Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why materialist neuroscience must necessarily remain a pseudo-discipline

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

At MercatorNet today:

all that fMRI ((brain imaging) really does is show which brain areas have high oxygen levels when a person is thinking something. It simply cannot tell us what people are thinking, because many brain centres are active and those that are active may be activated for many reasons. Each brain is unique so data from studies must be averaged. But thoughts are not averaged; they belong to the individual.

Then, when you are done with that you run smack dab into the hard problem of qualia.

Qualia? As Mario Beauregard and I (Denyse O’Leary) wrote in The Spiritual Brain,

There are good reasons for thinking that the evidence for materialism will actually never arrive. For example, there is the problem of qualia. Qualia (singular, quale) are how things appear to us individually—the experiential aspects of our mental lives that can be accessed through introspection. Every person is unique, so complete understanding of another person’s consciousness is not likely possible in principle, as we saw in Chapter Four. Rather, when we communicate, we rely on general agreement on an overlapping range of meaning. For example, historian Amy Butler Greenfield has written a three-hundred-page book about one primary color, A Perfect Red.

As “the color of desire,” red is a quale if ever there was one. Reviewer Diane Ackerman notes:

Anger us, and we see red. An unfaithful woman is branded with a scarlet letter. In red-light districts, people buy carnal pleasures. We like to celebrate red-letter days and roll out the red carpet, while trying to avoid red tape, red herrings and going into the red. Indeed, fashion houses rise and fall on the subtleties of shades of red. Yet, however “red” affects us individually, we agree communally to use the word for a range of meanings and connotations, not merely a range in the color spectrum. (pp. 104–5)

Sometimes, the signals can be completely opposite and we still converge on a common meaning! In the United States, red connotes “conservative” in politics; in Canada, it connotes “liberal.”

Scan that, genius. Your first task will be to sort out the people who are exclusively Canadian in culture from those who are exclusively American in culture, and good luck with it. You picked it up; you own it.

Materialist neuroscience has a hard time with qualia because they are not easily reducible to a simple, nonconscious explanation. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, Francis Crick grumbles:

It is certainly possible that there may be aspects of consciousness, such as qualia, that science will not be able to explain. We have learned to live with such limitations in the past (e.g., limitations of quantum mechanics) and we may have to live with them again.

Crick was a real scientist, honest enough to admit that. Don’t expect quacks, cranks, and hustlers to notice, or want to. They take refuge in pseudo-disciplines, claiming that, as a book review in The Scientist put it,

“‘Brains are hot,’ Sally Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld acknowledge in Brainwashed, their ‘exposé of mindless neuroscience’ (mostly practiced not by neuroscientists, they stress, but by ‘neuropundits,’ among others). The ‘mediagenic’ technology of fMRI imaging has made the brain, aglow with metabolic hotspots, into a rainbow emblem of the faith that science will soon empower us to explain, control, expose, exploit, or excuse every wayward human behavior from buying to lying, from craving to crime.”

This is not so much an unsolved problem as an unsolvable one, at least in the terms in which the materialist wants it solved.

Comments
KF: So for you, morality is:
to love and treat them as we would wish to be treated were we in their shoes.
i.e. to be moral is to treat others as we would wish to be treated? If so, I'm glad we agree on this.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
William:
You seem to be saying that it is not rational for a theist to behave unselfishly/non-altruistically.
I have never said or implied anything of the sort.
Good. Chris seemed to imply it strongly. I am glad you agree that it is rational for an atheist to behave altruistically. In that case, what is it that you think it is irrational for an atheist to do?Elizabeth B Liddle
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
OK, William: The Stanford Encyclopedia gives two usages of the term "morality":
The term “morality” can be used either descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
I have been using it in the second sense, and attempting to argue that there exists a code of conduct that would be put forward by all rational persons, and that code of conduct is as accessible to rational atheists as to rational theists. You, on the other hand, have been, I think, using it in the first sense, and arguing, correctly, that codes of conduct vary from culture to culture. Can we agree on this summary of our positions?Elizabeth B Liddle
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
I am still unclear, William, as to what your argument actually is. I am happy to drop the word “objective” if you don’t like the way I am using it, and substitute something like: “can be arrived at by independent people using evidence and reason”.
My argument concerns your definition of morality, not what you claim or reason after you have installed your definition of reason. Please direct me to a dictionary or other resource that agrees with your definition of "morality" - that it is necessarily about altruism, or valuing others and treating them well.
And, as I said, I am happy to stop using the word “morality”, and simply substitute “altruism” for simplicity (taking into account the possibility the view that what is good is what god wants, not that god wants what is good).
Then we have no argument, because I'm arguing about what morality is under atheism, not what altruism is under atheism. I challenge that morality (under atheism) necessarily means altruism, or anything else you define it as. How can you repeatedly not understand that it is your very definition of morality that I am arguing about? You have no substantive basis in the first place for defining morality as "altruism". It is an idiosyncratic and convenient definition. Why should I agree to your definition of morality in the first place?
You seem to be saying that it is not rational for a theist to behave unselfishly/non-altruistically.
I have never said or implied anything of the sort.
I’m saying that it is. You have not persuaded me of your case.
The most charitable reading I can make of you is that you are ideologically blind to my actual argument, because you not only refuse to address it, you continue on as if I have agreed to the very things I repeatedly object to, and you blithely keep equating morality with your particular (and idiosyncratic) definition of morality.William J Murray
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT
WJM: I see your point, as the redefinition in terms of "valuing" and "treating well" easily lend themselves tot he ever so common political messianism and related agendas of our day, multiplied by manipulations in academy and media as well as education systems. The trick is, that these terms sound close enough to recognise that you and others have been made in Imago Dei, so have an objective value including certain inalienable rights granted by the Creator. Therefore, we have a dual duty of love and respect to Creator, the only true and inherently good God, and those he has made in his image, to love and treat them as we would wish to be treated were we in their shoes. But by kidnapping from the proper worldview foundation and twisting the terms and concepts then bringing them back on stage to say talking points that sound persuasive, it is all too easy to create manipulative confusions. Whenever an atheistical, a priori evolutionary materialist secular humanist ideologue starts to talk about rights, we all have reason to be concerned, as there is no foundation in such a system for rights beyond might and manipulation make 'right.' Even truth gets kidnapped, much less knowledge and warrant, or as we have seen so many times recently, logic and its foundational principles too. We need to put the evo mat advocates on the witness stand and cross examine them on what hey are saying, what they mean, what hey hope we will hear, what foundations they have and where this will all be likely to end up. In UD just now, that rakes on additional relevance as we see enabling of censorship of academic publications through thuggish tactics by Matzke and co, and we see evidence that several objectors are wishing to imply that there is a 'right' to falsely accuse of lying and trumpet same through turn-speech accusations and big lie drumbeat repetition [and yes, we will not be intimidated from observing the tactics and their history, and calling them by their right, ugly names . . . ], and also to imply that defamation is part of free speech. Those are serious indeed, and the import of such is that we should take any assertions by such individuals and their ilk with a grain of salt at least 6 inches on the side. KFkairosfocus
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT
Andre:
I might also make reference to the fact that Greenpeace members are assaulting and murdering fishermen in the name of a good thing.
A reference would indeed be useful. Do you have one?Elizabeth B Liddle
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
I am still unclear, William, as to what your argument actually is. I am happy to drop the word "objective" if you don't like the way I am using it, and substitute something like: "can be arrived at by independent people using evidence and reason". And, as I said, I am happy to stop using the word "morality", and simply substitute "altruism" for simplicity (taking into account the possibility the view that what is good is what god wants, not that god wants what is good). You seem to be saying that it is not rational for a theist to behave unselfishly/non-altruistically. I'm saying that it is. You have not persuaded me of your case.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT
Liz, It is apparent that you are continguing to be non-responsive to my actual argument and are going to continue to ignore my objections and challenges to your socialist definitional fiat for "morality", and your dictionary-defying definition of "objective".William J Murray
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT
William: there is an interesting essay on morality at the <a href=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/<Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy It looks like I'm using the word "normatively" rather than "descriptively", which is probably part of the problem, and that I'm taking a "Natural Law" approach. However, to avoid further confusion, I will try to avoid the term. Instead I will use the term "altruism" - because that can be defined much more easily, and can be easily substituted into my exchanges with Chris, as he and I seemed to agree that behaviour that would result from putting a high valuation on the wellbeing of others is "moral" behaviour. In which case my argument with you becomes: It is no less rational for an atheist to behave altruistically than for a theist. Moreoever, I'd say that altruistic behaviour done for self-serving motives is somewhat less admirable than altruistic behaviour done simply because a person values the well-being of others as something of value in itself, not because they themselves will ultimately benefit.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn" Rabbi HillelElizabeth B Liddle
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT
William J Murray @ 569 The Great Commandment: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" ? Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:35-40; Mark 12:28-31; Luke 10:25-28; Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:13-15. "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." ? Also Romans 13:8-10 The New Commandment: "Love one another; as I have loved you" ? Thirteen places in the New Testament "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." – ConfuciusCLAVDIVS
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
Daniel King And once upon a time Christians were set alight to illuminate the streets of Rome. To this day most Christians in the middle east are still being persecuted, what's your point? I might also make reference to the fact that Greenpeace members are assaulting and murdering fishermen in the name of a good thing. History is full of examples where people do bad things in the name of a good thing. History is full of examples that people of power has used what is good to advance their own ideologies which were not based on morality bit on hunger for power, greed and money. The crusades come to mind, Stalin, Hitler. The list is endless but none of those had anything to do with morality.Andre
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
Once again: I challenge Dr. Liddle to provide a reference to a dictionary that supports her ongoing, insistent and assumptive view that morality is necessarily about valuing others and treating them well.William J Murray
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
And once upon a time slavery was decreed to be God’s will by the consensus morality of Christianity. Apparently each tribe creates a consensus that fluctuates in history.
Which is one of the reasons why subjective morality, consensus morality, and morality by decree of authority (even supposedly by god) are not good foundations for morality.William J Murray
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
Murray @566:
Jews can still be gassed, and children mutilated, by consensus morality.
Exactly. And once upon a time Jews and heretics were burned at the stake by the consensus morality of European Christianity. And once upon a time slavery was decreed to be God's will by the consensus morality of Christianity. Apparently each tribe creates a consensus that fluctuates in history.Daniel King
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
Yes, I think that all observers can note, independently of each other, that reciprocal altruism is the best basis for a society (leads to the best outcomes for all) and so laws and moral principles that promote reciprocal altruism are those that will most likely lead to fair societies. It’s obviously a woollier and less objective conclusion than the conclusion that “the sky is blue”, but I’d say there is nonetheless remarkable agreement across societies.
ROFL .. you just blithely ignore my ongoing objections an challenges about your definitional fiat about "what morality is", and my dispute with your convenient arguments that ensue, and then answer me as if we have agreed to your definitional fiat and as if the convenient arguments already disputed pose some kind of meaningful response. Yes, Dr. Liddle, there are all sorts of objective data one can collect and refer to after one has the defintion "what morality is"; but that is the very problem you refuse to address.
But the principle of altruism (plus justice-with-mercy for cheaters) seems a near-universal basis for morality ..."
No, it doesn't. And even if it did, that doesn't make it objective; it just makes it consensus. Jews can still be gassed, and children mutilated, by consensus morality. Your baseless assertion of "near universal basis", even if it were true, doesn't give you cover to hide from the problems atheistic morality poses.William J Murray
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
Please provide a source for this assertion.
Go look up the definitions of "morality", "objective", and "subjective". Morality is a system of oughts. Oughts only exist in minds. "Objective" means "independent of mind", by your own posted definition.
Nothing you have posted gives me any reason to think that theistic morality is more, or less, “subjective” than “morality under atheism”.
That may be because I haven't been making that argument. My argument has been about the necessary rational implications of atheistic, subjective morality.
My point is simply that the underlying principle of morality has been the principles required to maintain a peaceful productive society – the “moral duty” of citizens to their community, penalised if violated.
I know what your "point" is, Dr. Liddle, and reasserting your definitional fiat is neither meeting my challenges nor is it providing any new information. Billions of people for thousands of years disagree/have disagreed with your concept of what the "underlying principle" of morality is, which IMO is socialist propaganda and has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. I challenge you to provide a reference to a dictionary that supports your idea that morality is necessarily about valuing others and treating them well.
You are absolutely right of course that theists have frequently decided that what god wants isn’t what makes for a peaceful productive society – slaughtering enemies, flying planes into towers, whatever.
Great! Then we are agreed that people frequently, fundamentally disagree with your definition of what morality is.
But that seems to me to be an argument against theistic morality, not for it.
In the first place, I'm not making an argument ***for** theistic morality; I'm making one against atheistic morality. In the second place, the idea that theists flying planes into buildings is an argument against theistic morality assumes your definitional fiat - that morality isn't about obeying the will of god even if it means killing innocents and yourself.
And on the whole, I’d say, the history of the great religions has been to identify God with what is good, rather than good as what some god is interpreted to want
Except when god orders ethnic exterminations, witch-burning, slavery, treating women and children as property, war, torture, human sacrifice, beheading infidels, chopping off limbs and fingers, mutilating the genitalia of babies and children, rape, paedophilia, death for variant lifestyles and beliefs, imposing caste systems, etc? Your willingess to whitewash and rewrite human history, and ignore contradictory facts in service of your ill-formed moral philosophy, borders on the absurd.
Tell me which, in your view is the most “subjective of these two ways of discerning morality: Collectively discovering what duties laid on members of a society lead to a peaceful productive society Choosing a religion that comes with a set of scriptures that give conflicting instructions on how to behave, including genocide and the taking of the wives of your enemy into sexual slavery?
Well, besides this being a false dichotomy (one doesn't have to choose a religion to develop a theistic morality), you have yet again inserted your socialistic definition of morality as if it has de facto status. Note how you use the word "discover" as if you and others are finding something that self-exists in the real world, independent of mind - unavailable under atheistic morality.
I understand that the latter is not your choice – but you have said yourself, William, that you may a personal choice as to what to believe. Do you honestly think that is not more “subjective” than figuring out collectively what works?
"tu toque" is not a viable rebuttal; what I believe about morality, and how I come to it, is irrelevant when it comes to your capacity to support your atheistic morality. What "works" according to what premise of morality? Your definitional fiat? If morality is not an objectively existent commodity, you must first invent what it is before there can be any talk of "what works".
Is it not you who are failing “to understand words”?
You're the one using idiosyncratic definitions of "objective" and "morality"; I'm doing my best to wade through your obfuscating qualifications and irrelevancies as you try to have your subjective cake and eat it, too.William J Murray
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
WJM
So if morality is not subjective (under atheism, in your worldview), what arbits what can be called morality, and what cannot be called morality?
Usage. OK, I hope mopping up operations are just about finished here.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
So, Dr Liddle, you are now claiming that morality exists independent of the mind, and is perceptible by all observers, independent of individual thought?
Yes, I think that all observers can note, independently of each other, that reciprocal altruism is the best basis for a society (leads to the best outcomes for all) and so laws and moral principles that promote reciprocal altruism are those that will most likely lead to fair societies. It's obviously a woollier and less objective conclusion than the conclusion that "the sky is blue", but I'd say there is nonetheless remarkable agreement across societies. Where people differ much more markedly is on who counts as "other" and in what best benefits them. But the principle of altruism (plus justice-with-mercy for cheaters) seems a near-universal basis for morality across human society, and can even be demonstrated, by experiment, to work.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
William:
Can you not understand words, now? Under atheism, morality is considered subjective, not objective (under the actual definition of the word), meaning that morality doesn’t exist outside of the feelings, interpretations and personal biases of the individual. There is no “objective”, independently existent morality that is an absolute standard.
Please provide a source for this assertion. Nothing you have posted gives me any reason to think that theistic morality is more, or less, "subjective" than "morality under atheism". My point is simply that the underlying principle of morality has been the principles required to maintain a peaceful productive society - the "moral duty" of citizens to their community, penalised if violated. You are absolutely right of course that theists have frequently decided that what god wants isn't what makes for a peaceful productive society - slaughtering enemies, flying planes into towers, whatever. But that seems to me to be an argument against theistic morality, not for it. And on the whole, I'd say, the history of the great religions has been to identify God with what is good, rather than good as what some god is interpreted to want. Tell me which, in your view is the most "subjective of these two ways of discerning morality: Collectively discovering what duties laid on members of a society lead to a peaceful productive society Choosing a religion that comes with a set of scriptures that give conflicting instructions on how to behave, including genocide and the taking of the wives of your enemy into sexual slavery? I understand that the latter is not your choice - but you have said yourself, William, that you may a personal choice as to what to believe. Do you honestly think that is not more "subjective" than figuring out collectively what works? Is it not you who are failing "to understand words"? Anyway, this thread is going nowhere. I will be at TSZ if you want to continue. Axel's ridiculous post has made me unaccountably cross.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
So I do not think that morality is subjective, under atheism” or anything else.
So if morality is not subjective (under atheism, in your worldview), what arbits what can be called morality, and what cannot be called morality?William J Murray
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Dr. Liddle says she is:
I am using it [objective] in sense 1 b.
1b states:
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind [objective reality] [our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff] — compare subjective 3a
So, Dr Liddle, you are now claiming that morality exists independent of the mind, and is perceptible by all observers, independent of individual thought?William J Murray
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Thanks, Proton. I hope you will consider posting at TSZ.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
It’s not “emotional pleading” at al.
Yes, it is, and you continue your emotional pleasing:
Your argument boils down to the argument that theists will do what they think is moral, even if they don’t care about other people, because they believe that they don’t they will suffer adverse consequences after death.
No, my argument is about the logical problems of atheistic morality. Nothing more, nothing less. What the shortcomings may be of theistic morality is a different argument altogether. You continue inserting the point about theists "only" dong good things to avoid the consequences for doing bad, when it has nothing to do with my argument, to score emotional points. Thus, emotional pleading.
My argument that people do exactly the same things (care about other people) that you call “moral” simply because they care about other people.
Once again, you falsely imply that your morality is the only kind of morality that exists - "caring about other people". You're so myopic about this that you simply refuse to really consider that most people, throughout time, consider morality - "how they should behave" to be about the will of god, or about pleasing god or gods. "Caring about other people, for many if not most theists, is not "what morality is about", but rather is simply a general byproduct of obeying God's will, or pleasing God.
I don’t mind what we call it – being nice, being moral, being altruistic, or whatever – but the only thing theism adds, according to you, is a self-interest motive to do it.
Note your assumption, once again, that you use your socialist concept of "morality' as if it is a common definition (I couldn't find it in any dictionary - you haven't even responded to that) and as if it has some kind of de facto standing as "what morality is about". You constantly argue from your definitional fiat when that definition, and that fiat, is the very thing I'm pointing out that you have no basis for assuming in the first place.
That’s because most people value not only their own welfare but the welfare of others. That may seem irrational to you, but it’s not irrational to most people. Most people want to live in a society where people take care of other people, so they do their bit.
I never said otherwise, Dr. Liddle. What I said is that you have no basis by which to assert that such valuing "is" what morality is necessarily about. You can value the welfare of others all you want; that doesn't make it the necessary basis of morality. Now, let's look at the trouble you go to in order to bury a simple answer you dislike in response to my question:
Do you think a lot of religious people believe that “morality” is about serving the will of god, whether or not it makes “other people” happy?
The answer, of course, is yes. A lot of people will fly planes into buildings full of innocent people, and blow themselves and others up, and kill infidels, and do all sorts of things that hurt and harm others because the consider it the will of God, and they consider morality (how they ought behave) to be about obeying the will of god, regardless of whether or not it hurts others or advances society. But, to avoid that simple answer, you have to qualify and contextualize to try and - once again - make it seem like "most people" define morality the same way you do, as if "what most people" feel is a significant defense for your position, which - we will see - it is not. My second question was:
If so, do you agree that under the atheistic premise of subjective morality, they are as entitled to their definition of what morality is about as you are?
To which you responded:
What “atheistic premise of subjective morality”? I know of no such premise.
Can you not understand words, now? Under atheism, morality is considered subjective, not objective (under the actual definition of the word), meaning that morality doesn't exist outside of the feelings, interpretations and personal biases of the individual. There is no "objective", independently existent morality that is an absolute standard. You've agreed that at least some (I'd argue most) people do not consider morality to be defined by "valuing others and treating them well", but rather to be defined as "serving the will of god". They will not value others, and treat them badly, if that what they think god wants. The question is rather straightforward: if the premise of morality is that it is generated by subjective human feelings and values, then if a person or persons feel like it, and place value on it, then any behavior - including gassing jews and torturing children for pleasure - they are as entitled to call that system of behavior towards others "morality", and their actions "moral", as you or anyone else? Without any absolute arbiter of what is moral, and what is not, then you must answer yes - if that is what those people "feel" is right, and moral, then it is necessarily as right, and as moral, as your own perspective, regardless of if more people feel like you do than feel like they do.William J Murray
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
I am using "objective", William, to mean: can be agreed upon by independent observers. I use "subjective" to mean something that can only be ascertained by an individual. So we (lots of people) can agree that the sky is objectively blue - independent observers can look at the sky and agree that it is blue. But the subjective blueness of the sky may be a very different experience for different people. I do not think that morality is "subjective" - I do not think that only I can understand what I mean by morality. I think it can be shared, I think it can be agreed, and I think it is agreed. I think that's as objective as we can get. You seem to be using the word to mean something like "absolute". Perhaps you know what you mean by that, but I don't. Nonetheless, the antonym of "absolute" is not "subjective". I do not think that morality is "subjective". I do think that when weighing up two evils, we have to consider their relative evil, so in that sense I do not think that morality is absolute either. But I do not think it makes sense to say that morality can be anything anyone wants it to be, or experiences it to be. So I do not think that morality is subjective, under atheism" or anything else. Merriam Webster btw, gives these four primary meanings:
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind [objective reality] [our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff] — compare subjective 3a c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare subjective 4c d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena 2 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs 3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
I am using it in sense 1 b. You appear to be using it in something more like sense 1 a (the medieval one). Subjective is not the antonym of that medieval sense. It is, however, according to M-W, the antonym of sense b.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
I admire Elizabeth's patience when dealing with all these Christians zealots and their twisted religion-biased logic. It especially makes me angry that theists and Christians are put in the same bag. As a theist and ID myself I find it nerve-wrecking to see that one of the most important ID sites is run by religious zealots. It's irritating to see ID's principle of "going where the evidence leads" being lost completely when Christians start preaching their religious ideas as truth and ignore evidence completely, they make us IDs look like hypocrites. And then IDs don't like when we're called creationists or IDiots...*sigh*Proton
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
William just Made That Up.
No, I didn't. You are the one equivocating here, by using half-truths and obfuscating terminology for your own purposes. Your use of the term "objective" is idiosyncratic - you mean "agreed upon" or "consensus", not objective as in something that exists independent of our perception or interpretation of it, independent of our feelings or biases.
I think moral principles are fairly objective, just as we can be reasonably objective about some other things that independent observers can agree to be the case.
Does morality exist independently of anyone's perception of it? All you are doing here is conveniently and improperly extending the term "objective" in order to deceptively avoid admitting that under atheism, morality is subjective. That most people agree apple is the best tasting pie doesn't make it "fairly objective" or "reasonably objective" that apple pie tastes the best. A general consensus of a subjective feeling does not turn a subjective commodity into an objective commodity, a "fairly" objective commodity, or a "reasonably" objective commodity.
Of course what constitutes the best interest of others, and who those others are, can be, and is, hotly debated, but I see very little disagreement among human beings that morality consists of treating others as you would be treated yourself.
More unsupportable and deceptive "Queen's we" assertions that fly in the face of history and logic, simply ignoring that what there is "little disagreement" about, historically and even currently, is that morality consists of doing God's will, regardless of what that means in terms of treating others.
I think that is as objective as we are going to get, by any method.
Note the continued equivocation about what "objective" means.William J Murray
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
Andre, I don't think that "morals are subjective". William just Made That Up. I think moral principles are fairly objective, just as we can be reasonably objective about some other things that independent observers can agree to be the case. I just don't think there is some absolute code of morality Out There, somewhere, and even if there were, given that there's no way of knowing what it is, we have to figure out what it's likely to be anyway. And, independently, many cultures, for fairly obvious reasons, have come up with the idea that reciprocal altruism (aka The Golden Rule) lies at the heart of it. Of course what constitutes the best interest of others, and who those others are, can be, and is, hotly debated, but I see very little disagreement among human beings that morality consists of treating others as you would be treated yourself. I think that is as objective as we are going to get, by any method.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle, I'm confused,what's best for a peaceful society was your claim, so if it comes to that and you now strongly disagree with your own claim of morality then it should be clear to you that morality is in actual fact not subjective, but rather objective, some just seem to ignore that until are put in a particular position. A materialist may offer his voice on morals being subjective until he is the victim of an immoral act, like robbery.Andre
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
I wouldn't, no, Andre. I can't see how doing the very thing that you want to see not done can make the thing you want to see not done less likely. But unfortunately it's been done too often in the past by those certain that that that's what their morality entailed, either mythically, as with the alleged genocide of the Canaanites, or in practice, as with such things as the St Bartholomew's Day massacre. Or 9/11. Or indeed the Stalin purges, or Hitler's holocaust. It is not only contradictory, it doesn't even work. Probably because it's contradictory. I don't think there are any easy answers to the question of what actions are moral (although it seems to me that the Golden Rule is a pretty good foundation). What I'm pretty sure of is that thinking you know God's will (or the will of the gods) and doing that, isn't a guarantee that you will be doing a moral thing. Theism might be an incentive to do a moral thing you would otherwise not bother with, but it sure as eggs doesn't tell you reliably what the moral thing is.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 21

Leave a Reply