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
I'd like to thank Ed Brayton for continuing to advertise UD. In reciprocity, here is Ed response. Cordova's Non Answer.
Ed demands: What I asked was why you chose to contrast the Darwin quote with what Matzke said rather than contrasting it to what Dembski said
Because it didn't occur to me. Duh. I was trying to make the humor thread a little entertaining (especially after Jack Krebs spoiled the party). Now, if Ed is asking whether I think there is a problem with what Bill said, or whether I was aware of a nefarious plot to take over the federal government, and whether I was privy to a conspiracy -- that's another story... Regarding a conspiracy. I have no info on that. 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. In fact, regarding my views of creationism, I have been worried my leanings toward creationism would disqualify me from the ID movement since there was some prior concern over my predecessors, Paul Nelson (I don't recall off hand all the details...) The most I was asked to pledge was that was that I was Christian in order to lead an IDEA club -- the IDEA club has since dropped that requirement. In fact, if there are accusations of a nefarious plot, it's kinda inconsistent to be broadcasting in public view that one is required to have a certain religious belief to become an officer. In fact, on the IDEA Center website, it is very transparent what their beliefs are: IDEA Affiliations
Additionally, for religious reasons unrelated to intelligent design theory, IDEA Center Leadership believes, that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible. That's our bias. We'd love to know more about yours!
So in that regard, where is any evidence of hiding motives or beliefs or intentions? The point is, there has been a tradition of transparency from day one. For Ed and Nick to be accusing my friends and collegues of hiding something or being part of some conspiracy only conveys to me the level of self-blinding that must go on for these people to think we're up to something. I've stated my positon on the public school issue, and I've have very marginal and vacillating involvement for the reasons outlined. My interest has been with respect to students and faculty and researchers in schools and industry. If a creationist hears an NEA public school teacher claim we weren't specially created. No big deal. But if a student gets denied a diploma, or professor denied a job. That's a big deal. That is what I am concerned about.... Religious issues are also de-emphasized even in an organization like the Discovery Institute or IDEA for a practical reason: people are from radically different denominations. It would be a bad business practice, period, to make a big deal about it. Instead, all sort of conspiratorial motives are assigned to the ID movement for this de-emphasis of religion (compared to say Answers in Genesis, where every paragraph and every 5 minutes, a profession of faith is made). Futhermore, if the architects of ID were really a creationist organization, how then does one explain that it employs a Darwinist like John Angus Campbell and several non-creationists like Michael Behe or David Berlinski? How the heck will Matzke explain that one away..... In fact, Ed and Matzke edit out something that clarified Bills claims about Pandas. I pointed it out earlier, but I'll repeat it:
It is clear that the book is now dated. Indeed, the first edition was published in 1989 and the second edition (published in 1993) involves only minor changes in relation to the first edition. Of Pandas and People was and remains the only intelligent design textbook. In fact, it was the first place where the phrase “intelligent design” appeared in its present use.
This passage had nothing to do with "originating" the idea of ID or how the label came about. It was referring to it current use in an obsolete book. It was the first time the phrase "intelligent design" was associated with the ideas of Thaxton, Bradley, Olsen, Kenyon, Denton, etc (and one should not call their work creationist in the Biblical or religious sense). So for Ed to cite this as evidence of some conspiracy to repackage creationism as ID is pretty lame. But I pointed, out, even if the motive was to repackage it in order to make it acceptable in the eyes of the courts, then there is even less call to say the ID movement was up to something wrong. It wouldn't be creationism in the eyes of the law. The most they can come up with is to suggest that there was an attempt to deceive the courts. But in all my time in ID, I've not heard any sort of plot to do deliberately deceive. To lie means to willfully know that what one is doing is deceptive. It is not the same as creating an idea which there might have differing views as to its legality. Scalia might not agree with Jones, for example. Finally, no matter what nasty things Ed says about me, I still maintain, unlike the John Patterson's and John Rennie's of the world, that Ed is a decent guy deep down, he's just badly mistaken. He's making friends with the wrong gang. He belongs with us ID folk, not the likes of Gary Hurd and PZ Myers.... Ed still thinks the ID movement is about suppressing thought. He might do well to consider that if it weren't for him, Richard Dawkins would still collecting signatures to label religious people as child abusers. That effort by Ed was commendable, but it betrays the fact Ed's on the wrong side. He belongs with us, not with them...scordova
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
“Emergent properties,” in short, is little more than a fancy way to say, “we don’t know . . . .” Kairofocus is right. 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 while to say it evolved implies lots of time. "Emerge" is a more powerful concept that a materialist can wave just as Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer's Apprentice waved his wand and an endless number of broomsticks emerged fetching water. Yes "emerge" is a potent addition to the wishful speculation of the materialist. It keeps them warm on cold nights knowing that they can always use it when needed like Mickey's magic spell.jerry
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
Tyke writes: “BarryA, you have been talking past Jack’s point. Jack is merely suggesting that understanding the oppositions positions and motivations would help lead to a civil and fruitful discourse.” I am afraid you are quite wrong my dear tyke. 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. Indeed, what victory has one gained when one demolishes a straw man of one’s opponent’s position instead of dealing with his arguments on their own merits? 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. Surely, I must be given credit for trying to present the materialist position as they themselves see it. Instead of facing my arguments, Jack Krebs ducked them. His comment 52: “To Barry: I’m not discussing Nietzsche.” Why will Jack not discuss Nietzsche I asked myself. Surely it is not because Nietzsche is biased against materialists. He was one. Just as surely it is not because Nietzsche’s arguments are unworthy of discussion. He is justly one of the most influential philosophers of the last two centuries. 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. Stand up and face Nietzsche squarely. And please don’t give me warmed over sentimentality as a grounds for ethics. It simply will not do. At the decision point it is simply too easy to disregard sentiment in favor of self-interest. To paraphrase Newman, one might as well moor a battleship with a silken thread or carve granite with a razor as to try to restrain human passion by appeals to sentiment. I am all ears. Show me the flaws in Nietzsche’s logic. If you can.BarryA
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
The place where ID will win is in the court of public opinion and before the scientists of tomorrow. Amen to that, though I would put the scientists first. ID is already well thought of in the court of public opinion and is making no headway with scientists. Let's do the science, get the results, and the skeptics will follow. It may not be tomorrow, but it will happen, if the science is done and shown to be done.tyke
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
“Emergent properties,” in short, is little more than a fancy way to say, “we don’t know . . . .” 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).tyke
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
Bill Dembski wrote in his Dover expert witness paper:
Of Pandas and People was and remains the only intelligent design textbook. In fact, it was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its present use.
Nick Matzke writes:
“intelligent design” as such originated in the 1989 ID textbook Of Pandas and People
There is a difference between "present use" and "orginated". And even then, "present use" could not be the most accurate or up-to-date use, since Bill Dembski points out: It is clear that the book is now dated. See: Expert Report by Bill Dembski And here is how the ancient idea of "intelligent design" was incorporated into Pandas: The Origin of Pandas And then 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. How this evolved was described in ID Coming Clean But let's step back a bit. Let's do a summary judgement and suppose the motivations were religious and there was a plot to find LEGAL means to present empirical FACTS in favor of intelligent design, or even special creation. Would that be illegal? Answer: It depends on the judge. It depends whether it's Liqour Control Board Director John E. Jones or US Supreme Court Judge Scalia. We know what Jones would do. He'd cut and paste an ACLU opinion. But what would justice Scalia do? He gives us a clue in his dissenting opinion which was signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme court in Edwards vs Aguillard:
but the question of its constitutionality cannot rightly be disposed of on the gallop, by impugning the motives of its supporters.
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. Case in point: Cosmological ID in 1744 upon which most of modern physics is tied. But even with these facts, it is clear, many courts would not grant ID a fair trial. So what do we do? First off, my personal view is that if Darwinist parents want to hide facts from their kids so that their kids can be raised as Darwinists, that is their right (much as I my dislike it). Public schools shouldn't force the truth on Darwinist kids against the wishes of Darwinist parents. One can see how upsetting that would be to some Darwinist parents like Marc Hauser who describes how he raised his daughter: http://tinyurl.com/266wx8
When my youngest daughter was about three years old, I pulled a cheap trick on her, teaching her that whenever I asked “Who's the man?”, she should reply “Darwin!” She does this quite well now. It is hard to imagine any living biologist not thinking that Darwin IS the man,
Besides, I'm not so sure pro-ID parents or creationists parents would be thrilled to have the public school NEA teachers that are ideological clones of Peter Singer, Stephen Pinker, or Richard Dawkins teaching ID, creation science, or even the Bible. So perhaps no ID in public schools any time soon. In fact, I've argued the public schools will be the last place the ID battle is won. The place where ID will win is in the court of public opinion and before the scientists of tomorrow.scordova
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
BarryA, you have been talking past Jack's point. Jack is merely suggesting that understanding the oppositions positions and motivations would help lead to a civil and fruitful discourse. Maybe 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. With respect, that is showing materialists no respect at all and simply reinforces the point that Jack originally made that such name calling should be avoided if we are to have a civil debate.tyke
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
PPS: Re 61: "Emergent properties" fails to address the question of warrant relative to the dynamics at work. Cf the points in 49 above, again, and onward links to Plantinga et al. In very brief summary, when Na and Cl atoms come together we can explain NaCl based on the properties of constituents and interactions. The "emergent properties" now in view are radically different from material properties and forces -- truth, implication, numbers, propositions, information, communication, morality etc. Is one atom more true or right than another? Can we reduce the writings of a certain Nobel Prize Chemist to mere electrochemistry in his neuronal networks? Why do we call a man a murderer and a tiger a predator? And much more . . . "Emergent properties," in short, is little more than a fancy way to say, "we don't know . . . ."kairosfocus
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
DK: 1] Please, take note of the very first points made in my first post in the thread, at 48 above. YRS, 59: The question then arises: given that the non-theist has no warrant for his morality, can he still be moral? (Jack Krebs thinks so.) If the answer is yes, then it is irrelevant whether the non-theist has a warrant. If the answer is no, then the conclusion of my “syllogism” in post #47 is correct: you believe that non-theists cannot be moral. 2] Now, here is how I introduced my own general remarks, in 48:
Let’s start with a basic point: we all struggle to do the right thing, and the fact that we quarrel reveals that we all understand and expect that we live under moral LAW. As C S Lewis (and behind him Paul of Tarsus in Rom 1 – 2, 13, Eph 4 etc) observed, this is a telling testimony that we implicitly acknowledge a Moral Lawgiver, with all that that in turn entails. But, since too often we are on the wrong side of that law, we try to justify ourselves in claimed “exceptions” to principle that we would at once realise there can be no real exceptions to when we or ones dear to us are on the receiving end of such “exceptions.”
3] Thus, my point is –- and indeed some of the earlier exchanges in this thread show this in action (and there are some matters there that need to be resolved amicably methinks) –- that we all [a] struggle with morality, while [b] implying/ expecting that we are bound by such a law, in turn [c] raising the question who is the thereby acknowledged Lawgiver? 4] Note the import of this: we are NOT nice decent people who are generally speaking "good" i.e. morally upright and pure. Instead, a more accurate but less polite view is that we ALL struggle with morality, at our best. 5] That discussion in brief also suffices to show -- with a quick glance at say Rom 2, for background -- that, on the Biblical Christian view all normal humans have and struggle with moral intuitions that raise the issue that we owe a duty to our Lawgiver. A duty that we all fail at to one extent or another, so raising the onward issue of true, objective moral guilt for wrong we have done. Thence, issues of forgiveness and reconciliation and reformation with not only ourselves and one another but our Moral Lawgiver. (And, in turn that is why the core Christian message is called the Gospel – good news for morally messed up, objectively guilty people who are willing to face that fact and do something serious about it. Just so we can all understand what is at stake in this exchange.) 6] Thence we see by direct contrast the deep, vital significance of the issue of warrant for morality as an index of a point where certain worldviews being addressed in this thread are blatantly factually inadequate relative to the facts of morality and their evident import. 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? GEM of TKI PS: Onlookers, observe carefully how there has been no serious attempt in this thread or in several other recent threads, just walkaways or attempts to brush it aside. Ask yourself why.kairosfocus
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Robo said: Since atoms and molecules have no idea of good and evil, I am puzzled by how you derive these (non-materialistic) entities from a periodic table ensemble. Ultimately all values that you claim to have, and I do believe that you them, are founded either in materials made of electrons and quarks or in the creator of those materials. Atoms and molecules have no notion of hurricanes either but the Mayans living in the central Yucatan will tell you that they very definitely exist. It is clear that there are very many emergent properties that have sprung from a universe made up of countless simple atoms. Materialists, of which I am one, simply add a few more to the list, like human memories and emotions. This isn't even to deny ID, since these things in humans could have been created by a materialistic creator.tyke
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
given that the non-theist has no warrant for his morality, can he still be moral? Sure, he just can't rationally explain his value system. Why would a non-theist be moral and remain a non-theist anyway?tribune7
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Response to kf #50: Thank you for correcting my take on Robo's post #46. I now see that I was wrong to impute to him (without further analysis) the claim that non-theists are not moral. You and Robo are saying that non-theists have no warrant (grounds) for acting morally. (Indeed, you go so far as to say that non-theists have no warrant for being rational!) Let's accept your assertion as a premise. The question then arises: given that the non-theist has no warrant for his morality, can he still be moral? (Jack Krebs thinks so.) If the answer is yes, then it is irrelevant whether the non-theist has a warrant. If the answer is no, then the conclusion of my "syllogism" in post #47 is correct: you believe that non-theists cannot be moral.Daniel King
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Note: This is a partial quote... “The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favoured Creation of a Benevolent God … we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others.” “…the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will … it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Like Macbeth’s dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.” Ruse and Wilson, 1991Robo
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
Speaking of the moderation policy, I just zapped two posts that attempted to insult Sal. And, no, there weren't any arguments of substance mixed in. I've always thought it'd be "interesting" to retain a copy of comments like that in a separate area just so people know the nasty type of stuff the average Darwinist is saying on a regular basis.Patrick
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Ed writes:
Indeed, the fact that this very same first and only "intelligent design textbook" used precisely the same definition, word for word, for "creation science" in its pre-Edwards manuscripts as it used for "intelligent design" in its post-Edwards manuscripts is quite a problem for ID advocates.
Only for those non-existent ID advocates who still promote this antiquated definition of ID:
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their distinctive features intact, rather than gradually developing
Ed does not appreciate that the definition of ID has evolved. PS By the way, one of Ed's fans said:
Holy smokes, Sal is just masterful!
I agree. :-)scordova
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
Jack Krebs: If you fly to Rome, you can enter St. Peter's Basilica and find, off to the right of, and just short of the main altar, the body of Pope John XXIII. It's in a glass sarcophagus. It doesn't look air-tight, although it probably is. There are no tubes connected to the sarcophagus, no lines, no nothing. How would you explain the fact that his very material body lies incorrupt there in St. Peter's 44 years after his death?PaV
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
Cordova vs. Dembski by Ed Brayton.
One wonders why Sal didn't contrast the quote from the Darwin letter with that quote from Dembski.
Answer: Because the one by Darwin was more humorous.
Of Pandas and People was and remains the only intelligent design textbook. Bill Dembski
That statement is obsolescent because Bill Dembski and Jonathan Wells have written a new ID textbook with an new definition of ID. See: College level ID textbook to be released March 1, 2007 (chapter 1 available online) The original release has been postponed, but I hear the book is coming out. And it doesn't use the definition of ID that Pandas and People uses. Pandas and People
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their distinctive features intact, rather than gradually developing
Design of Life
Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.
scordova
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
Jack, I don’t blame you for refusing to discuss Nietzsche. For a materialist his ideas are very frightening. Best to stick your head in the sand. I notice you also did not discuss Robo’s point about particles in motion having no notion of good and evil. Whether you want to discuss him or not, Nietzsche cannot simply be dismissed. Contend with me here Jack. Tell me why, once one accepts his materialist premises, Nietzsche was wrong. Tell me why the materialist should not strive to be the ubermensch of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, discarding the “slave morality” of the Western tradition, including its respect for persons of differing opinions. You accused me of refusing to try to understand the materialist point of view, and that is why I brought Nietzsche into the discussion. Your accusation is ironic in light of your “I’m not going to discuss that” attitude. You say there is not much room for dialoge with me; also ironic when you are the one who deals with my arguments with dismissal rather than response. Finally, it is true that some have accused Christians of “making up stories” to comfort themselves in the face of a hostile universe. And that brings us back to the purpose of this web site. What does the evidence declare? The evidence screams “design,” and if there is design there must be a designer.BarryA
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
Time for a few short comments before I go to work. To Barry: I'm not discussing Nietzsche. You may think he is the spokesperson for materialism, but I don't. You write,
Either Nietzsche was wrong and God is not dead; or Nietzsche was right and there is nothing but the will to power and we must move beyond outdated notions like good and evil.
This is a simplistic dichotomy - there is lots of middle ground between these two positions, some of which I tried to express. However, because you see this as being such a black-and-white dichotomy, there is not much room for dialog with you. In fact, you dismiss my attempts to discuss some of the middle ground by writing,
You, on the other hand, do not seem to have Nietzsche’s courage, so you make up stories to hide behind because you are afraid, afraid of a cold, hostile and indifferent universe in which we are moving away from all suns, perpetually falling with no backward, sideward, forward; where there is no up or down left. You are afraid of the infinite nothing.
First of all, let me point out that I have not claimed to be describing my own personal views - rather I have been trying to explain how many materialists (real live people, not dead German philosophers) have reasons other than pragmatism to respect others, and more generally to seek to live moral lives. So it's not me we are talking about, but rather a whole class of people. But you dismiss such people as lacking courage, of making up stories, and of being afraid of the infinite nothing. Many a materialist would respond that it is the theist who is making up stories in order to avoid a courageous acknowledge of the human condition. As long as people are committed to such dichotomous views and such an unwillingness to accept that people are going to come to different conclusions about such matters, constructive dialog will continue to be difficult.Jack Krebs
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
Daniel King -- “I am moral because god has commanded me. How about morality exist that transcends the will of man?tribune7
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
Daniel: You have, sadly, indulged in an ad hominem based on a strawman misrepresentation and using a loaded term to get there, "kowtow." (Of course, this may all be inadvertent, but we need to realise that the just above by you distorts what Robo and others have said directly and plainly, not just tried to say.) Indeed, this is not irrelevant to the topic in view. For, unless we can respect one another enough to pause, calm down and hear what is being said, we can make no progress. So, please, look back above at what Robo has said, not at what you think he said or what you may wish to knock over, an imaginary "fundy" who wants to impose "his" "god" on others. (Cf here, what it appears Ms Amanpour is indulging on CNN at the moment through the fallacy of drawing improper immoral "equivalencies." As John Hinderaker of PL quite properly notes on the direct implication of the logic of what she said, "Ms. Amanpour identifies herself as one of those who "don't want to see religion in politics and culture." Which is to say, they don't want to see religion at all." Think of what that implies, DK, think on it in terms of what that implies for freedom of opinion, expression, association and conscience for those of us who are principled theists. Then think of why we therefore respond so sharply to such an overt or covert agenda! Then look here and see from original sources, what you will not read in your history books on what principled theists in the Biblical, Judaeo-Christian tradition contributed at bitter cost to themselves to the rise of the liberties you enjoy today. Then, think about what that astonishing silence or even denial on evident and plain facts in turn implies, in light of Plato's Parable of the Cave, which you can look up as I am running out of my budget for links in any one post). What Robo said (and cf my own post above and remarks by others):
. . . I really think you are being inconsistent, not in your values such as respecting others, but in your claim TO those values while holding to a materialistic worldview (I hope I am understanding your position correctly). I think that if you are going to argue for (for example) something being good, I should like to ask you why you think it is so . . .
In short, Robo is asking about the coherence of evolutonary materialism on morality (as I am), not asserting that adherents are not moral in the sense of having and trying to follow moral intuitions. Indeed, it is an inherent part of the Christian worldview as articularted by Paul of Tarsus that all normally funcitoning people, regardless of their worldviews, have such intuitions. Indeed, echoing Rom 1 - 2 and 13:1 - 10, he went on to say:
My last comment here would be regarding why I believe you to have the values you are clinging to. It is because you are made in God’s image, even though you deny it. According to God (Bible, book of Romans) you actually do know that God is, but you refuse to acknowledge Him as such.
The gap between what Robo said and what you think he said speaks volumes. Please, do not drag the thread off the track of a serious issue into chasing red herrings and burning strawmen; which will only cloud and poison the atmosphere. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT
3] Evolutionary materialism and reason This brings us to the underlying gap that Robo just highlighted:
if you are going to argue for (for example) something being good, I should like to ask you why you think it is so. Since atoms and molecules have no idea of good and evil, I am puzzled by how you derive these (non-materialistic) entities from a periodic table ensemble. Ultimately all values that you claim to have, and I do believe that you them, are founded either in materials made of electrons and quarks or in the creator of those materials. Since a materialist by definition denies that God exists, only the other option remains. Thus the materialist (being inconsistent) denies God but clings to morals that he has no right to (other than pragmatism).
In short, 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. Namely:
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. (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.) 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. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” 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! Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze? In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic, and only survives because people often fail (or, sometimes, refuse) to think through just what their beliefs really mean. 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.
This is the key issue I have with evolutionary materialism as a worldview and as a paradigm for science, not to mention as a claimed ground for morality. Unless I can find a plain and coherent answer on the merits [and kindly nb onward links at the linked page], I am forced to view it as in the end corrosive to rationality, reasonableness and morality. Thence, to view it as an enemy of reason, sound science and virtue. Thus also, of civility and even of the sustainability and basic viability of our civilisation; which I intend to hand on in good condition to my children. Do you have a good, factually adequate, coherent reason backed up by solid empirical evidence on the long-term viability of widespread atheism in a community that holds the levers of power [cf here Rom 1:19 - 32], on why I should revise this opinion? If so, kindly state it. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
Hi All: On Morality, pragmatism, relativism and reason 1] Morality and pragmatism Let's start with a basic point: we all struggle to do the right thing, and the fact that we quarrel reveals that we all understand and expect that we live under moral LAW. As C S Lewis (and behind him Paul of Tarsus in Rom 1 – 2, 13, Eph 4 etc) observed, this is a telling testimony that we implicitly acknowledge a Moral Lawgiver, with all that that in turn entails. But, since too often we are on the wrong side of that law, we try to justify ourselves in claimed “exceptions” to principle that we would at once realise there can be no real exceptions to when we or ones dear to us are on the receiving end of such “exceptions.” And that by the way is one reason why “it works for me” -- i.e. pragmatism, that quintessentially appealing American philosophy, and one as fatally self-referentially absurd by vicious circles today as it was 100 years ago -- is never good enough as a justification for morality. Kant knew better when he penned the Categorical Imperative and in so doing appealed to the implications of a bad example as it propagates across a community! (Recall, he showed that treating others as ends in themselves i.e as one wishes to be treated himself, is formally equivalent to the principle that one should act on maxims capable of universalisation without chaos or absurdity. Underneath lurks the classic Golden Rule.) 2] Relativism The issue is not whether atheists etc can be “moral.” So they can, even as theists can be immoral. And, we all struggle to be consistently moral. Though, too, I have found too often that in practice the atheists among us protest too much and demonstrate too little, especially when issues come up that challenge their behaviour. Far too often “the nice moral atheist” comes down to a myth, especially when a gap appears between perceived interest and objectively moral behaviour. A capital example of this is the censorship, harassment and slander as well as sustained false accusations against those who have in recent times advocated for the re-emerging paradigm of intelligent design. I know the smell of bullying, and too many recent actions and too many prominent atheist web sites reek to high heaven of it. Thence cometh the key point that relativism undermines all basis for accepting the objectivity and no-exceptions nature of moral knowledge; thus, too, the capacity for self-reflection, repentance and reform. Like chloroform for the soul, it numbs too many to the appeal to conscience. [Cf here Eph 4:17 – 24.] . . .kairosfocus
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT
A syllogism for Robo to analyze: "I am moral because god has commanded me. This person does not kowtow to my god. Therefore, this person is not moral."Daniel King
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT
Hi Jack, Robo here. Greetings from New Zealand. I appreciate your interaction with my thoughts above but I really think you are being inconsistent, not in your values such as respecting others, but in your claim TO those values while holding to a materialistic worldview (I hope I am understanding your position correctly). I think that if you are going to argue for (for example) something being good, I should like to ask you why you think it is so. Since atoms and molecules have no idea of good and evil, I am puzzled by how you derive these (non-materialistic) entities from a periodic table ensemble. Ultimately all values that you claim to have, and I do believe that you them, are founded either in materials made of electrons and quarks or in the creator of those materials. Since a materialist by definition denies that God exists, only the other option remains. Thus the materialist (being inconsistent) denies God but clings to morals that he has no right to (other than pragmatism). My last comment here would be regarding why I believe you to have the values you are clinging to. It is because you are made in God's image, even though you deny it. According to God (Bible, book of Romans) you actually do know that God is, but you refuse to acknowledge Him as such. Cheers.Robo
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT
I stumbled on a list of "worst company names" which included this entry and one line of commentary:
27) Engineering by Design (ebdesign.com) "For those who’ve had disappointing results engineering by accident"
One presumes the company founders didn't consider their moniker an oxymoron, though the website author did. So who is right? Are their two methods of engineering---Design and Natural Accident/Inevitability?russ
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
"Pragmatism works for me." Yeah? Well, my pragmatism may not work 4 u. That's the point -- no God ---> no objective moral values.Robo
August 22, 2007
August
08
Aug
22
22
2007
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT
JK responds to my comments: “This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I wrote earlier, ‘In discussing materialism, should one make an effort to accurately present their position as they themselves see it, or can one just dismiss their position as wrong and then portray them as you - the anti-materialist - see them.’” Jack, you do me an injustice. You will note in my comment above (34) I appealed not to a theist but to the very man who wrote: Begin quote: Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: “I am looking for God! I am looking for God!” As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? I s he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances. “Where has God gone?” he cried. “I shall tell you. We have killed him – you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God’s decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us – for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.” Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still traveling – it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars – and yet they have done it themselves.” It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: “what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?” End quote. Jack, do not accuse me of failing to try to understand materialist philosophy. I have studied the most famous and insightful materialist of all. And, believe it or not, I have a certain admiration for him. You see, he was mistaken, but at least he had the courage to follow his conclusions through to their end. You, on the other hand, do not seem to have Nietzsche’s courage, so you make up stories to hide behind because you are afraid, afraid of a cold, hostile and indifferent universe in which we are moving away from all suns, perpetually falling with no backward, sideward, forward; where there is no up or down left. You are afraid of the infinite nothing. Either Nietzsche was wrong and God is not dead; or Nietzsche was right and there is nothing but the will to power and we must move beyond outdated notions like good and evil.BarryA
August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
Barry writes,
The important question is, on what ground does the materialist choose to be guided by reason and good emotions instead of bad emotions such as envy, lust and malice?
As I have said, this is a choice based on both reason and on the individual and collective human experience as to what resonates most with the truth about human nature. The theist is really in no different situation than the materialist. The theist chooses to believe in a God who imparts a rationale for the theist to be guided by reason and good emotions, but the belief in God is itself a choice that is really no different in nature than the choice made by the materialist. Just believing that their is an external source and justification for being good etc. doesn't raise that belief to a different level of certainty than the belief that the reasons for being good lie within our human nature. Barry also writes,
Again, from a strictly logical point of view, it is quite simply inescapable that the true materialist ... bases all of his decisions on pragmatic grounds, for to him, by definition, there are no other grounds upon which to base a decision.
I disagree strongly with this. Logic is a tool, but logic carries no content itself. When you say "from a strictly logical point of view" and "by definition" a materialist has nothing but pragmatic grounds for basing his moral decisions, you are embedding your own premises and definitions into the situation. As defined by you, and following the logic of your own theistic world view, you draw conclusions about someone who has different premises and different definitions. Your definitions and premises aren't privileged. Of course you think the materialist is wrong, but they are only "logically" wrong within your theistic framework. This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I wrote earlier, "In discussing materialism, should one make an effort to accurately present their position as they themselves see it, or can one just dismiss their position as wrong and then portray them as you - the anti-materialist - see them."Jack Krebs
August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
We have this short opportunity to be a human being, and while we are here we are sharing this opportunity with other human beings. And how does this have any basis in materialism? Human beings have a nature - we have the potential to love, to be compassionate, to help others, to create and better the world around us; and our experience (both individual and collective) tells us that our deepest sense of satisfaction comes when we realize these potentials to reach out beyond ourself.” Not according to materialistic evolutionary theory.tribune7
August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
1 … 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply