Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why materialist neuroscience must necessarily remain a pseudo-discipline

Categories
Neuroscience
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
William, If you don't agree with my premises, then why are you complaining? I stated very clearly in comment #7, and have repeated many times since then, that I am addressing my argument to
...those who believe “that each of us has an immaterial mind or soul that constitutes our true self, and that the body, including the brain, is merely a vehicle ‘inhabited’ and controlled by the mind or soul.
If you'd like to present your own idosyncratic view of the soul for consideration, that's fine. We can evaluate it to see if it holds up against the split-brain evidence. However, I'm more interested in widely-held views of the soul, such as those of Christians.keiths
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
Querius, It looks like I'm right. You are afraid to state your assumptions. You're even afraid to state exactly which assumptions of mine you disagree with! You're not exactly radiating confidence in your ability to defend the soul, you know. I can understand. The split-brain evidence is very uncomfortable for believers in the soul. I don't envy you.keiths
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
What is your answer, William? Why does splitting the brain split the immaterial soul?
I don't agree that it splits the soul, so your question is irrelevant to me. I don't even agree that there are necessarily two souls involved - it's quite possible that one soul is expressing multiple, even conflicting personalities through one physical body. I was just listing the theistic possibilities that fall outside of your convenient set of premises. I don't hold that the soul is the seat of what we call personality, and that view is not unique - there are long established spiritualities that hold this to be the case. You're asking a question, IMO, that is akin to a physicist from long ago attempting to prove something about photons by setting up an double slit experiment. You're thinking of the soul as if it were a particle with particular, measurable characteristics - hardly surprising, given that you are a reductionist materialist (if I remember correctly). The soul is not a particle. It's interface with the physical is, in my view, not as simple, nor as divisible, as your argument and questions assume. There are forms of theism (Sant Mat, Science of Mind, etc.) that lie well outside of the purview of your premises.William J Murray
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
keiths,
If you go with the two souls idea, then it seems to me that you either have to assume that each of us starts out with two souls, or that the soul splits when the brain splits, or that a second soul comes occupies the “empty” hemisphere after the corpus callosum is cut. Are you making any of those assumptions? If so, let us know which one(s).
LOL, no you're the one making those assumptions. They're yours, not mine. I think you'll be better off if you wait for Elizabeth. ;-)Querius
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
Querius,
Sorry about the typo. It should read “with two souls.”
Okay, so with that correction you are saying:
You also make a seventh unstated assumption that two minds in each of two hemispheres of the brain cannot possibly be associated with two souls. Thus, you assume your way out of trouble.
But I don't make that assumption. See my reply to William above. If you go with the two souls idea, then it seems to me that you either have to assume that each of us starts out with two souls, or that the soul splits when the brain splits, or that a second soul comes occupies the "empty" hemisphere after the corpus callosum is cut. Are you making any of those assumptions? If so, let us know which one(s).keiths
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
Querius, I've read your #296, but it didn't give me the information I need. Let me repeat:
If you disagree, then tell me exactly which assumptions you disagree with, and why. Then we can see how well your view of the soul survives the split-brain test.
You can even substitute your own list of assumptions, if you prefer. If your assumptions aren't specific enough, I'll explain why and ask the necessary questions. You're not afraid of sharing your assumptions, are you?keiths
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
keiths, See post 296 where I respond to your assumptions. You didn't read it, did you. Sorry about the typo. It should read "with two souls." Elizabeth, I think keiths needs help with my question.
Why do you think that the fact that we can have significant conflicts within our personality (i.e. soul), as demonstrated by your left-right brain examples of brain-damaged individuals, disproves the existence of a non-material soul?
Do you want to take a shot at it?Querius
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
Querius, Do you disagree with any of my assumptions?
Assume that: 1. There is an immaterial soul. 2. The immaterial soul is the seat of knowledge. 3. The immaterial soul is the seat of the will. 4. The immaterial soul initiates voluntary actions. 4. The immaterial soul receives information from both hemispheres. 5. The immaterial soul sends commands to both hemispheres. If you disagree with any of these assumptions, I can modify the argument accordingly, but these seem pretty standard among people who believe in a soul.
If you disagree, then tell me exactly which assumptions you disagree with, and why. Then we can see how well your view of the soul survives the split-brain test. If you don't disagree with any of them, then why are you complaining?
You also make a seventh unstated assumption that two minds in each of two hemispheres of the brain cannot possibly be associated is two souls. Thus, you assume your way out of trouble.
Your statement doesn't parse correctly. Could you try rewriting it?keiths
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
Sorry about the formatting issue. :PQuerius
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
keiths,
Already answered. Though I suspect that you’ll continue to deny that, since you apparently can’t rebut my argument and are desperately avoiding it./
I just asked you a simple question, several times now. Instead, you point me to an argument you made that starts with six hefty assumptions (depending on how you count them), claiming that this somehow answers my question. No it doesn't. You also make a seventh unstated assumption that two minds in each of two hemispheres of the brain cannot possibly be associated is two souls. Thus, you assume your way out of trouble. No, I'm not the one who's desperate. Here, I'll give you one more chance. Let's see whether you're willing to take an honest stab at it.
Why do you think that the fact that we can have significant conflicts within our personality (i.e. soul), as demonstrated by your left-right brain examples of brain-damaged individuals, disproves the existence of a non-material soul?
If you're having trouble, maybe Elizabeth can help. I bet she can provide a cogent reply. Elizabeth, are you up for taking on the question that keiths having trouble with?
Querius
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
William J Murray:
Also, since conjoined twins like Abby and Brittany occupy one body, it’s hardly a stretch to consider that two different souls might inhabit a single brain.
Lizzie:
I’m sure keiths would accept that as a solution, WJM. I’m just not sure most others would.
Indeed, I addressed that as a possible (but weak) solution, way back in comment #13:
How does a believer in the soul explain that? Does the soul split in two when the corpus callosum is cut? If so, why?
What is your answer, William? Why does splitting the brain split the immaterial soul? (A commenter named Steve actually suggested, at TSZ, that split-brain patients were a case of spirit possession.) And Lizzie's right. Most theists, including most Christians, would not accept that as a solution. They believe that each of us has one and only one soul, and that splitting the brain does not split the soul. The evidence shows that their view of the soul cannot be correct. It just doesn't fit.keiths
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
Ha! We should all be worried about the Day of Reckoning, Lizzie. Because that day is certainly coming and it won't matter what you believe, or who you believe in. It will simply be a case of whether your good deeds outweigh your bad ones. It will be the fairest of trials, and frankly not one that I look forward to with confidence. I'm a little surprised by your second question. Certainly as far as the argument is concerned it is a bit irrelevant, because the truth of theism is a given. But, I guess you're just curious. Fair enough. Unlike your first question, the answer to this one is not simple and obvious: far from it. It can't be, because if it was, it would all be too easy! But Mark Frank will drop 500 coins on my head (they'll all land facing heads up, of course) if I don't answer your questions with patient perseverance. And he's an atheist who doesn't value my welfare and we all know what that means ;-) I've arrived at the conclusion that virtually all religions (but not cults), and certainly the Abrahamic faiths, all teach us the same thing: God, Morality, Afterlife. Naturally, those fundamental truths are clearer in some religions than they are in others. Some religions even contain teachings which detract from God, Morality, Afterlife. And that's simply due to tampering by men. But, oddly enough, most thinking (and many unthinking) religious believers somehow cut to the chase, ignore the tampered stuff and take home the original message, God, Morality, Afterlife. That this is the case, strongly suggests to me that virtually all religions are derived from One True Source. The prophets of God, the ones who delivered this fundamental message, do not belong to any one religion: they belong to all true believers, regardless of faith. Some prophets we all know about, many have been long forgotten. Some were prophets and we never even knew it. They came to all people, at all times, and their message was always the same. Hence the universality of theistic truths today. I very much subscribe to the Two Books approach to God: The Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture (and I use that term in the widest sense, certainly, not just - or even primarily - the Bible). When I study the Book of Nature, I see what all the greatest scientists who ever lived saw: the hand of God, the Creator of the universe. Do I know for sure? Well, I believe we can never completely discount Descartes' Demon Doubt: I could very well be a soul in a jar, and everything I know could be a mere illusion brought on by a Demon for who knows what diabolical reason. And that is where a leap of faith is required.Chris Doyle
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
KS: It is you who have demonstrably been deceitful (onlookers, just follow the link then follow the back link to the thread of discussion to see what KS is concealing), and are now trying to brazenly spread that deceit. Here, by the utterly notorious tactic of turnabout false accusation. KFkairosfocus
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
kairosfocus,
No, Dr Liddle, it is time you and your ilk learned some basic discussion duties of care and took them seriously. KF
This is rather hypocritical, coming from someone who has resorted to lying on the other thread in order to keep his leaky and unseaworthy argument afloat.keiths
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Personally, I'm partial to the cosmogonies in which the world hatches from a gigantic egg. The point of the Sellars quote, as I read it, is that "the agapic commitment" -- that frame of mind in which one takes seriously the needs of others as having a claim on ones actions -- needs no further grounding. It is deeper than any moral principle which one could put forth as explicating and clarifying that commitment. Using that as a pivot, then, one way of reframing of the debate that we're having here is whether the agapic commitment requires any further 'grounding' in a metaphysical doctrine or 'world-view'.Kantian Naturalist
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
KF, You said in 369 that "polytheism is not theism." I have usually taken polytheism as a species of theism, which is the belief that gods exist. Some forms of theism posit the existence of one specific god. Others are even more elaborate. And polytheism, belief in "a plurality of personal gods," seems to be clearly a type of theism. So, no games on my part, just definitions and relationships.LarTanner
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
LT: A basic worldviews primer, just in case you seriously do not know the differences [hard to believe it is far more likely you are playing games], from C. Stephen Evans:
Polytheism: there is a plurality of personal gods, as with the Greeks and Egyptians. Monotheism: there is but one God, the personal being who created all things from nothing, and is supreme in power, knowledge and moral worth. (Sometimes simply called “theism” for short.) Animism: tends to see a High (often, a sky) God, but there is an intermediary chain of sky- and/or earth- bound spirit beings, with whom one must deal in day to day life. Sometimes it is argued that polytheism and monotheism evolved from animism. Agnosticism: the truth about “God” is not, or even cannot be, known; people should suspend judgement on the question. Atheism: Goes beyond this: “God” does not exist, save as an imaginary figure. Henotheism: There is a plurality of gods, but one serves a particular god, either because s/he is superior, or because that is the god of one’s community. Dualism: there are two gods, in mutual opposition – often one is viewed as “good,” the other as “evil.” Pantheism: rejects the concept of God as personal, and identifies God with the cosmos as a whole Panentheism: A variant on pantheism in which God is more than, but includes the universe. Deism: Agrees with theism that there is one God, but holds that God [currently] does not interact with creation. In effect, God made and wound up the clock then lets it run on its own. Absolute monism: God is an absolute unity which is somehow manifest in a less-than-fully-real world of apparent plurality. Naturalism: instead of focusing on the explicit rejection of God, this version of atheism asserts that the natural order we see around us exists on its own; often using materialistic evolutionary theories to try to explain its evolution “from hydrogen to humans.” Trinitarian monotheism: The specifically Christian contention that God is manifest through unity of being (there is but One God) and diversity in person (God is manifest as Father, Son and Spirit). Thus, it holds that the unity of the Godhead is complex rather than simple.
The gods of pantheism are not the foundational ground of being, and are in effect super-men or personalised natural features and forces (there is a lot of syncretism with animism.) In such systems, the material world is not a creation, or it is made from the parts of a killed god or the like KFkairosfocus
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Well, I'm mightily relieved that's all it is, Chris. Good. All that Day of Reckoning stuff had me worried. So, can I ask you now my second question, in that context: how do you know that "the very reason we were put on this Earth was to make the kind of personal sacrifices required in order to treat people like X well"? It's not a trick question - I'm not suggesting that you don't know. I would just like to know how you know.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
So KN, an atheist says something foundational correct about how reality is structured, something that can't be rationally grounded in his atheistic worldview, and then that makes that foundational truth acceptable for you? But just suppose that your atheistic worldview is not correct for a second KN, what if God were to show his love for us, just for the pure sake of loving us, what do you suppose that would look like? Natalie Grant - Alive (Resurrection music video) Lyric: 'Death has lost and love has won' http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNXbornagain77
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
Good evening Lizzie, You asked:
If, as I agree, an atheist who does not value the wellbeing of Human Being X has no reason to make any personal sacrifice in order to treat X well: How is it different for a theist in the same position?
Great question, I'm glad you framed it comparatively too. Just as I assumed the truth of atheism when discussing atheistic morality (don't moan about that term Lizzie, you know what I mean: it simply describes morality in a Godless universe), you must now assume the truth of theism when discussing theistic morality (which simply describes morality in a universe that was created by God). Prepare yourself for disappointment though as the answer is so simple and so obvious. Ready? Because the very reason we were put on this Earth was to make the kind of personal sacrifices required in order to treat people like X well. And that's it... I told you you wouldn't like it. But the logic is flawless IF you assume the truth of theism. Okay, you want more. "What is the truth of theism?" I hear you cry! Fair enough, you've made an admission about the failure of morality when it comes to rational, but uncaring, atheists, (even though it's much bigger than you realise, nothing short of the total failure of atheistic morality). So, you've earned the chance to have a pop at me ;-) We chose this life for starters, meaning we existed before we were born in this world. Back then, the Great Trial that is human existence was offered to us and others. The conditions were pretty simple, come down to Earth and see if we can be morally good when we are left alone with free-will and human bodies. Succeed and we'll earn the right to go to a much better place. Fail, and we'll still get there, but only after spending time in a much worse place. Others turned it down. We accepted. Now that we're here, our top two priorities are to practice morality as much as we can and, perhaps more importantly, to resist immorality as much as we can. Pursuing a life of pleasure and enjoyment is quite often detrimental to those aims. Sure, a fulfilled life will involve a rich range of emotional experiences that include ample happiness, joy and pleasure: it is not about hiding away from the world and living like a monk. But the idea that the happy life is the same as a morally good one is just ridiculous as far as theistic morality is concerned. Why? Because the truest and best moral deeds: require painful self-sacrifice involve very difficult acts that are detrimental to our self-interest are entirely unrewarding and are so unappealing that we have to overcome strong revulsion in order to do them. So, helping old ladies across the road or helping the people you love (who make you glad when they're glad, and make you sad when they're sad), although still moral acts, are relatively minor ones. They are the very least you should do (you'd have to be a really selfish inconsiderate person not to do so). They are also often very easy to do and so do not really test you at all. On the other hand, many immoral acts: offer pleasurable selfishness involve very easy acts that promote our self-interest are entirely rewarding and are so appealing that we have to strongly resist the temptation to do them. I notice that most atheists never talk about these powerful and pleasurable aspects of immorality. They always seem to equate immoral acts to things they would never do because they absolutely do not want to do them. That kind of immorality is often quite minor (especially in terms of how easy it is to avoid doing it) and does not address what true immorality is all about. So, a theist who does not value the wellbeing of Human Being X has every reason to make personal sacrifices in order to treat X well, precisely because that is what true morality is all about, and morality is the top priority for a convinced theist. Assuming the theistic worldview is true, X provides a proper test, one that it would be irrational to decline simply because you don't care about them. Doing good is much more important, and much more rational, than self-gratification if God created the universe.Chris Doyle
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Actually LarTanner, your answer makes no sense whatsoever. You have ZERO evidence that Darwinian processes can build even the most trivial pieces of the integrated functional complexity we find in life and you don't ridicule that fact because you say 'chickens sometimes cross roads'??? With all due respect, are you daft LarTanner??? What has that to do with the fact you have ZERO observational evidence??? So what if there is a glut of evidence for NDE's??? Darwinism should hope for just one example of observational evidence instead of the ZERO it has. It should be noted: All foreign, non-Judeo-Christian culture, NDE studies I have looked at have a extreme rarity of encounters with 'The Being Of Light' and tend to be very unpleasant NDE's save for the few pleasant children's NDEs of those cultures that I've seen (It seems there is indeed an 'age of accountability'). The following study was shocking for what was found in some non-Judeo-Christian NDE's: Near-Death Experiences in Thailand - Todd Murphy: Excerpt:The Light seems to be absent in Thai NDEs. So is the profound positive affect found in so many Western NDEs. The most common affect in our collection is negative. Unlike the negative affect in so many Western NDEs (cf. Greyson & Bush, 1992), that found in Thai NDEs (in all but case #11) has two recognizable causes. The first is fear of 'going'. The second is horror and fear of hell. It is worth noting that although half of our collection include seeing hell (cases 2,6,7,9,10) and being forced to witness horrific tortures, not one includes the NDEer having been subjected to these torments themselves. http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm Near Death Experience Thailand Asia - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8M5J3zWG5g It should also be noted that there are hellish NDE's reported within Judeo-Christian cultures: video - Howard Storm continues to share his gripping story of his own near death experience. Today, he picks up just as Jesus was rescuing him from the horrors of Hell and carrying him into the glories of Heaven. http://www.daystar.com/ondemand/joni-heaven-howard-storm-j924/#.UKvFrYYsE31 "I knew for certain there was no such thing as life after death. Only simple minded people believed in that sort of thing. I didn't believe in God, Heaven, or Hell, or any other fairy tales. I drifted into darkness. Drifting asleep into anihilation.,,(Chapter 2 - The Descent),, I was standing up. I opened my eyes to see why I was standing up. I was between two hospital beds in the hospital room.,,, Everything that was me, my consciousness and my physical being, was standing next to the bed. No, it wasn't me lying in the bed. It was just a thing that didn't have any importance to me. It might as well have been a slab of meat in the supermarket",,, Howard Storm - former hard-core atheist - Excerpt from his book, 'My Descent Into Death' (Page 12-14) http://books.google.com/books?id=kd4gxtQAeq8C&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false Bill Wiese - 23 Minutes In Hell - 2010 video http://www.vimeo.com/16641462 Why Hell is so Horrible - Bill Wiese - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hd_so3wPw8bornagain77
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
BA77,
[snip]Why don’t you also ridicule Darwinian evolution[snip]
Ok, here goes: "Why did the chicken cross the road? It was the logical next step after coming down from the trees." "Why did the chickens cross the road? Only the fittest chickens cross the road." "If Darwin was right, you will probably figure it out in a few million years." * * * * * ... I'm not very good at this. In any case, if you can't laugh at NDE testimony then what can you laugh at? Now, there are several Jewish NDE stories. Also many Muslim ones. And so on. I assume you consider these experiences equally valid to the ones you are most fond of, even though these NDEs reinforced the believers' own faith and not a specific, other one. So, I've read some of them. Maybe many of them. I wonder why I should take their content (e.g., "heaven") to be anything other than the brain and body going haywire. Oh right, because Dr. So-and-so on metacafe has a slideshow that says what you so ardently wish to hear, all accompanied by the melodramatic and semi-erotic worship music. Selah.LarTanner
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
Thanks, Bornagain77. That Sellars quote means a lot to me. But, it is also worth underscoring, Sellars was a naturalist and a second-generation atheist. He saw no conflict between holding that agape is the foundation of ethics and holding that human beings are a peculiar sort of animal. I like to think that he would have been fascinated and impressed by Franz de Waal's work on the evolutionary antecedents of morality in monkeys and apes.Kantian Naturalist
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
Here Here KN!bornagain77
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
The only frame of mind which can provide direct support for moral commitment is what Josiah Royce called Loyalty, and what Christians call Love (Charity) [caritas, agape]. This is a commitment deeper than any commitment to abstract principle. It is this commitment to the well-being of our fellow man which stands to the justification of moral principles as the purpose of acquiring the ability to explain and predict stands to the justification of scientific theories. . . . the ability to love others for their own sake is as essential to a full life as the need to feel ourselves loved and appreciated for our own sake -- unconditionally, and not as something turned on or off depending on what we do. This fact provides, for those who acknowledge it, a means-end relationship around which can be built practical reasoning which justifies a course of action designed to strengthen our ability to respond to the needs of others. (W. Sellars, "Science and Ethics" (1960)
Kantian Naturalist
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
No, Dr Liddle, it is time you and your ilk learned some basic discussion duties of care and took them seriously. KFkairosfocus
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Oh, do stop assuming things about people, KF! I like your passage. Thank you for presenting it. Let me offer another, this from Einstein, and his understanding of the cosmos:
A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.
Elizabeth B Liddle
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Joe #357
me: Why do theists behave morally? Joe: So they can get into heaven- how you act in this life determines what happens to you in the next.
So your reasons for being moral do not ultimately come down to consideration for others. The come down to the benefit to you in the long term. In fact if someone was able to prove to you that you had misunderstood the Christian teaching (why not - we are all fallible) and being moral did not get you to heaven you would have no reason to be moral (or as Chris would put it morality fails).Mark Frank
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Hey LarTanner, I noticed you mocked the testimony of Millions of Nead Death Experience people the other day even though you have ZERO observational evidence that material processes can generate even one molecular machine: https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/why-materialist-neuroscience-must-necessarily-remain-a-pseudo-discipline/#comment-463912 Why the hypocritical double standard as far as the evidence goes? i.e. Why don't you also ridicule Darwinian evolution since it has far less evidence than Near Death Experiences do?bornagain77
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
Theists and grounding morality: I'd try this as a baseline, the remark made by Richard Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity in a key passage cited by Locke in his Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5, to justify liberty and justice in government::
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature [--> by creation], as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty [--> expressed by conscience guided common sense and reinforced through sound teaching from the prophets and apostles, etc] of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80.]
This has of course been cited and linked endless numbers of times in and around UD, just it has been roundly and willfully ignored by those who obviously do not care to be reasonable, accurate or fair in debate tactics. KFkairosfocus
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
1 6 7 8 9 10 21

Leave a Reply