Why there is no Meaning if Materialism is True

_{Barry Arrington

August 12, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

In my last post I linked to an article in which several atheists discuss how they deal with the lack of meaning in the universe. In response Seversky asks:

What is meant by “meaning” in this context? To me, it sounds like a purpose conceived in the mind of an intelligent being, in this case God.

So what you are saying is that unless another intelligent being has a purpose in mind for you, your existence is worthless and meaningless?

So, a question, why should you only have value or worth or meaning if it exists in the mind of another intelligence. What is wrong with finding a meaning or purpose for yourself? After all, if God has a purpose, why can’t you?

Seversky, let us assume for the moment that atheistic materialism is correct. If that is the case, then certain facts follow as a matter of logic, including the following:

The sun is an average star and only one of billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy, which is one of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe.

There is nothing – absolutely nothing – in that vast immensity but space, time, particles and energy.

At first only the light elements existed. But eventually clouds of hydrogen and helium collapsed into stars, and the heavier elements were formed in the nuclear furnaces inside those stars. All of the heavier elements we observe are remnants of burned out stars.

Some of the remnants of those burned out stars eventually coalesced into a planet we call Earth, and eventually a tiny subset of those particles spontaneously turned themselves into simple self-replicators.

Through the process of evolution those simple self-replicators became more and more complex until at last the most complex self-replicators of all, human beings, arose.

Fundamentally, however, humans are nothing but insignificant amalgamations of burned out star stuff on an insignificant rock orbiting an insignificant star in an insignificant galaxy in an incomprehensibly vast universe.

A rock does not owe moral duties to another rock. The very notion is absurd. A rock is nothing but an amalgamation of burned out star stuff, and it is literally meaningless to say that one amalgamation of burned out star stuff owes a moral duty to another amalgamation of burned out star stuff.

Nothing about that analysis changes if the amalgamation of burned out star stuff is called a human. Thus, the idea that humans owe moral duties to one another is ultimately meaningless. In a universe in which nothing exists but particles in motion, there is no good. There is no evil.

It follows that everything we do is ultimately pointless. The amalgamation of burned out star stuff we call “Hitler” did certain things. The amalgamation of burned out star stuff we call “Mother Teresa” did certain other things. And what Hitler did and what Mother Teresa did are equal in the sense that they are equally pointless.

That, Seversky, is the universe you, as an atheist materialist, imagine you live in. So let us answer your questions:

What is meant by “meaning” in this context?

By “meaning” we mean “significance within a broader context.” There is no meaning in your universe, because nothing we do has any significance within a broader context as my Hitler/Mother Teresa example demonstrates.

So what you are saying is that unless another intelligent being has a purpose in mind for you, your existence is worthless and meaningless?

I am simply asking you to have the courage to acknowledge the logical consequences of your metaphysical assumptions. I understand that you are terrified of those consequences and want to avert your gaze from them at all costs, including very often the cost of descending into logical absurdity. But there they are nevertheless.

So, a question, why should you only have value or worth or meaning if it exists in the mind of another intelligence.

For there to be meaning good and evil must exist in an objective sense. It must really be the case that what Hitler did was “evil” and that what Mother Teresa did was “good” where the words “evil” and “good” mean something beyond “that which I do not prefer” and “that which I do prefer.”

What is wrong with finding a meaning or purpose for yourself?

Because a transcendent moral code cannot be grounded in the being of an amalgamation of burned out star stuff. Such a code can be grounded only in God’s being. Go back and look at all of the atheist blitherings in that article I linked in my last post. Every single one of them amounts to one of two things: (1) I try not to think about it; or (2) I distract myself with things that amuse me. That is not finding meaning or purpose and only a fool believes it is.

After all, if God has a purpose, why can’t you?

Because only God can impose meaning – through the objective transcendent moral code grounded in his being – on an otherwise meaningless universe.

Comments

bornagain77 @115 I know that this is going to be a strange thought, but people can disagree with you without being dishonest. Disagreement with you is morally acceptable. You’ve done your part as best you know how in your very limited ability (as you describe yourself) and you have failed. That’s not my fault.
Actually no ‘you’, since there is no ‘you’,...
This is one of the reasons you have failed: you have no standing to tell me what I am allowed to think. Trying to just discredits everything you write. There is a ‘me’, I can make choices, and I can reason for myself just like anyone else. By being a nonbeliever, I forfeit nothing but obedience to you and your ideas. I do not fear having to account for my actions to any God. If the God in question is good, I’ll be fine. If they are not, we are all doomed anyway. As I’ve already said, folks like Coyne and Harris are not popes, prophets, or priests. They don’t “own” materialism, reason, science, or any philosophy. They have no authority to speak for materialISTS or materialISM. They speak only for themselves; as I do and you too. Their words do not bind me; no more than yours. It would be fair to ask me my opinion of their claims, but when you mistake their words for mine, I know you are not paying attention to what I write. sean s.sean samis_{August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

ss: Well actually I showed, empirically, that morality is objective and real not subjective and illusory as you hold. So that would be you, once again, refusing to be honest towards the empirical evidence that directly countered your position. That you reject the empirical evidence makes you unscientific and a dogmatist. That's your choice. I personally don't care if you refuse to be honest towards the empirical evidence. It is you that will have to give account for your own actions to God someday. I've done my part as best as I, in my very limited ability, know how to do for you by giving you the proper evidence. as to: "We (atheists) get to reason it out ourselves." Actually no 'you', since there is no 'you', nor free will, given atheistic materialism, do not to get to reason it out for yourselves. You forfeit any right to 'reason for yourself' you once had once you sign up to naturalistic metaphysics. Don't argue with me, argue with your own chosen philosophy of atheistic naturalism (as if 'you' had a 'choice' in choosing atheistic naturalism) :)
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0 Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain. (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2) (4) no effect can control its cause. Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality. per Box UD
bornagain77_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @106
sean samis, since I answered your question I now have a question for you.
You didn’t answer my question. An answer would look like “yes, because...” or “no, because...” or maybe “it depends because...” A link to a long-winded comment on many other topics is not an answer. Like Barry, you dodge the question. The idea that morality must be more fundamental than everything else is an empty idea.
...and yet atheistic materialists deny that they are really persons in the first place,...
Since “atheistic materialists” do not make that claim, the question is nonsense. Your cites from Rosenberg, et al. avail you not. One of the nice things about having no religion is that we nonbelievers have no popes, prophets, or priests who’re telling us what we’re supposed to believe or disbelieve. We get to reason it out ourselves. And when some “famous atheist” says something stupid, we get to do a facepalm like anyone else. It is not moral to kill others just because of their beliefs or lack thereof. sean s.sean samis_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @105
Sean @ 103. A lot of people say there is no such thing as a stupid question. They are wrong.
Perhaps, but that is neither a ‘yes’ nor a ‘no’. I suppose calling it ‘stupid’ is one way to avoid the question. It’s interesting you dodge this so, since YOU brought up the idea in your OP. You do recall your OP, do you not? sean s.sean samis_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Popperian: We’re getting ahead of ourselves, as no one seems to understand what it means for something to emerge in the first place. No doubt the difficulty stems from your claim that emergence is a class or level of explanation.Mung_{August 14, 2015
August
08
Aug
14
14
2015
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT}

Popperian @ 107: First, I’ve already explained that emergence is not an explanation per-se, but a class or level of explanation. So nothing really emerges. Emergence does not refer to any physical event and really all that changes is our class or level of explanation. I don't see at all how this counters what Barry wrote. "It's magic" is just another class or level of explanation, synonymous with emergence.Mung_{August 14, 2015
August
08
Aug
14
14
2015
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotical revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever. - Aldous Huxley. Ends and Means. (p.273)
Mung_{August 14, 2015
August
08
Aug
14
14
2015
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

yawnUpright BiPed_{August 14, 2015
August
08
Aug
14
14
2015
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

@UB#100 Oh, I see. Pointing out the supposed documentary film you're watching is inaccurate is BS. Leave us alone so we can enjoy the pretty pictures?
why not try understanding what has to emerge?
We're getting ahead of ourselves, as no one seems to understand what it means for something to emerge in the first place.Popperian_{August 14, 2015
August
08
Aug
14
14
2015
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

@BA#99
“It emerged” and “It was magic” are equivalent in their explanatory power. I don’t see how invoking magic helps your case.
Really? First, I've already explained that emergence is not an explanation per-se, but a class or level of explanation. So, apparently, that's something you've decided to ignore as well. Second, I've previously pointed out that adding a designer doesn't actually help your case, as it doesn't explain the knowledge found in organisms. Specifically, an ultimate designer that, "just was", complete with the knowledge of what genes would result in just the right proteins that would result in just the right features, already present, does not serve an explanatory purpose. This is because one could more efficiently state that organisms, "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins that would result in just the right features, already present. Using your logic, does that mean that I can completely omit the designer when speaking for design proponents?Popperian_{August 14, 2015
August
08
Aug
14
14
2015
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

sean samis, since I answered your question I now have a question for you. Since the Nazi's legally took away the status of person-hood from the Jews in order to make it legal to kill them, and since unborn babies were denied the legal status of person-hood in order to make it legal to kill unborn babies, and yet atheistic materialists deny that they are really persons in the first place, does that then make it legal, or perhaps even moral, to kill atheistic materialists? If not why not?
8 Horrific Times People Groups Were Denied Their Humanity - July 02, 2014 Excerpt: According to Ernst Fraenkel, a German legal scholar, the Reichsgericht, the highest court in Germany, was instrumental in depriving Jewish people of their legal rights. In a 1936 Supreme Court decision, “the Reichsgericht refused to recognize Jews living in Germany as persons in the legal sense.” Nazis described Jews as Untermenschen, or subhumans to justify exterminating them. http://www.personhood.com/8_horrific_times_people_groups_were_denied_their_humanity Unborn children as constitutional persons. - 2010 Excerpt: In Roe v. Wade, the state of Texas argued that "the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." To which Justice Harry Blackmun responded, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." However, Justice Blackmun then came to the conclusion "that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." In this article, it is argued that unborn children are indeed "persons" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443281 "The neural circuits in our brain manage the beautifully coordinated and smoothly appropriate behavior of our body. They also produce the entrancing introspective illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world. This powerful illusion has been with humanity since language kicked in, as we’ll see. It is the source of at least two other profound myths: that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning and that there is a person “in there” steering the body, so to speak." [A.Rosenberg, The Atheist's Guide To Reality, Ch.9] "that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick - "The Astonishing Hypothesis" 1994 "What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/eagleton-on-baggini-on-free-will/ The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - Ross Douthat - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant:,,) Read more here: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0 Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt:,, Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html The Heretic -Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? Andrew Ferguson – March 25, 2013 Excerpt: A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html at 37:51 minute mark of following video, according to the law of identity, Richard Dawkins does not really exist as a real person: (the unity of Aristotelian Form is also discussed) Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.” Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor Philosophical Zombies - cartoon http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11
bornagain77_{August 14, 2015
August
08
Aug
14
14
2015
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

Sean @ 103. A lot of people say there is no such thing as a stupid question. They are wrong.Barry Arrington_{August 14, 2015
August
08
Aug
14
14
2015
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

s.s. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/materialists-are-rarely-this-candit-about-their-evil/#comment-575867bornagain77_{August 14, 2015
August
08
Aug
14
14
2015
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

A question for Barry Arrington, StephenB, kairosfocus, or any of their supporters: Do rocks owe moral duties to anything else? Since the claim is that “the TML [transcendent moral law] is grounded in God’s being” (BA); that “...OUGHT is grounded in root reality” (KF) this should mean that morality is foundational even to the mere matter of our universe. So rocks should owe moral duties because they are as bound by the TML, by the OUGHT as anything else. So: do rocks owe moral duties to anything/anybody else? If not, why not? sean s.sean samis_{August 14, 2015
August
08
Aug
14
14
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

sean s
But whether some specific proposition X is true is uncertain unless the evidence is complete, which is quite rare. The existence of a deity, or an objective moral truth is exceedingly uncertain. sean s.
You undercut the value of what you have to say. Either, you are not certain that anything you say is true. Or, you assign the same moral value to Truth as to Falsehood. In either case, there's no reason for anyone to engage in a rational discussion with you. You can certainly offer opinions, but if you feel the Truth has the same moral value as Lies do, then whatever you say is pointless. Why should anyone care about it? You claim that the existence of a deity is uncertain, in your opinion, but since that simply could be a Lie, then nobody knows what you're talking about.Silver Asiatic_{August 14, 2015
August
08
Aug
14
14
2015
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

Learned
nd I think you’re further saying that the first-level OMTs are more like “existence is good” and “truth is good” than “unwarranted killing is bad.” Yes?
Yes, right. Those are objective moral values that inform more particular decisions like "is this killing warranted"? The truth as a moral value is required - it's not optional. We cannot evaluate morality and we can't enter into a rational argument without a commitment to truth as being good. This is embedded in human nature and it is impossible to deny it. As below.
I think that’s practically impossible, given how necessary communication is to day-to-day living. Are you saying that in addition, it’s just inherently impossible? No one can do it or want to do it?
No one can do it at all. It's impossible. To evaluate morality or even engage in a rational argument, a person accepts that the truth is good. This is necessary and impossible to overturn. There is nothing subjective about that decision. As I said, it's impossible to make a commitment to always tell a lie. It's internally contradictory because to make the commitment, it requires a truth statement. We can make a commitment to always tell the truth, and it's even possible to fulfill that commitment. But we cannot make a commitment to always tell a lie. By making the commitment, we're affirming the truth about something. This is why Being is good - because Being is an affirmation. Truth is that which aligns with reality or with Being itself. Falsehood is a negation of reality. Mathematical formulae, for example, are true when they reflect reality. Adding one apple to another one comes up with what we call "two". We observe this in reality, thus the math reflects what is real - as truth does. The same is with logic. We are morally committed to affirm the truth in order to have any knowledge at all.
Does that mean that it’s never moral to lie?
No, telling a lie in any particular instance is an application of the objective moral norm that the truth has moral good value. A higher truth can judge various statements and therefore permit one to tell a lie, for the benefit of a higher truth. This has to be measured by Justice as well -- not giving to one what is not due (or giving what is due).
The traditional counter-example is when the Nazis come to the door and ask if there are any Jews hiding in the basement; I’ve never met anyone who thinks it would be moral to say, truthfully, “yes.” What’s the rule for making exceptions like that to unalterable principles?
Here, it's actually using the Truth as an objective moral value that enables us to see that a lie in that situation preserves a greater truth. The greater truth is that "the innocent human person has greater goodness than would be to obey the Nazi law requiring one to divulge information that would lead to the death of others". So, the action is judged by something objective: the Truth. But what moral norm says that protecting innocent persons is more important than obeying Nazis? In that case, it's related to the general objective norm of Justice. That's how we judge if a killing is warranted, or if punishment is warranted, or if it is wrong to tell a lie to protect the innocence of someone. Justice is an objective norm. We can relate it to Truth. It is unjust to try to have a rational argument (even with oneself) where Truth and Falsehood are assigned equal moral value. So, objectively, Truth has greater good. Otherwise a rational analysis is impossible. It is also Unjust to assign Falsehood the same moral value as Truth. Even in the case of Nazis asking for information. The Nazis operated under a false premise: "we can kill innocent people merely because we hate them". So, it would be unjust to assign Truth value to the Nazi rule: "Obeying Nazi laws is a higher truth than protecting the innocent". As it happens, that's a lie, and therefore Unjust. It's the same if the Nazi said: "If you tell me the correct answer to 'what is 2+2', I will kill your family". When we say "2+2=5" we are telling a lie. But we're actually, more correctly, affirming the Truth that our family has greater moral value than obeying an unjust Nazi does. Other objective moral norms are similar. For example, "that which has highest quality of beauty must be reverenced". This seems like a truism because in order to call something beautiful, that requires the spirit of reverence to be present in the person. But this is just an objective moral norm built into the human being. We recognize a special beauty in human persons and when we encounter love. Thus, the objective moral norm causes us to treat others with respect and to assign a sacred quality to love. Even atheists recognize this as I have never met one that did not show respect to the death of loved ones, or even in memorial services for others that they didn't know. They recognize the tragic loss -- which is a sign of respect for others, thus a reflection of the objective moral norm that we should show respect towards those things which have the highest levels of beauty. But all of these stem from Truth, a value which is absolutely required in order to have any knowledge, any rational analysis or any understanding of morality at all. Again, it's not possible for a human being to be committed to telling a lie. We are built, because of the nature of being itself, with Affirmation at the core of our ability to understand. That Affirmation is a foundation of the objective moral norms that all humans possess.Silver Asiatic_{August 14, 2015
August
08
Aug
14
14
2015
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Popper stands outside the theater telling people how to properly watch a movie. They pause to hear what he has to say, but soon they just want him to get out of the doorway. - - - - - - - - Popper, instead of flogging every conversation with bs, why not try understanding what has to emerge?Upright BiPed_{August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

Popperian @ 98. "It emerged" and "It was magic" are equivalent in their explanatory power. I don't see how invoking magic helps your case.Barry Arrington_{August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

BA wrote:
But as SB said, what we are composed of determines what we are capable of. A materialist says nothing exists but space, time, particles and energy.
Surely, you can do better than this. Right? On one hand, you've spent an inordinate about of time arguing against emergent levels of explanation presented by "materialists". Yet, when you supposedly speak for them, you completely ignore it. Apparently, "materialism" is what ever Barry Arrington happens to accept, or whatever he happens to agree with, when it suits his purpose.Popperian_{August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

Barry, I do not think it is appropriate (@26) for you to call someone a "disgusting little maggot". You have chastised others on this site for using similar language or tone. You are doing great work and should keep the high ground.juwilker_{August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

Silver, I don’t understand everything that you’ve written. Correct me where I’m wrong: I see that you’re saying objective morals are a distinction between good and evil, and that this a fundamental facet of reality. And I think you’re further saying that the first-level OMTs are more like “existence is good” and “truth is good” than “unwarranted killing is bad.” Yes? I don’t agree at all with this: An example of the impossibility to deny this is that no one can make a commitment to always tell a lie. I think that’s practically impossible, given how necessary communication is to day-to-day living. Are you saying that in addition, it’s just inherently impossible? No one can do it or want to do it? We are required, by our nature as existent beings, capable of truth and falsehood, to accept truth, in itself, as a necessary, objective, unchanging moral value. Does that mean that it’s never moral to lie? The traditional counter-example is when the Nazis come to the door and ask if there are any Jews hiding in the basement; I’ve never met anyone who thinks it would be moral to say, truthfully, “yes.” What’s the rule for making exceptions like that to unalterable principles?Learned Hand_{August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

Sean,
Physical systems do not provide meaning
I am not the one suggesting that material systems can provide meaning.
meaning comes from activity and potential outcomes of activities within physical systems.
This says nothing. Fortunately we know much more than this.
That’s enough.
I'm sure it is.Upright BiPed_{August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

Popperian @65
Before you could actually know the meaning of anything you would need infallibly identify an infallible source for this supposed objective morality and interpret it infallibly. How does that work, exactly, in practice?
That is the problem, for which there is no solution.
Unless you can somehow identify an infallible source and interpret it infallibly, you, Barry Arrington, must use human reason to either accept or reject ...
Yup.
...adding God to the equation doesn’t actually add to the explanation of human moral behavior. It’s conjecture and criticism with some unexplained facet that doesn’t actually help us solve moral problems in practice.
Yup.
If you think it somehow does add to the explanation in practice, it would seem that implicit to your argument are a number of philosophical views about knowledge, in that it comes from authoritative sources, infallibility, etc., which you haven’t argued for. However, since you’re preaching to the choir, so to speak. you don’t need to explicitly make that argument or expose it to criticism.
As long as the necessary arguments are not “exposed to criticism” they remain dubious and unacceptable. sean s.sean samis_{August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @47
Despite the false bravado, the problem for materialists is that they can’t construct a physical system to provide meaning without having meaning required in its structure. Its a real problem, just give it a try.
Physical systems do not provide meaning, meaning comes from activity and potential outcomes of activities within physical systems. That’s enough. sean s.sean samis_{August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @59
The materialist defense of morals could be something like this: 1. ... 2. People often disagree on many other aspects of morality. This proves that there is no accessible objective moral standard. I don’t know what is gained by #2. Materialism could live with an objective standard, claiming it comes from nature.
What is gained by #2 is that it’s true. What is gained by saying something not true? Materialists could claim that there is an objective morality in nature, but they’d need to be honest and say all we can do is hunt for it in good faith. We’ll never know for sure if we’ve found it or just overlooked something.
On the development of morals, what this means is that ethical decisions are basically whatever most people think. This is why we actually can vote (in the US) on any conceivable moral issue. Ethics emerges out of a democratic process.
This is also why any reasonable morality focuses on preventing harms, so that we can engage in this moral development.
When the counterpoint is raised that Hitler was objectively wrong – the materialist view could agree with this in the sense that “since most people thought he was wrong, then he was”.
That his activities harmed many without any semblance of a good reason is why we all know he was wrong beyond reasonable doubt.
This sort of thinking avoids several problems. It starts with what exists today, and does not go back to origins (all that exists is space, time and matter).
Exactly; because “going back to origins” gets us nothing and leads to confusion.
When it is said that molecules do not know what is right and wrong, it is answered that when molecules combine and form living organisms, moral values are an emergent property.
Exactly. @63
The objective moral law is as real and identifiable as water.
An “objective moral law” might be real, but it’s not been identified.
Its properties do not change — it’s impossible for them to change.
If that’s true, that supports the notion it has never been identified because way too many supposed forms of it have been “found”. @79
We are required, by our nature as existent beings, capable of truth and falsehood, to accept truth, in itself, as a necessary, objective, unchanging moral value.
Since acceptance of truth does not require acceptance of any particular ontology, this does not add up. Truth is just a term we use to refer to those things that exist or occur. That these things are does not tell us what is good and what is evil. Evil exists, it occurs. Evil may not be “true” but it is True that Evil exists and occurs. That truth exists is objectively certain; we know this because the contrary claim that “truth does not exists” asserts a truth. But whether some specific proposition X is true is uncertain unless the evidence is complete, which is quite rare. The existence of a deity, or an objective moral truth is exceedingly uncertain. sean s.sean samis_{August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand @58
...it’s trivially easy to show that we can’t access it [an OMT] if it does exist: there’s no objective, temporal arbiter or standard upon which people can agree.
Yes. Exactly. Only if the deity tells you what is objectively true FACE-TO-FACE can you actually know. Until then, it’s just people yapping. @67
... But then, maybe that’s just how disgusting maggots like us think.
I actually chuckled. Well said. sean s.sean samis_{August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

StephenB @31
You either agree that we are nothing but material stuff or you do not. Which position do you take?
The flesh and blood out of which we are made is only material stuff. But we are more than just our flesh and blood.
Everyone knows what “moral duty” means.
Then everyone knows why the moral duty of rocks says nothing about the moral duties of humans.
The stuff of which we are made determines our capacity to recognize moral duties and make moral choices.
Error in fact. Everyone agrees that the stuff rocks are made of is insignificantly different from the stuff we are made of. And yet we are able to recognize moral duties even though rocks cannot. Our ability to recognize moral duties comes from how our “stuff” is ORGANIZED which is significantly different from how the stuff in rocks is organized.
Barry understands materialism. You do not.
An opinion to which you are entitled, and the rest of us are entitled to disagree.
First, you claim the distinction doesn’t matter. Then, you appeal to that same distinction to make your point. The sentence that follows is unintelligible. Try to rephrase it.
I don’t know how to improve it. If you cannot follow it as it is, you cannot follow it at all. If you have questions, do ask. @36
Show me how you can get meaningful definitions of good and evil from matter and energy.
Looking in the wrong places won’t help either of us. @38
You can assign meaning to anything you like, but you cannot have meaning unless God confers it on you, that is, unless God creates you for something.
Since your deity (and any other that might exist) has never spoken to me, I have to find meaning for myself. Many others (if not all of us) are in that same predicament. Fortunately for all of us, it turns out to be fairly easy to find meaning for ourselves. @54
Objective meaning and value must be conferred by an outside agent. Thus, materialism, which rules out an outside agent, cannot confer objective meaning.
Unless the “outside agent” tells each of us what meaning they have conferred, “subjective” and “objective” meaning cannot be distinguished. We all have to treat all meaning as subjective until the “outside agent” talks to us face-to-face. Thus, even theism, which insists on an outside agent, CANNOT CONFER OBJECTIVE MEANING. @55
The ontological question precedes the epistemological question in the order of being; the epistemological question precedes the ontological question in the order of knowing.
The only “order” that matters is the order of TIME. We cannot understand and apply “objective morality” until AFTER confirming its existence. @60
The epistemological question does not discount the argument for objective value, unless you would care to deny the existence of water and air on the grounds that we can’t be sure they exist.
As Learned Hand wrote @62; Our confidence in the existence of air and water is very high, we can directly observe them. We have no experience of an objective value, only wishful thinking about them. sean s.sean samis_{August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

For me Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" is a crystal clear argument for what we can be certain about: "I exist", the very thing that is under attack by guys like Rosenberg and Eigenstate. Rosenberg writes about Descartes' argument and it may be interesting to see where he goes wrong:
Rosenberg: Descartes’s argument went like this: Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. Even if everything I think is completely wrong, there still needs to be an “I” having the wrong thoughts, having all those false beliefs. So, there is at least one belief that can’t be wrong, the belief that I exist. How does this make trouble for the notion that the mind is the brain? Easy. The existence of my brain can be doubted. In fact, many people (especially theists) have done so. I can easily imagine what it would be like to find out I didn’t have one—say, by looking at an ultrasound of my skull and discovering that it’s empty. That’s all Descartes needed. Look, I can doubt my brain’s existence. I can’t doubt my mind’s existence. Therefore, there is something true about my mind that is not true about my brain: My mind has the property that its existence can’t (logically can’t) be doubted by me. My brain lacks that feature. So, my brain can’t be my mind!
Rosenberg misses the essence of what’s being said. What Descartes is saying that he is absolutely certain of the fact that he exists. — Even when I doubt my existence, I still have to exist —. Therefor “I exist” is a higher form of knowledge. Surely the existence of the brain isn’t denied, nor is the concept that the brain is the mind. However such concepts are simply denied to have the same status of certainty as “I exist”.
Rosenberg: Think Descartes has pulled a fast one here? You are not alone. Scientism may be excused from not taking this line of thought too seriously. But it gets more serious. I also can’t doubt that I am having experiences. Introspection may be all wrong about whether my experiences tell me anything about reality, about the physical chunks of matter outside my mind that cause my experiences. But I can’t deny that there are experiences “in my mind.” Scientism admits their existence when it insists that these experiences should not be taken too seriously as a guide to how the mind works. So a serious argument that experience can’t be physical would make things very sticky for scientism.
No, ‘experience can’t be physical’ is not the point. What’s being said is that experiences in the mind are undeniable. This constitutes again a higher form of knowledge. “I have experiences in my mind” is a higher form of knowledge, because it is undeniable. What does this mean? What this means is that if “I” and “inner experiences” are at odds with physical facts wrt the brain, as Rosenberg and Eigenstate suggest that they are, and we are forced to take sides, then reason compels us to choose for what we are most certain about. Thanks to Descartes we know how to balance the scales. Therefor it is irrational to suggest, as Rosenberg does, that "There is no self, soul, person. Scientism must firmly deny its existence. The self, as conveyed to us by introspection, is a fiction. It doesn’t exist."Box_{August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

your post just elicits a mild shrug.
Great! Then you should have no problem. Tell us how you would construct a physical system that demonstrates meaning - "symbols and referents" as you put it - that doesn't require meaning in the structure of the system.Upright BiPed_{August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

There is no self, soul, person. Scientism must firmly deny its existence. The self, as conveyed to us by introspection, is a fiction. It doesn’t exist.
Before psychological experiments began to make us realize how unreliable introspection is, few were prepared to challenge its insistence that there is a single enduring self that exists continuously throughout each life.
As the eminent philosopher W. Axl Rose famously commanded: Use Your Illusions. The point there being that if we accept everything Rosenberg is saying (I think you need to read more of his thoughts on this -- the quotes are accurate, but this sounds like learning Rosenberg through an Ed Feser blog post or some such), we still have to deal with the fiction. The "sense of self" is not something we can dispense with, even if we wanted. With the aid of science, I may gain insight into the actual workings of my brain and my mind, insights that overthrow a great many intuitions and very strong ones, but I don't have cognitive processes that "unselfify". That doesn't negate Rosenberg's point, or the science behind it. It does make it a moot point in many practical ways, though. We are hard-wired to "think of the self as a self", so even if what we "feel" the self is like in terms of being autonomous (or possibly immaterial, etc.), we aren't able to transcend it, save for being able to indirectly contemplate it via a scientific lens. Again, I think you are interpreting the "doesn't exist" arguments incorrectly. What you (and I) may intuitively understand about introspection and self-reflection may be quite incorrect, particularly as it relates there being a discrete "self". When Rosenberg, or anyone else on materialism points this out, though, it is NOT to suggest there is no animal with a brain with meta-representational cognitive abilities. There is, manifestly. What's really going on when you "introspecting" is not what you suppose, is all, and the process is far different from what you intuition suggests.eigenstate_{August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply