just what these “other” premises are and how core materialist premises do not in fact undermine the worldview and cultural foundations of morality [and mind]. (JK could of course remedy this by addressing my summary first given in 49, but he elected not to; perhaps, unsurprisingly – Barry A seems on first glance to be the easier rhetorical target.) So now to some highlighted points: 1] DK, 83: I repeat: for practical purposes it is irrelevant whether the non-theist (a class that includes “evolutionary materialists” as a subset) has a “proper” warrant by your lights for his moral behavior or for his rationality. H'mm, that first reminds me of a classic story of two houses built, one with a sound foundation on rock, the other on shifting sand. When times were okay, both served their purpose well enough, but what happened when there was a storm and a raging flood? [For the culturally illiterate: Cf the end of the Sermon on the Mount.] In short, foundations are practically important, very practically important, precisely especially when there is a crisis that reveals weak-points in how we operate as individuals, institutions and cultures. And, here the core point at issue is not my whimsical criteria for warrant [note the atempted shift to an ad hominem premised on relativism], but the widely acknowledged challenges of the project of philosophy proper, namely its quest to undertake the comparative difficulties challenge across live option worldviews, inter alia to see which ones are more likely to withstand the storms of time and life. The three major CDs tests as just linked [from an intro to phil course], embrace: factual adequacy, coherence, and explanatory elegance and power. So far in this thread we can easily enough see that: --> The Judaeo-Christian based western theistic worldview is factually adequate [it accounts for the moral intuitions we all have very well, indeed is in large part large focussed on addressing them], is coherent on morality [and IMHCO, generally], and powerfully and elegantly explains the why of morality. --> The evolutionary materialist view is challenged to account for the fact that we have and trust minds and associated moral intuitions, by virtue of its want of a credible basis for the mind is evidently incoherent, and by direct extension is wand ting badly in explanatory power. In fact it has largely subsisted off the intellectual, moral and cultural capital of Western Theism, even as it seeks to undermine the foundation of that capital. (And if the likes of a Peter Singer -- cf the Aug 23 Open Society thread -- are harbingers of what is to come, when that capital collapses, the results will be nastily destructive in the extreme.) 2] I choose to set that matter aside . . . No, DK, the mater is not as simple as that, nor cvan you shift it to an implied project in evangelism which you are uninterested in, for while the state of our souls before God may well come up, there is also a lot else at stake that does not allow you the option to duck out like that, not without consequences. For, we have institutionally powerful secularist progressivist agendas that are asserting a right to determine the direction of a whole civilisation and are busily attempting to de-legitimise and in many cases even demonise and scapegoat those who would challenge this, as even potential terrorists and tyrants; Ms Amanpour's hit piece over at CNN being only the latest example [I now have protests from my Jewish friends . . .], and the upcoming conference mentioned in the Open Society Thread being another. When such an agenda is on the table, one may not dodge or divert such serious questions like that – not without the consequences of ceding the right to us to infer likely motives and act prudently, promptly and vigorously in our defence. (Cf my cite from Locke at, ironically/ providentially, post no 76 if you are wondering what I mean.) . . .kairosfocus
August 24, 2007
August
08
Aug
24
24
2007
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT
Ah yes, in a pre-Dover, moment of Truth, Eugenie Scott tells it like it is: Antievolutionism and Creationism in the United States
INTELLIGENT DESIGN In 1989, shortly after the Edwards Supreme Court decision, Of Pandas and People, a supplemental textbook for high school biology, was published (Davis and Kenyon 1989). Its publication signified the increasing OEC influence in the neocreationist antievolution movement, and introduced the term Intelligent Design (ID). ID is promoted primarily by university-based antievolutionists who tend to be PCs rather than YECs. Dean Kenyon, for example, a tenured professor of biology at San Francisco State University, and Percival Davis, whoteaches at a public college, Hillsborough Community College, in Tampa, Florida, advocate ID. ID is a lineal descendent of William Paley's Argument from Design (Paley 1803,) which argued that God's existence could be proved by examining his works. Paley used a metaphor: He claimed that if one found an intricately contrived watch, it was obvious that such a thing could not have come together by chance. The existence of a watch implied a watchmaker who had designed the watch with a purpose in mind. Similarly, because there is order, purpose, and design in the world, so naturally there is an omniscient designer. The existence of God was proven by the presence of order and intricacy. The vertebrate eye was Paley's classic example, well known to educated people of the nineteenth century, of design in nature. Darwin deliberately used the example of the vertebrate eye in The Origin of Species to demonstrate how complexity and intricate design could come about through natural selection, which of course is not a chance phenomenon. In creationist literature, evolution is synonomous with chance. In scientific accounts, there are random or chance elements in the generation of genetic variation, but natural selection, acting upon this genetic variation, is the antithesis of chance. In the PC tradition, ID allows for a fair amount of microevolution, but supporters deny that mutation and natural selection are adequate to explain the evolution of one "kind" to another, such as chordates from echinoderms, or human beings from apes. These and the origin of life are too complex to be explained naturally, thus ID demands a role be left for the intelligent designer, God. ID literature is more sophisticated than creation science literature, perhaps because it is (except for Of Pandas and People) usually directed more toward a university audience than to the general public, at least up to now
That was Eugenie Scott accurately describing the ID movement in 1997! Nick Matzke loses this round. I was right, ID was aimed for another audience.
In the mid to late 1990s, university-based antievolutionism is a small but growing movement. For now, participants are dwarfed in both number and effectiveness by the more public efforts of organizations like the ICR, with its Back to Genesis road shows and media programs. YEC is still the most frequently-encountered antievolutionism that K-12 teachers have to cope with, but more and more it is being augmented by "arguments against evolution," ID or other neocreationist positions. However, because a university-based antievolution movement has great potential to reach future decision-makers (who are being educated in universities today), this component of the movement may be highly influential in the future, even if it is small today. Future generations of college graduates may think that books like those of Johnson or Behe represent modern scientific scholarship on science and evolution. This will only exacerbate the problem of antievolution at the K-12 level and in the general public: After all, members of Congress, captains of industry, and members of local school boards are college graduates. Eugenie Scott
scordova
August 24, 2007
August
08
Aug
24
24
2007
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT
tribune7, You said: "It’s a hypothetical i.e. if the standard accepted by the scientific establishment changed dramatically to that of young Earth acceptance, how — for all practical purposes — would you change?" I would feel very queasy in such a society because it would be similar to Alice in Wonderland not knowing what is up and what is down. What would be considered true would be as the discretion of the latest incarnation of Cotton Mather. I would desperately want out of such a society and so would just about everyone I know.jerry
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
Hi Jack, This is a science blog and as such let's talk of the merits of the Theistic and materialistic philosophies as they relate to their impact on science. 1. Materialism did not predict the big bang. Yet Theism always said the universe was created. 2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space. 3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein's special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity. 4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, which allows life as we know it to be possible. Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning, unchanging, clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism. 5 Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe in its ability to support complex life. 6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code. 7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA. 8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity for the “simplest” life on earth. 9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Yet we find evidence for “complex” photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Nov. 7, 1996, study in Nature). Theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth. 10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Yet Theism would have naturally expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion. 11. Materialism predicted that there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record. Yet fossils are characterized by sudden appearance in the fossil record and overall stability as long as they stay in the fossil record. There is not one clear example of unambiguous transition between major species out of millions of collected fossils. Theism would have naturally expected fossils to suddenly appear in the fossil record with stability afterwards as well as no evidence of transmutation into radically new forms. I could probably go a lot further for the evidence is extensive and crushing against the Materialistic philosophy. As stated before, an overriding hypothesis in science, such as Materialism currently is, is suppose to give correct guidance to scientists. Materialism has failed miserably in its predictive power for science. The hypothesis with the strongest predictive power in science is "suppose" to be the prevailing philosophy of science. That philosophy should be Theism. Now Jack I ask you why should materialism be given anything other than a subservient role to the more accurate hypothesis of Theism?bornagain77
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
Jerry --I will tell you one way . . . Jerry, It's a hypothetical i.e. if the standard accepted by the scientific establishment changed dramatically to that of young Earth acceptance, how -- for all pratical purposes -- would you change? For me, not a bit I think. I'm curious as to D.K's view.tribune7
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
Here's some comments in response to Barry's posts to me yesterday. It is likely this discussion isn't going to go much further, but we'll see. Barry is insistent that we discuss Nietzsche. His reason seems to be that because Nietzsche was a famous materialist philosopher he somehow is a spokesperson for all of materialist belief. But that is not true. There are many materialists, some famous and many not, who would disagree with Nietzsche about lots of things. Nietzsche brought many ideas to the table beyond just his lack of belief in the supernatural, and even professional students of philosophy are in pretty wide disagreement about exactly what Nietzsche believed and why he believed it (partially because a lot of Nietzsche's work was more literary than analytical, unlike most philosopher's.) So it is unreasonable to think that I am somehow obligated to discuss Nietzsche just because I am interested in discussing the materialist viewpoint. To offer a counter-analogy: this is sort of like us sitting down to discuss Christianity and the other person insisting that what I have to do is show the logical flaws in Calvin's theory of predestination. There is a wide body of thought in Christianity, with many disagreements within Christianity, and the same is true of materialist philosophy. I'll further note that Barry wrote, "Tell me why, once one accepts his materialist premise**s**, Nietzsche was wrong" and "Jack is afraid of Nietzsche, because he knows in his heart of hearts that, given Nietzsche’s premise**s**, his conclusions are inescapable.” [My emphasis on the plural.] One of the topics that I have mentioned that Barry has not responded to is the role of logic. As I wrote before, logic is a tool that carries no content of its own. Everyone brings a large number of premises to their philosophical understanding of the world - premises which we arrive at by a combination of experience, emotion, reason, introspection, and ultimately choice. One can agree with Nietzsche that the material world is all there is and disagree with him on many of the other premises upon which he built his thought. Barry gives logic an excessive power that it does not have when we are discussing philosophy. I think the reason Barry is enamored of Nietzsche is that Nietzsche represents the far end of a spectrum of materialistic thought, and Barry, being both a staunch anti-materialist and one who appears to see things more in black-and-white than grey, wants Nietzsche to be the representative of materialism so he can stand firmly against it. But I don't accept that. People have a right to think for themselves, and there is no inviolable logic that leads one from believing in a strictly material world to the ideas of Nietzsche. However, Barry doesn't seem able to consider these other views, dismissing them as cowardly, and dismissing any positive emotions such as love and compassion as "warmed over sentimentality." Given that the topic that actually drew me into this conversation was the statement that theists have an inherent respect for others and materialists have nothing but pragmatic grounds for offering such, I have to say that Barry's lack of respect for the beliefs of the many people who hold materialist but non-Nietzschian ideas doesn't bode well for any further constructive conversation. I'd also like to say that Barry does not know what is in "my heart of hearts," and that once again it is a considerable sign of disrespect for him to think he does. So I will be happy to continue to discuss my understanding of the spectrum of materialist philosophy with others of you, and I would be glad to discuss the points I have brought up here with Barry, but I am not interested in continuing this unreasonable insistence that Nietzsche is the only reasonable topic.Jack Krebs
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
My thanks to Ed for advertising this UD thread for the 3rd time! Cordova Conintues to Spin Ah well, Ed (an Ex YEC) is committed to seeing what he wants.
Sal puts "originated" in bold print but ignores the key phrase that goes before it - "as such."... But this is highly, highly dishonest
Ah, yes, putting the word "originated" in bold is highly dishonest in Ed's book.
He does so because he wants to claim that Nick is saying that the phrase "intelligent design" was actually used the first time in 1987.
Hey Ed, do us all a favor and do a search for the phrase "first time" in this entire thread. What do you find? Ed is arguing I want
to claim that Nick is saying that the phrase "intelligent design" was actually used the first time in 1987.
It's hard to justify that accusation since I never claimed
Nick is saying that the phrase "intelligent design" was actually used the first time in 1987.
Where did I say the above? Do a search on the above quote and it will be apparent those words are Ed's perception of what I said, not what I actually said. Ed is putting words in my mouth. I'm happy to speculate that the ancient notion of ID was for the first time associated with the body of writings of Kenyon's "Creation Science", Thaxton, Bradely, and Olsen's Mystery of Life's Origin, and Denton's notions of Evolution a Theory in Crisis. If Nick is arguing that this was to circumvent public law, this would be problmatic on several counts. 1. If changes were made to make this body of ideas constitutionally acceptable in public schools, there is then nothing unethical here. There is no crime in trying to make a product comply with the law. Sheesh! 2. If the new label was to make the idea more marketable outside the public school classroom, then it proves Nick was wrong again to suggest this was some conspiracy to invade public schools. It is perfectly acceptable to repackage an idea under a new name in order to attract a following outside of the public school issue. 3. If the new label helped it attract non-creationists like Michael Behe, William Dembski, David Berlinski, John Angus Campbell, and non-YECs like Walter Bradley, Charles Thaxton, Stephen Meyer, Guillermo Gonzalez, Walter ReMine, Roger Olsen, William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, etc. etc.....---then that even further weakens Nick's case that it was all about public schools. It appears the associating these bodies of ideas under the ancient banner of "intelligent design" was a brilliant strategic move to attract top talent from academia that were uncomfortable with so-called Biblical Creationism. Ed is seeing what he wants. He's not where I am, where I've had the chance to snooop and find out if there were some nefarious conspiracy to overtake the Federal government, or whether the IDEA founders are telling me behind the curtain, "hey Sal the whole ID thing is to sneak creationism into the public schools, keep that confidential, just pretend that's not the real reason you're in the ID movement". Does Ed think I'm in the ID movement primarily to get creationism taught in the public schools? Does he think Behe wants creationism (as in no common ancestry) taught in the public schools? Does he think the IDEA clubs were formed to get ID into the public schools? Actually, even Forrest and Gross admit IDEA wasn't formed to get ID into public schools. Their own twisted and inaccurate assessement said:
The Wedge has already acquired two groups of college followers, the Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center (IDURC) and the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club. The IDURC has become a division of Access Research Network and promotes Wedge books and other products through links to ARN's website and to commercial sites like Amazon.com..... The IDEA Center's advisory board consists of Wedge members Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Jay Wesley Richards, Mark Hartwig, and Francis Beckwith; Dennis Wagner executive director of Access Research Network ...... The Wedge has always had as a goal the insertion of ID courses into the university curriculum Finally the Intelligent Design and Evolution Aawreness Club (IDEA) was formed in May 1999.... they do represent a a vast potential pool of recruits that the Wedge is cultivating Barb Forrest and Paul Gross Creationism's Trojan Horse
Even by that rather twisted and faulty characterization, it would seem the ID label was to also help recruit at the college level, not public schools. That just utterly destroys Matze hypothesis that ID was aimed primarily at the public schools.
Well, now this is why I feel that the essential argument has to be carried on at the higher level, at the university level, and it's interesting you see that the people that come from the NCSE side [as in Nick Matzke] are always trying to say this is just an issue in the high schools Phil Johnson
Oh well, Ed Brayton, believe what you want.scordova
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
tribune7, "How does your life change for all practical purposes?" I will tell you one way it affects me. Namely, I do not know what to accept from such people in terms of science because I believe their beliefs are driven by ideology so I am not sure what is ideology free and what isn't. By the way I feel the same way about Darwinists and Theists on evolutionary science. They too are driven by ideology on anything related to evolutionary science. Most of understand the ideology basis for Darwinists but the more I read about the Theists, I see the same thing.jerry
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
Well, for one thing, I would be suffering from cognitive dissonance! OK, some well-regarded, impossible-to-dispute research comes along that says, yup, rate of decay of isotopes really was a whole lot faster a few thousand years ago. Then you find that astronomers now believe that assumptions involving spectrum shifts of light are incorrect and the universe is much, much younger. How does your life change for all practical purposes?tribune7
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
Well, for one thing, I would be suffering from cognitive dissonance!Daniel King
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
It matters for the practical purposes of astronomers, physicists, geologists, paleontologists, biologists, psychologists, etc. Not really. But how, for all practical purposes, your life be different if you believed in a 6,000-year-old Earth?tribune7
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
Hi, tribune 7:
Well, for pratical purposes it doesn’t matter if you believe the Earth to be 6,000 years old. So why do evolutionary materialists get so hot and bothered by people who proclaim it?
It matters for the practical purposes of astronomers, physicists, geologists, paleontologists, biologists, psychologists, etc. Can you see why they might be annoyed if people proclaim a 6,000 year old universe in their workplaces and classrooms?Daniel King
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
Daniel King -- I repeat: for practical purposes it is irrelevant whether the non-theist (a class that includes “evolutionary materialists” as a subset) has a “proper” warrant by your lights for his moral behavior or for his rationality. Well, for pratical purposes it doesn't matter if you believe the Earth to be 6,000 years old. So why do evolutionary materialists get so hot and bothered by people who proclaim it? Actually there are very practical reasons for cultures to address the source of morality. Take jury trials. We both agree that it is good to accept civic responsibility, to recognize justice exists as does truth, and that we should endeavor to be fair to victim and accused. But not every socieity has jury trials, nor a concern for either victim or accused. In fact many societies treat the need for social order on the basis of pragmatism rather than justice.tribune7
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, Your comment: "H’mm – doesn’t that look uncommonly like what a miracle would look like? Are we not here seeing the materialist form of belief in miracles?" That is why I used the analogy of the Sorcerer's Apprentice. While the materialist doesn't believe in God, they do believe in magic. Maybe macro-evolution only happens when one knows the right incantation that invokes the appropriate spell. It is obviously a forgotten knowledge since no macro evolution has happened in hundreds or thousands of millennia. As Behe has recently shown all they get now a days is a few trivial mutations. So unless they learn how to recite the right words so that organized complexity can magically emerge they will have to do with trivial changes due to a few negative mutations. The moral - When the materialist says their belief system holds together, they are really saying that they believe in magic, but one that is lost to the current world.jerry
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
kf #62:
7] This brings us right back to the issue summarised by me in 49, and by others in this thread and elsewhere: can evolutionary materialism, relative to its premises, properly warrant the credibility of our minds and of morals as a particularly important function of mind? If not, does that not make it inherently self-referentially inconsistent and thus irrational?
I repeat: for practical purposes it is irrelevant whether the non-theist (a class that includes "evolutionary materialists" as a subset) has a "proper" warrant by your lights for his moral behavior or for his rationality. Case in point: yesterday I fulfilled my civic duty of jury service. For the practical purpose of satisfying the needs of my community, this effort required no examination of the epistemological grounding of each step, from setting my alarm for an early start through dropping my juror's badge in the recycling basket. If instead you are asking me to examine the epistemological groundings of my belief in the reality of the external world or of my morality for the sake of my immortal soul, I consider that to be an entirely different matter. I choose to set that matter aside without concern for any consequences, having faith that a good and loving god is at least as decent a person as I am, and he/she respects my autonomy. As a matter of possible interest to one who would like to see a non-theistic (scientific) treatment of moral behavior, here is a recent effort:
Science 18 May 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5827, pp. 998 - 1002 Review The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology Jonathan Haidt People are selfish, yet morally motivated. Morality is universal, yet culturally variable. Such apparent contradictions are dissolving as research from many disciplines converges on a few shared principles, including the importance of moral intuitions, the socially functional (rather than truth-seeking) nature of moral thinking, and the coevolution of moral minds with cultural practices and institutions that create diverse moral communities. I propose a fourth principle to guide future research: Morality is about more than harm and fairness. More research is needed on the collective and religious parts of the moral domain, such as loyalty, authority, and spiritual purity. Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
Note the reference to evolution.Daniel King
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
To piggyback on kf's last comment; There is a story about a professor who asked his students if they believed God created this world. When one brave student raised his hand, the professor pointed to all the evil in the world and said that since evil existed in this world and a perfectly good God would not create evil, then therefore a perfectly good God could not exist because of this principle. The story goes on that another student raised his hand and when the professor called on him, He asked the professor, "Do You believe that cold exists?" The professor said "why yes of course." Then the student pointed out the fact that all cold really is, is the measure of the absence of heat. Therefore cold is equivalent to non-existence and thus does not exist. Then the student asked the professor "Do you believe dark exists?" The professor answered "Why of course." Then the student pointed out the fact that all dark really is is the measure of the absence of light. Therefore darkness is equivalent to non-existence and thus does not exist. The student went on to illustrate that as such evil is the measure of the absence of perfect goodness. Therefore evil is equivalent to non-existence and thus does not exist in reality. The student was said to have been a young Albert Einstein.bornagain77
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Okay . . . . I too have to head off to some clients, having of course used insomnia power bigtime last night. (Much of the above though was an expansion on previous remarks as it seems the previous level of details was not enough, and of course there was a lot of excerpting and linking to key sources. I even took the risk with the spam filter to give a fairly extensive citation from the NT, even through it seems not to like it. H'mm, sorta doesn't sit well with the fundy conspiracy theory . . . ) I wish Tyke well on his vac, and Jack well with his own job. Maybe, we can focus tasks a bit: 1] Calling all materialists: In this thread, a serious issue has been raised, that evolutionary materialism has a challenge to ground morals and mind as well, relative to its premises. The only seriously proffered response on the merits is "emergent properties," but that needs to explain such emergence beyond the level of summation of existing properties and interactions of material entities such as atoms and neuronal networks and associated accidents of conditioning. Otherwise that is going to look a lot like belief in miracles of materialism, complete with going beyond known laws and requiring committed, even creedal, faith. 2] Tyke: Above you said to Barry A in 64, that: "you do understand what materialists think and why they do." If that is so, then help us here: why is it that his inferences and citation of Nietzsche on the logic of materialism on morality, are evidently in your opinion incorrect or improper? 3] Jack: What about you? Do you agree with Tyke's assessment as just cite? Why or why not? How about my own summary argument as excerpted and linked in 49 above, i.e. in even more desperately compressed and excerpted outline:
evolutionary materialism reduces the world to a cosmos that evolved by chance + necessity from hydrogen to humans. That, IMHCO, carries certain evident implications that I would like to see addressed on the merits . . . . 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. But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as “thoughts” and “conclusions” 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 . . . . Therefore, if materialism is true, the “thoughts” we have and the “conclusions” we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity . . . Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself [including rationalisation of empirical evidence] to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism” . . . . In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic . . . . As a further consequence, materialism can have no basis, other than arbitrary or whimsical choice and balances of power in the community, for determining what is to be accepted as True or False, Good or Evil. So, Morality, Truth, Meaning, and, at length, Man, are dead.
Okay -- and noting that I have already shown above that it is my personal and the classic Christian theistic position* that all normally functioning men have and struggle with moral intuitions -- where is this chain of reasoning wrong, if it is wrong? Similarly, where is Nietzsche's argument on the logic of morality on materialist premises wrong, if it is wrong? GEM of TKI * [as a basic component of the Gospel message, of which Rom 1 - 3 is the classic philosophical- theological exposition. I.e., the Judaeo-Christian theistic position on morality is not just a matter of arbitrary commands from a capricious God demanding that we "kowtow" but as Hooker and Locke show a reasonable morality rooted in the implications of our common human nature and dignity under God. Likewise, cf here on Euthryphro. ]kairosfocus
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
Hi guys. I'm in the same boat as tyke: between my day job and other obligations yesterday I had no opportunity to take the time to respond to Barry. I'd still like to, but now I'm off to work again - we'll see if I have time tonight.Jack Krebs
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
Hey guys, just so you don't think I have run off to "hide my head in the sand", I am currently on vacation and do not have the time to respond to any of the (extremely) lengthy posts just added. Family and friends come before internet debates I am sure is one thing we can all agree upon. See you later, folks.tyke
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT
PPS: Similarly, in his Essay on Human Understanding, Locke begins his main argument, Intro Section 5:
Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2, Ac 17, etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.
Of course, Locke would have been even more strict in his rebuke to selectively skeptically doubting what one does not want to believe, while accepting substantially similar claims on similar evidential grounds, because the later happen to fit better with one's preconceptions.kairosfocus
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT
I'll add something I posted at telic thoughts regarding the motivation to have a label of ID as opposed to creation science. Nick Matzke repeats the mantra that the ID theme was all about inserting creationism into public schools. This is what I told Nick: ===========
Nick boasts: Bradford and Sal have sunk their own case and proved all my points:
[I responded:] Your point being that ID is only about getting creationism into the public schools? LOL! You're a victim of your own fabrications. Do you think IDEA was formed to get creationism into the public schools? How about the Discovery Institute. Do you think it would have been easy to recruit Michael Behe or David Berlinski or for that matter William Dembski or Michael Denton (briefly) or Hubert Yockey (briefly) into a movement which called itself the creation science movement? Ah yes, we can imagine the Pajaro Dunes conference and Phil Johnson inviting everyone there soley in order to promote creationism in the public schools. (NOT!) Nick, you fail to grasp that college professors and researchers friendly to the design argument might be a little discomforted to be associated with Answers in Genesis or the ICR, but they might feel a bit more comfortable with an outfit like the Discovery Institute and group that de-emphasized religious affiliations and didn't require a profession of YECism to join. A new name and affiliation (such as ID) might just be the catalyst to attract talent like Behe, Dembski, Thaxton, Bradley, Olsen, Gonzalez, etc. into the movement (none of whom are YECs). Do you think the misery Kenyon, Gonzalez, Dembski, Sternberg, and Crocker went through was about public school issues? I can tell you that Dembski, Crocker, and Sternberg would not call themselves creationists. Do you think I'm in this primarily over public school issues? C'mon Nick, snap out of it, man. You're arguing that the label was changed and maintained soley or primarily in relation to the public school issue, and that may not be the case at all. You might be presuming that a Bible believer might not have a strong desire to see a design hypothesis argued strictly from empirical evidence and physical theory rather than from theology. If you presume that, you are wrong. The design argument is believable for the very reason it is not argued from theology but rather from cold hard facts and logic.scordova
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT
PS: Here is Locke, in his 2nd essay on Civil Govt:
[Citing Hooker, in Ch 2 Section 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . . [Applying and focussing:] The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions . . . . so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another . . . . In transgressing the law of Nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men for their mutual security [i.e. we see here the right to self-defense for the community, and also the individual, as is discussed at length in the work], and so he becomes dangerous to mankind . . . . [Ch III, S 17] he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power [i.e. to tyrannise upon another, by force, fraud, usurpation or invasion] does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it.
The line of thought in Jesus and Paul should be plain.kairosfocus
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT
2] Sal, 65, on the actual main topic: There is a difference between “present use” [of the term ID in “Pandas . . .”] and “orginated”. And even then, “present use” could not be the most accurate or up-to-date use . . . . as time went on, the definition of ID evolved to reach back to the more ancient roots of ID rather than merely Michael Denton and Thaxton, Bradley, Olsen . . . . If scientific ideas are rejected because the idea was motivated by religion, then most of science would be rejected, since all the major disciplines of science were founded with strong religious inspiration. Sal is dead right here, and in fact if religious motivation sufficed to overturn an idea, so should ir-/ anti- religious personal motivation. At once we see that science and much more than science would at once collapse were such a standard to be applied – i.e the attacking and dismissing of ideas by attacking the man instead of addressing the merits is immoral by Kant's Categorical Imperative. We all know the proper answer: issues should be addressed on the merits of fact, logic and the like, not attacks to the man – this last, sadly, a by now very familiar, atmosphere- clouding and poisoning theme. 3] Tyke, 66: If there is no supernatural aspect to the brain (and there is no evidence that there is) then all of our thoughts, emotions, philosophy, and moral decisions are naturalistic emergent properties of the brain, regardless of whether we evolved or were programmed to be that way (i.e. designed). The Spartans had a proverbially short and sharp way of making simple responses to such arguments: “IF.” In short, Tyke here begs a key question through selective hyper-skepticism in Cliffordian/ Saganian evidentialist form, as his further remark shows: there is no evidence that there is . . . What were we discussing again, but evidence that –- as even his earlier assertion “emergent properties” concedes even as it tries to evade -- the mind and morals is substantially different from the properties of matter, energy and their interactions. Further to this, we have said at this stage on this topic nothing about “supernatural,” a loaded term in this context. We have -- e.g. 49 above and elsewhere -- raised the issue that there is a serious issue over the explanatory adequacy of evolutionary materialism on its own terms to account for the credibility of mind and conscience. It is in that context that we have raised issues on where the empirical fact that we find ourselves bound by moral law points, i.e to a Moral Lawgiver who gave us minds with morality as a key function. (So instead of addressing on the merits the issue of providing adequate explanation, T is trying to object to where a plainly more adequate explanation points. That rather begs the question, does it not?) 4] Tyke, 67: Let’s do the science, get the results, and the skeptics will follow. The science has already long since been adequately on the table. It is the institutional power of those committed to a classic Lakatosian degenerative evolutionary materialist programme/ paradigm that is for the moment holding back the tide in Science, the mainstream media, some courtrooms and education systems, as institutions. But, a new generation is rising who are familiar with information and what it implies when it is seen to be a core constituent of life and the cosmos. [Cf my always linked.] 5] Jerry, 69: The term emergent is an handwaving exercise when a materialist cannot explain something. They will say it emerged and is actually a hotter concept than evolution because emergent is more powerful. It explains how complex properties can happen quickly as one says such and such emerged . . . It happened, suddenly, inexplicably relative to "my" premises and principles of action, and we can trust its deliverances insofar as they relate to mind and morals. H'mm – doesn't that look uncommonly like what a miracle would look like? Are we not here seeing the materialist form of belief in miracles? 6] Sal, 70: I was never required to sign promise that “I’m a creationist and will secretly market creationism under the name ID so we can start a dominist theocracy” or anything of the sort. This of course, sadly, reflects the atmosphere-clouding and poisoning rhetoric out there. Should not those who make an accusation of serious impropriety have the duty to establish their accusation relative to substantial and clear evidence, or stand exposed as irresponsible and disrespectful? 7] Mentok, 71: As an ex-materialist I can speak from experience and say that my moral and ethical impulses before I became a theist were in fact real. Where did they come from? I guess from one point I can say that empathy played a major role, if not the main role. That is, just as Paul highlighted on the significance of neighbour love in the context of conscience implanted within us as a key function of our minds. All men have moral intuitions and find themselves having to struggle to consistently live by that light of the candle within. [Cf Section 5, Intro to Locke's Essay on Human Understanding, and Prov 20:27 . . .] GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT
All (esp Tyke, and co): There are several points worth a follow-up overnight. However, first we need to get something out of the way, as there is a clear misperception and misrepresentation [probably inadvertent – it is hard to see beyond our expectations] going on, despite direct statements to the contrary, with excerpts and references. For that, let's now cite Paul in Rom 2 & 13 – simply to document the actual explicit, authentic Christian Theistic view from an unquestionably authentic source, and then make a few observations on what is being said (some of which will be a surprise to some Christians too):
. . . 2:6 God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil . . . 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good . . . 11 For God does not show favoritism . . . . 14 (Indeed, when [men without the Scriptures] . . . do by nature things required by the [biblical] law, they . . . 15 . . . show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) . . . . 13:8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
--> Plainly, the NT position is that all normal men have moral intuitions that are implanted in our hearts by God; to wit we intuitively recognise that others are essentially like our own selves and deserve our respect and love so that just as we wish no harm to come to us, we should initiate no harm to them, but rather should do them good. (BTW, Locke strongly echoes this explicitly Judaeo-Christian thought in his use of Hooker's famous Ecclesiastical Polity in his 2nd Essay on Government, Ch 2 Sec 5 and Ch 3 Sec 17 etc.) --> Second (and here is also a surprise for Christians who may think otherwise), to those who actually persist in this moral law and way of doing good, from 2:6, “ he [God] will give eternal life.” Based on 14 – 15, this persistence also implies that there is a submission to the voice of conscience within and an even inchoate penitence when one stumbles [too often] and consistent turning to struggle towards reformation by the light one has: conscience, the voice of reason, the word of prophets and thinkers who are attuned more to that law than most men, inscripturated revelation and analysis, the voice of the Spirit. --> But, equally: ”for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.” That deeply troubles me when I see the brushing aside of inconvenient but evident truth, and/or the pretence that we are such nice, moral upright people who have no faults of consequence. It also troubles me when I see how too many people, from Athens' Mars Hill [Cf Ac 17 vv 16 on, esp 29 ff] to this day, respond to the unshakeable evidence of 500 eyewitnesses and a church that has shown the resulting power from a World Beyond, on the Passion and eternal triumph of the one called “Christ.” --> It further troubles me when I see how evidence that points to design in the finely tuned cosmos, in the nanotechnology of life, in the information requisites of body-plan level biodiversity, and the origin of a credible mind and conscience are frequently, sometimes even angrily dismissed or even censored through the fallacy of selective hyper-skepticism and associated misrepresentations and atmosphere-poisoning rhetoric. Surely, we can do better than such. A lot better. Now, on points: 1] Tyke, 64, to BarryA: you do understand what materialists think and why they do, but all you are doing in this conversation is telling us that we have no basis upon which to think that way, calling us cowards and craven for not reaching the conclusions you believe we should be reaching. A fairer summary of what Barry A has pointed out is that he has highlighted key themes in the best known passage by a major, iconic materialist [Nietzsche], and has challenged materialists to either own his reasoning or show good reason to reject it. Indeed, here he is in 68 on the point:
Jack Krebs set forth the main point he was trying to make in his comment 36: “In discussing materialism, should one make an effort to accurately present their position as they themselves see it.” I very much agree with Jack . . . . In an effort to deal with the logic of materialism at least insofar as it has to do with ethics and morality, I referred the conversation to Nietzsche, perhaps the most famous materialist who ever lived . . . . Instead of facing my arguments, Jack Krebs ducked them. His comment 52: “To Barry: I’m not discussing Nietzsche.” . . . . Why then? The only answer I could come up with is “Jack is afraid of Nietzsche, because he knows in his heart of hearts that, given Nietzsche’s premises, his conclusions are inescapable.” If I am wrong Jack, by all means tell me why I am wrong.
So far, sadly, and as BarryA has just summarised, we see ducking or brushing aside of the issue of the logic of materialism, and its implications for morality. We then see attacks to the man instead. Onlookers, what does that tell us on the issues of warrant and willingness to think through what Materialism is about? . . .kairosfocus
August 23, 2007
August
08
Aug
23
23
2007
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT
Mentok writes: “I’ve seen the argument for some time now from theists that without belief in a God that there is no basis for moral or ethical behavior,” I never said this. The issue is not whether people who don’ believe in God can be moral and ethical. Of course they can. The issue is whether they can articulate a logical basis for their behavior other than pure sentiment. Jack Krebs, an obviously intelligent man, could not. Judging by what you write here, neither can you. By the way, as I have been laboring to make clear (obviously unsuccessfully), it is not only theists who believe that there is no firm foundation for ethics without a transendent moral code, honest materialists admit the same thing. I won’t mention Nietzsche again. How about Professor Provine: “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.” Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life, Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration Keynote Address, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, February 12, 1998 (abstract); on the web at http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/DarwinDayProvineAddress.htm. Mentock writes: “ and that having belief in God is the sole cause of peoples morality and ethics.” I never said this either. As I mentioned, many materialists are trying to take a free ride on our culture’s Judeo-Christian moral capital. This is becoming more and more difficult as that capital dwindles. Mentok writes: “So it is definitely possible to be moral and ethical and have reason to be so if you are a materialist.” Of course it is. You see, there are no real materialists. The Bible says that God has put eternity in our hearts and that we all know at the innermost core of our being that His law exists and we transgress it at our peril. The most dyed-in-the-wool atheist still feels the tug of the law of the God he denies on his heart. I will say this one more time. The issue is not whether materialists can behave morally and ethically. They can and do. The issue is, as Will Provine says, whether there is a firm foundation for ethics. Think about this. Assume you are on trial for your life and the outcome of your case depends on a single witness telling the truth when the truth will have devastating personal consequences to him. Other things being equal, who are you going to put under oath, Dr. “there is no firm foundation for ethics” Will Provine or Dr. “My God has commanded me not to bear false witness” Billy Graham?BarryA
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
sal Ed's awfully caustic for this side of the fence. He makes me look civil. I think he fits right in on the other side. PiZza Myers' long lost brother...DaveScot
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
tyke 95% of the universe is made of "stuff" that we know almost nothing about. Our theories of physics don't predict it. All we know about it is how it effects "visible" matter through one of the four fundemental forces - gravity. Adding insult to ignorance we don't have a theory of quantum gravity so we have no idea how the great majority of the stuff the universe is made of effects things on the scale of living things. Unless you happen to believe that the tail wags the dog it's nothing but undeserved hubris behind any opinion that what we know of is all there is that's important in life and especially sentience.DaveScot
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
I've seen the argument for some time now from theists that without belief in a God that there is no basis for moral or ethical behavior, and that having belief in God is the sole cause of peoples morality and ethics. As an ex-materialist I can speak from experience and say that my moral and ethical impulses before I became a theist were in fact real. Where did they come from? I guess from one point I can say that empathy played a major role, if not the main role. I didn't want to harm others because I empathized with others. Also another reason, although I was not conscious of it at the time, was conditioning. Due to the society I grew up in (america) and the parents I had I was conditioned to have moral and ethical views since I could first speaka nd understand language. From schools, from media, from friends, from my parents, I was a recipient of a continual series of moral and ethical imperatives. So it is definitely possible to be moral and ethical and have reason to be so if you are a materialist. Empathy being the strongest motivation as well as conditioning by societal ubringing to motivate you to to fit in to society so as to cquire friends, family, wealth etc. As for the notion that belief in God imparts or causes morality and ethics; as philosophically attractive as that concept is, in reality there are and have been countless people with faith in God that have been or are immoral and unethical in countless ways. Some for selfish reasons others in the name of their God. There are also countless materialists who behave morally and ethically. If we philosophically examine the question of why people should be more moral and ethical if they belief in God, then we have to start with the question "why should they be more moral and ethical simply because they believe in God?" The only answer I can see is fear. If someone believes in God and believes that God can see what he is doing and can punish him for doing bad things, then he may be afraid of doing bad things for fear of punishment. The strict parent-child relationship. Besides fear there is no reason I can see why a materialist would be inherently more disposed to immorality and unethical behavior then a theist. In fact I can see a reason to believe that a theist can easily become more immoral and unethical then a materialist if he strongly believes in his religion and believes that his religion authorizes or even commands him to be what is in reality immoral and unethical in the name of morality and ethics e.g. violence towards others for any number of reasons which is taught as righteous and moral by a religion. For example in the old testament bible or in islamic scriptures or in the hindu manu samhita there are exhortations to violence for perceived offenses which are completely illegal because they are seen as immoral and unethical in almost all countries in this day and age. Materialist philosophy can also lead to immoral and unethical behavior. The history of the Soviet Union and other communist countries as well as the Nazis showcases what can happen if materialist ideologists without empathy get ahold of power. So when it comes to morality and ethics whether you are a materialist or a theist there is no guarantee that one will be better then the other.mentok
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply