In a meaningless world, does truth always have value over delusion?

_{scordova
July 6, 2013

Atheism, Philosophy, Religion

3}_{Categories
Atheism
Philosophy
Religion}

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

I care about truth if there is a God. But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.

Two thousand years ago, someone echoed those sentiments:

What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Paul of Tarsus
1 Cor 15:32

There was an exchange between KeithS and I in another thread, and he fired off this comment:

Your comment epitomizes one of the biggest problems with Pascal’s Wager. It doesn’t ask the question “What is most likely to be true?” It only asks, “How can I get the best payoff?”

That’s anathema to anyone who truly cares about truth.

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s Wager;Comment 100

To which I responded:

But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.

Why, logically speaking should an atheist care about truth in a meaningless universe? Perhaps the logical answer is no answer. If you say, truth has a better payoff, well, then you’ve just put payoffs ahead of truth! Right back where you started.

Further KeithS wrote:

Because the value of truth doesn’t depend on the existence of God.

To which I responded:

Value means PAYOFF! What is the payoff if there is no God?

I recall Dawkins in a debate with Lennox was asked about how humans can live their lives in a meaningless world. Dawkins said, “we create our own meaning”. Other atheists have repeated that statement such KeithS:

Life is full of meaning even without God. We create our own meanings, whether you realize it or not.

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s wager; Comment 59

to which I responded:

[the phrase] “we create our own meaning” is pretty much to me “we concoct our own unproven falsehoods to make us feel better”.
…
this whole “we create our own meaning” is worse than the religious ideas you are criticizing. You “know” there is no meaning, but you’ll pretend there is anyway. Reminds me of Coyne who “knows” there is no free will but he’ll pretend there is anyway.

And that is what continues to puzzle me about the atheistic variety of Darwinists (not Christian Darwinists). They seem to find much purpose in life in proving life has no purpose!

[posted by scordova to assist News desk with content and commentary until 7/7/13]

Comments

KF:
Including the error of implying that to kidnap, rape,. torture and murder a little girl is wrong.
What? Did you mistype?Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PST}

Andre:
Elizabeth So the idea that what is true for me is not true for you is a good thing? It guards us against what? I’ll say it again relativism creates intolerance!
I didn't say any such thing. I didn't say that something can be "true for me" but "not true for you". I said two things that you may have mistaken for that claim: 1. That the right thing in one context may not be the right thing in another (killing someone who is threatening to kill many other people; killing someone who looks as though they might). 2. That misplaced certainty on the whole is more dangerous than misplaced uncertainty. Neither of these positions creates intolerance. The reverse, I'd say.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PST}

Dr Liddle: I could start from how I am certain, on good evidence that you have hosted slander at TSZ, tried to deny it, then to defend it then to act as though it does not matter. (As in, we have evidence directly in hand that your assertion is false and reflects just how your relativism has benumbed you to duties to the right and the truth and the fair.) I won't. I will instead start from the very first example of a self evident, undeniably certain truth I have so often cited and shown: Royce's proposition, Error exists. As in it is then incumbent on us as finite, fallible, morally fallen and struggling, too often ill-willed people, to seek to be right, and to be fair. To be humble before those first principles of reason that allow us to stand on firm ground and keep from slipping, then sliding away over the cliff: 1 Take a bright red ball on the table so we see the world partitioned W = { A | NOT-A } . . . or ourselves as self-aware creatures. 2 Immediately, we have the corollaries of that world partition, the laws of identity non-contradiction and excluded middle [the X-OR law that we cannot straddle or avoid the partition] 3 Similarly, we can immediately ask ourselves and seek an answer, why A, thus leading to cause-effect,a nd contingency-necessity of being, and nothing = non-being. 4 All of this you have known and have known how to easily access, so the pretence above that there are no enumerable core first principles of right reason is a willful misrepresentation. ======= So, what we have is evidence of slip slidin' away from truth and right into the morass of error. Including the error of implying that to kidnap, rape,. torture and murder a little girl is wrong. Objectively, obviously and self evidently wrong, once we stand here as self aware, morally valuable creatures who have rights. KFkairosfocus_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PST}

I disagree, William, but as we've been round this circus a few times now, I think we will just have to leave it there. I will just say, however, in response to your 549: no I am not 100% certain of any of these things. That's why I tend to use expressions like "it seems to me that..." I'm often in the 90s though.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PST}

Elizabeth Objective morality can not be the product of evolution. Non-morality can not give rise to morality, to believe or think that it does come from evolution contradicts the law of causality.Andre_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PST}

I do not have to know that I will suffer “necessary consequences” for behaving immorally to nonetheless by motivated to try to do the right thing, even when that right thing is uncertain.
Without any non-relativistic standards or certainties, this same, exact statement can be used, employing the same principle, just before torturing children for personal pleasure and claiming it to be a morally good thing.William J Murray_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PST}

Well, obviously, there is no “uncertainty doctrine”, William, by definition. I am not even certain that it is impossible to be certain!
"Obviously" is a statement of certainty, Liz. "By definition" is a statement of certainty. "I", "am not" are terms that imply certainty. "There is no uncertainty doctrine" is a statement of certainty. Your argument is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing but hypocritical, concept-stealing self-refutation.William J Murray_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PST}

I disagree.
Are you certain of that?
In the “real world” I see, as I said, far more damage caused by misplaced certainty ... than uncertainty.
Are you certain of that?
The capacity to question one’s own certainty, and to evaluate the confidence with which one holds a belief seems to be an extremely important cognitive skill.
Are you certain of that?
(“I am certain that it is right to fly a plane into a tower full of people”; “I am certain that annihilating this group of people will lead to a better world”)
Neither of the above statements mean anything, or have any value even as language unless you hold as certainly true certain fundamental premises. We're not talking about secondary or tertiary beliefs where people are "certain" that they should fly a plane into a building; were talking about primary, fundamental propositions without which everything you say is nonsensical - such as LNC, the principle of identity, the idea that absolute right and wrong exist(or else you have no grounds to expect me to understand the context of those examples) and that I have libertarian free will (the ability to understand and respond in a way not dictated by material computation). These necessary assumptions are categorically different from a belief that some particular act can be concluded to be right or wrong. You are lumping self-evident and necessary truths that we can be certain about with secondary beliefs that we cannot; in fact, it is because of your acceptance that the logic of your argument is necessarily valid that you betray your certainty that the principles of logic which found and drive your argument are true and valid. It is only by our certainty that certain principles are true that we can "guard against" erroneous conclusions and thought - otherwise, the fox is guarding the henhouse. You're equivocating personal beliefs with necessary principles - throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and the baby is necessary for every argument you attempt to make.William J Murray_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PST}

Elizabeth So the idea that what is true for me is not true for you is a good thing? It guards us against what? I'll say it again relativism creates intolerance!Andre_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PST}

On the contrary, I would say that it guards against the danger of regarding principles as necessarily true if they are not, and thus sliding towards false conclusions. Isn’t this a good thing?
Uncertain principles cannot "guard against" anything. You are proposing we guard against the possibility of false certainty reaching false conclusion by employing the very thing you are warning us against - an uncertain, potentially false premise that "nothing is certain". You've just admitted that this premise, if accepted, denounces itself as potentially false and potentially leading to false conclusions. You are sawing off the very branch you are sitting on to make your case from.
there is a vast difference between saying: I have no idea whether this is true or not, so “anything goes” and “I am 99% certain that this is true, so I will proceed on that basis, while being aware that if I find, contrary to my expectations, that my initial assumption was in error, I have the opportunity to rethink.
You're stealing the concept of "true" above. Under the uncertainty principle, there is no such thing as "true", and the idea that you "99%" certain is itself an uncertain commodity. So, you cannot be certain that you are uncertain, or to what degree, or that your concept of how likely the proposition is to be "true" isn't flawed.William J Murray_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PST}

WJM
IMO, it provides the slippery slope grounds for what we see here – the rejection of necessarily true principles as necessarily true – which provides more grease on the ground for moral relativism towards nihilistic, anything-goes, might makes right ideology.
On the contrary, I would say that it guards against the danger of regarding principles as necessarily true if they are not, and thus sliding towards false conclusions. Isn't this a good thing? Recall that there is a vast difference between saying: I have no idea whether this is true or not, so "anything goes" and "I am 99% certain that this is true, so I will proceed on that basis, while being aware that if I find, contrary to my expectations, that my initial assumption was in error, I have the opportunity to rethink. "Moral relativity" =/= "amorality". It is possible to conclude that it is better to kill one man than risk the lives of many, even though it is wrong to kill one man if he poses no risk. In other words, killing is sometimes justified and sometimes not. Sometimes killing is better than not killing - the answer must be considered relative to the context, no?
It doesn’t necessarily lead to that end – especially if post-modernists simply ignore (via rube goldberg intellectualizations) that they have sawed off the branch they are sitting on and keep employing concepts unavailable to their worldview – but, unfortunately, in the real world such assumed universal doubt and moral and truth relativism tend to affect more rationally streamlined people negatively.
I disagree. In the "real world" I see, as I said, far more damage caused by misplaced certainty ("I am certain that it is right to fly a plane into a tower full of people"; "I am certain that annihilating this group of people will lead to a better world") than uncertainty. The capacity to question one's own certainty, and to evaluate the confidence with which one holds a belief seems to be an extremely important cognitive skill.
This has been shown in many studies – people subjected to relativistic, nihilistic concepts tend to behave less ethically and less morally.
Can you cite the studies? Not that I'm doubting you, I'd just like to know what you are referring to. However, nobody (well, neither keiths nor I) is saying that we are nihilists. We just don't have 100% certainty in any proposition. That is something completely different. And I am only a "relativist" in the sense that I think that figuring out the most ethical course of action is often difficult and depends crucially on context. To think that some particular behaviour is always immoral seems to me to be foolish. There may always come a day when it is the least appalling option. Or at least, it seems to me, to be important to bear that possibility in mind, which is our point.
If one accepts truth and morality as relative and without necessary consequences, it’s much easier to override conscience and do bad things. Why not?
It's certainly much easier to behave well when there are necessary penalties for behaving badly. But I don't see that's a corollary of accepting "truth and morality as relative". I guess I don't really know what you mean by "relative". But let's assume we are still talking about certainty: it seems to me that not being certain about the most moral course of action in a given context has nothing to do with one's motivation for pursuing the course of action you nonetheless have to decide on, regardless of your degree of uncertainty. I do not have to know that I will suffer "necessary consequences" for behaving immorally to nonetheless by motivated to try to do the right thing, even when that right thing is uncertain. We seem to be trying to convert apples into oranges here. Uncertainty to me still seems to come out better than certainty.
And the slippery slope to that is the idea that we cannot be certain of **anything**.
Ah. I would say that to say that one cannot be 100% of whether something is true or not, is not to say that one can only be 50% certain. But perhaps you think that once one has let the "not completely certain" genie out of the bottle, one will automatically slither down to 50% I don't see why. Indeed I'd say that our fundamental mode of cognitive reasoning is to weigh up relative probabilities and evaluate the "posterior" probability of an event based on the best information we have. Jut because we can never be certain that our information is complete (I would argue), doesn't mean that we cannot come to some evaluation that one proposition is more likely to be true than another. And that seems far safer, to me, than assigning probability = 1 to any one belief. To ratchet in certainty may prevent re-evaluation (and thus be "slippery"), but that doesn't seem to be a good thing. I'd rather retain the ability to update my priors (in Bayesian terms) and reach a conclusion with increased confidence, than have them set in stone, unalterable in the face of infirming evidence.
I think this is a case of the baby being thrown out with the dirty bathwater; many atheists despise the authoritarianism of religious views because religious certainty can lead (and has led) to some pretty awful persecutions. Yes, certainty can be misused towards evil ends, but throwing out all certainty leaves all such evil ends permissible under relativism.
I don't doubt (well, maybe just a smidgeon!) that some people throw out the baby with the bathwater! Ayn Rand seems to me to do that. But, equally, so do some non-atheists - by insisting on biblical inerrancy, for instance, scientific progress in many fields is disabled. I don't think "uncertainty" is the problem here, nor the right to remain uncertain. There are certainly moral problems in the world. I just think you are parking them at the wrong door.
You cannot throw out any and all “moral high ground” under the “uncertainty” doctrine and then claim burning accused witches or beheading infidels is wrong.
Well, obviously, there is no "uncertainty doctrine", William, by definition. I am not even certain that it is impossible to be certain! What we are dealing with here, is, of course, a self-referential paradox. I believe Gödel had something to say about that! We aren't going to resolve it here. My much more simple point is that retaining the possibility, however remote, that what we regard as axiomatic may itself be open to question, is a good thing, not a bad. I don't think it leads on to the slippery slope to moral nihilism, I just think it prevents us being stuck at the top of a butte getting rather hungry.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PST}

NOTE: seems a stage two captcha? F/N: AF -- trying to dismiss WJM's warning -- inadvertently shows further reason why this stuff about the first principles of right reason matters, supremely matters:
there is no objective morality.
This is revealing on underlying worldview and where it points, as prof Wm B Provine of Cornell so memorably highlighted in his 1998 Darwin Day keynote address at U Tenn:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . .
Of course, the assertions are both self-referential absurdities. if we have no freedom to make responsible chices, if our "choices" are programmed by genes, memes and psycho-social conditioning, then we are not in any position to reason or know, which is absurd. Likewise, to abduct, rape, torture and murder a little child is patently objectively wrong. So much so that the one who would openly deny this is obviously monstrous. But, such implications can be disguised under sophisticated-sounding worldview assertions, and that makes them seem more persuasive. Kyle Butt's retort to Provine is well merited as a substantial point:
Provine’s . . . [[address] centered on his fifth statement regarding human free will. Prior to delving into the “meat” of his message, however, he noted: “The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them” (Provine, 1998). It is clear then, from Provine’s comments, that he believes naturalistic evolution has no way to produce an “ultimate foundation for ethics.” And it is equally as clear that this sentiment was so apparent to “modern naturalistic evolutionists” that Mr. Provine did not feel it even needed to be defended . . . . [[However, i]f it is true that naturalistic evolution cannot provide an ultimate foundation for determining the difference between actions that are right and ones that are wrong, then the door is wide open for subjective speculation about all human behavior . . . . The problem with this line of thinking is that it flies in the face of everything humans know about moral and immoral decisions. Furthermore, it transforms a vicious, morally reprehensible activity into something that may occasionally be caused by too much lead in the environment. Such “scientific” explanations for an immoral action like rape are absolutely unsatisfactory. When boiled down to its essence, as Thornhill and Palmer have so well illustrated, naturalistic evolution can never claim that any activity is wrong in an ultimate sense. This being the case, any action that a person chooses to do would be considered just as morally right as any other action, since all human behavior would be the by-product of evolution . . . . In truth, the false philosophy of naturalistic evolution fails on many accounts, not the least of which is its inability to provide a foundation for ethics. The denial of a divine ultimate standard of morality throws one into hopeless confusion about how actions such as rape should be viewed. Naturalistic evolutionists who are honest with their theory’s implications can say they don’t like things like rape, or they think its best that rape be stopped, or that they think it might be more beneficial to the majority for the action to be limited or eradicated, but they have no grounds on which to say it is absolutely, morally wrong. [[Rape and Evolution, Apologetics Press, 2005.]
As I have so often pointed out, given the valid part of Hume's IS-OUGHT guillotine gap argument, ther eis but one place that OUGHT can find grounding in a worldview, its foundation. That is, there must be an IS that grounds OUGHT,given that we are inescapably morally governed creatures, as our demand "you unfair me" and "I have a right" so eloquently shows. That is, we expect our rights to be respected as binding moral obligations imposed by our value as persons. Where the only solid ground of that value is that we are made in the image of God. In short, the only sound foundational IS for OUGHT is the inherently good God, our Creator. Denying such, lands us in all sorts of self referential absurdities, but the point is that there may be motivations to cling to absurdities that put us int eh position of narcissistic demands to be respected while we fail to recognise the other who also has legitimate needs to be respected and thus rights. Which must have a worldview foundational ground. We also need to heed Will Hawthorne's remark at the archived blog, Atheism is Dead:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [[We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [[a material] 'is'.
KFkairosfocus_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PST}

WJ, I think I want to use that summary, with your permission, starting with an update to the FTR, thanks in advance. KF
Certainly!William J Murray_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PST}

WJM & Andre, Thanks. WJ, I think I want to use that summary, with your permission, starting with an update to the FTR, thanks in advance. KFkairosfocus_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PST}

KF: you seem very concerned about the consequences of holding that we cannot be 100% certain of anything. What do you think those consequences are?
IMO, it provides the slippery slope grounds for what we see here - the rejection of necessarily true principles as necessarily true - which provides more grease on the ground for moral relativism towards nihilistic, anything-goes, might makes right ideology. It doesn't necessarily lead to that end - especially if post-modernists simply ignore (via rube goldberg intellectualizations) that they have sawed off the branch they are sitting on and keep employing concepts unavailable to their worldview - but, unfortunately, in the real world such assumed universal doubt and moral and truth relativism tend to affect more rationally streamlined people negatively. This has been shown in many studies - people subjected to relativistic, nihilistic concepts tend to behave less ethically and less morally. If one accepts truth and morality as relative and without necessary consequences, it's much easier to override conscience and do bad things. Why not? And the slippery slope to that is the idea that we cannot be certain of **anything**. I think this is a case of the baby being thrown out with the dirty bathwater; many atheists despise the authoritarianism of religious views because religious certainty can lead (and has led) to some pretty awful persecutions. Yes, certainty can be misused towards evil ends, but throwing out all certainty leaves all such evil ends permissible under relativism. You cannot throw out any and all "moral high ground" under the "uncertainty" doctrine and then claim burning accused witches or beheading infidels is wrong.0William J Murray_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PST}

If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about.
Of course there is plenty to argue about. Where is the boundary between Jupiter and elsewhere? It's arbitrary and depends on arbitrary choices such as a cut-off point of density.
If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with.
Nonsense. There is not even a definitive list of "principles of sound reason".
If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against.
This guy makes a strong argument. He seems to think he is arguing with somebody!
If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place
Nonsense again! Mainly because there is no objective morality. You have expended many words claiming there is such but have been utterly unable to demonstrate it. PS I've been away (long weekend, Biarritz, quatorze juillet, amazingly civilized crowds, nobody shot or trampled) and wonder if I missed any developments in "Intelligent Design". A hypothesis at last? Designer's identity announced?Alan Fox_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PST}

Please people stop being idiots about things! We can be 100% certain of something's! I am 100% certain of my existence, "I think therefore I am!" and by reading and replying to what I wrote here you are verifying my claim as 100% certain! So anyone care to reply to me with the words "you are not alone to verify that something's are 100% certain as soon as anyone does that KeithS lost his entire argument because you would have proven it wrong! Relativism is breeds intolerance!Andre_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PST}

KF: you seem very concerned about the consequences of holding that we cannot be 100% certain of anything. What do you think those consequences are?Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PST}

KeithS How do you know that you can not know?Andre_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PST}

keiths points at the tools and materials others to make arguments and claims they are flawed and unreliable; the problem is that keiths is necessarily using the same tools and materials, as KF points out above. Without assuming the LNC is necessarily true for all entities, keiths has no supposed means by which to utter intelligible words, much less make an intelligible argument. If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.William J Murray_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PST}

KS: You have now resorted to projecting a twisted about false accusation of lying. It is fair comment for me to note that it is you who have consistently willfully and int eh teeth of correction habitually misrepresented arguments and persons with whom you disagree, reflecting a failure of respect for duties of care to the truth and fairness. I would advise you to cease and desist from such, at least if you want to dig yourself out of the hole you have dug for yourself. KFkairosfocus_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PST}

KS: Stop sawing off the branch on which you too must sit -- or, is there a "you" there at all? Maybe, it is just noise on the net? After all, if these are distinct SYMBOLS, there is a mind behind them, and both must be distinct so that we can understand a meaning and know what was said. Once there is such a thing as a distinct identity, the first principles of right reason immediately obtain. KFkairosfocus_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PST}

FYI-FTR # 2: KS edition.kairosfocus_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PST}

KF, Your position has now become so weak and indefensible that you've resorted to lying about my position just to stay afloat. It's pitiful. Lie #1: You claim that my position leads to absurdities, when you haven't been able to identify a single one. Lie #2: You claim that I'm "sawing off the branch" of logic, when I'm doing no such thing. My entire argument depends on logic, and at no point do I abandon it. I merely decline to treat it as absolutely certain, and this leads to no absurdities at all. Lie #3: You claim that I deny Royce's "error exists" argument, when I have explicitly stated otherwise. I accept Royce's argument; I merely decline to grant it absolute certainty. Again, no absurdity follows from this. Lie #4: You claim that I deny my status as a conscious entity, when I do no such thing. I merely decline to grant it absolute certainty, with a 0.0% possibility of error. Like any other argument, it depends on the correctness of our logic and the truth of our underlying assumptions. Being fallible humans, we can't be absolutely certain of those; therefore we cannot be absolutely certain of the conclusion. Amidst the prevarication, you wrote:
I have forgotten now who was the Greek thinker challenged by a member of his audience to prove the reality of logical proof. His reply was, that this exercise would require the use of that very same logic.
Oddly, you don't seem to realize that this hurts your case and buttresses mine. The very fact that logic cannot demonstrate its own correctness shows that we cannot be absolutely certain of it!keiths_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PST}

Re KS:
Every objection you raise in your comment, every counterargument you make, depends on logic. If we could be absolutely certain that the rules of logic were correct, and that you are applying them infallibly, and that your assumptions were absolutely correct, then we could be absolutely certain of your conclusions . . .
Just the opposite is the case. Every step in KS' attempted rebuttal depends on:
1: that he is a self-aware and other-aware conscious entity as incorrigibly true 2: That starting with the identity of himself, there is a whole series of world-partitions, e.g. { "I" (= KS) | NOT-I } and the direct correlates of this, i.e. LOI, LNC, LEM. Using A as symbol:
(a) LOI: the part labelled A will be A (symbolically, [A => A] = 1), (b) LNC: A will not be the same as NOT-A ( [A AND NOT-A] = 0); and (c) LEM: there is no third option to being A or NOT-A ( [A OR NOT-A] = 1). For those who need it, to be clearer about the significance of the dichotomy in World, W = { A | NOT-A }, let's instead explicitly use the Exclusive OR, AUT not VEL: [A Ex-OR NOT-A] = 1. That is A, or not A but not a third option such as A AND NOT-A, and no fourth such as neither A nor NOT-A.
3: In short, it is not so much that I (KF) have been silly and begged the question of the validity of logic, but that it is truly fundamental, so that one cannot make a first step as a conscious entity without standing on it. 4: KS essays to saw off the branch on which he too must sit, and so clings to absurdity. We are simply telling him and his ilk, stop the madness! 5: Similarly, we have a perfect right to demand of the [potentially . . . it holds that nothing is certain beyond opinion] delusional entity imagining itself to be KS, whence the status of being aware, and whether this is something that one CAN be deluded of. The answer is patent, that one may be deluded as to WHAT one is, but cannot be deluded THAT one is, once one has self awareness. From which world-partition and its correlates immediately are evident and intelligible. 6: It is no accident that KS dodges this, in order to try to fixate on the alleged uncertainty of first principles of right reason. The very fact of his being as a self aware entity manifests the truly foundational nature of world partition, thus those attributes of it that we justly label the first laws of thought. We discover such, we see they are so and must be so in order that we can even have a distinct identity as going concerns, and we see the saw off the branch on which we all must sit self-referential absurdity of those who would challenge the laws. 7: Indeed, just to cast up an objection, KS inevitably depends on those same laws he would scant. He is forced to use verbal symbols, here in textual form. So, immediately, as was highlighted in the corrective -- and which, as predicted, was conveniently ignored by KS -- he depends on the distinction of symbols, thus a whole series of world partitions:
Every objection --> {E | ~E} + {v | ~v} + e {e | ~e} . . .
8: Likewise, if we ponder a moment, we will see that KS is implying that he accepts the reality, thus the possibility of error, no surprise he doubtless received his fair share of sums returned by a teacher, full of red X's. Thus, he is also ducking the undeniability that error exists. Indeed, the absurdity here can be seen by casting the denial of the Royce proposition in these terms: "It is an error to imagine that error exists." Oops. 9: KS's objection collapses in absurdity, just as will be true of any attempt to deny a genuinely self-evident truth.
I took time to address this to simply underscore that we discover the pivotal self-evident truths, we do not prove them, and inasmuch as the first principles of right reason are embedded in these, the demand for proof reveals itself as a demand to prove that proof exists. Yet another absurdity. I have forgotten now who was the Greek thinker challenged by a member of his audience to prove the reality of logical proof. His reply was, that this exercise would require the use of that very same logic. At this level, logic is discovered, is found to be foundational, and is respected as such -- at least by those able to see that it is not a wise move to saw off the branch on which one must sit, or to pluck out the eyes by which one must look. So, as with other worldview foundational points, we come to the identity cluster as common sense going concerns, and we learn to respect rather than complain against the constitution of ourselves and our world. That, to cling to his scheme of thought, KS must saw off the branch on which we all must sit, and pluck out the eyes by which we all must see is the surest sign of the absurdity of his stance. So, finally, let us ask: WHO is objecting? If KS cannot acknowledge that he is a distinct, incorrigibly self-aware entity, then he has no status to speak. Where, just the distinctness of I (a first fact for each of us if there ever was one), immediately brings out the correlates of world partition. Clinging to an absurdity that demands rejection of first facts and principles is not a healthy sign, but such seems to be the nature of today's post modern evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers. Sad, and sadly revealing. KFkairosfocus_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PST}

My "Kantian" side is about how our experience is shaped by our conceptual and perceptual capacities; my "naturalistic" side is about the evolutionary process whereby we acquired those capacities and also the neurological processes that instantiate those capacities. So I'm a Kantian, loosely construed (loosely enough, anyway, to include the post-Kantian philosophies of Hegel, Nietzsche, Dewey, Lewis, Sellars, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Adorno) -- with just enough naturalism to avoid the slippery slope to full-bore idealism.Kantian Naturalist_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PST}

Reality is shaped by thought? I thought you were a Kantian naturalist,not an idealist. :)keiths_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PST}

Thought is shaped by reality, both in an immediate sense and in an evolutionary sense.
Yes, though the converse also holds -- there's no escaping the ouroboros!Kantian Naturalist_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PST}

KN,
In other words, the revisability of the a priori doesn’t negate the very notion of the a priori.
I agree, which is why I don't reject it. I just deny that it can be absolutely certain.
...logic makes explicit what is only implicit in the norms of rational discourse. But as a project of semantic explication, the validity of inference doesn’t depend on how the world is — it depends on how the norms of rational discourse are.
The "norms of rational discourse" would be jettisoned in a second if they consistently led from true premises to conclusions that contradicted our observations. Thought is shaped by reality, both in an immediate sense and in an evolutionary sense.keiths_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PST}

Theism and materialism (not applied to origins) are not contradictory in any way.
Yes, they are. Theism posits that God exists. Materialism posits that the cosmos “is all there ever is, was, or will be.” No supernatural entities exist. There is a quite evident contradiction here.
So only smart people have free will and the rest doesn’t?
Smart people recognize that they have free will.
Also, can you be sure that the process of “weighing pros and cons” does not depend on the way your neurons are connected in your brain?
It might. But you’re trying to reduce the decision-making process to only the neurons in your brain. Many people utilize both emotion (“follow your heart”, “do what feels right”) and logic/brain function when making decisions. You can’t really reduce it to simple neurologic function, because that’s not really how humans think.
Education IS part of the background. Education by parents, teachers, friends and strangers also. Every interaction with another human being serves to educate ourselves on moral issues, especially when we’re young and learn by imitation. Sometimes the people kids grow up with are not good role models and they learn twisted morals, is that the kids fault?
It’s the kid’s fault if he chooses to live by the twisted morals he’s learned. Education comes from a lot of different sources, and it’s silly to argue that the only education one gets is a bad education. There’s no reason to suggest that kids can’t differentiate between right and wrong behavior. There’s a legal concept called an “emancipated minor” which allows minor children (under 18) to make decisions for themselves.
Not everyone has the chance to have a good moral education, do those unlucky people escape judgment by God?
As I pointed out above, it’s silly to suggest that no child is capable of learning good morals. Look at some reformed gang members who counsel children about the dangers of gangs. They didn’t have a good moral education growing up, but they certainly learned what good morals area.
Or are you going to imagine an hypothetical scenario were even those people learn the right morals (from who?) and hence should also be held accountable?
Everyone is held accountable for their own decisions. And, as pointed out before, education isn’t just what we learn in school. Kids with dysfunctional families can learn from morally upright classmates or teachers, or even other morally upright family members about good and bad behavior.
You assume the conclusion again….fallacy of presumption.
I have an a priori assumption that free will exists. You have an a priori assumption that it doesn’t.
Don’t you realize that everytime I ask you for EVIDENCE on free will you ALWAYS bring the same circular argument?
Don’t you realize that I am responding to each of your posts of my own free will?
Your whole argument is “if I can make a choice, I have free will”. “I’m making choices, therefore I have free will”. Why do you fail to see that one thing does NOT imply the other?
I have explained this before: my definition of free will is the ability to make choices.
It was a metaphor. Jeez… I thought it was obvious…
You brought it up; I figured it was another fallacious argument.
You assume again that choosing = free will as the conclusion, and then use it as an argument to prove that choosing = free will. Circular reasoning…
Like I said, you are basing your argument on an a priori assumption that free will doesn’t exist. You are guilty of the same fallacious argumentation.
Your opinion. No evidence-based arguments here.
You really believe that humans and animals are capable of the same level of reasoning? That dogs can plot revenge? That chimps can ponder the nature of the universe? They can’t.
Your opinion. No evidence-based arguments here.
Yeah, I’m not seeing anything from your side either, other than, “I think it’s this way!”
Explain how evidence leads to free will.
Free will is the ability to make choices. Period. The evidence, which has been presented to you in the form of many examples, is self-evident. People do make choices, some good and some bad. They are all accountable for the choices they make, whether good or bad.
And you can’t use circular reasoning this time (“choosing means free will therefore choosing implies free will”), you have to show empirical evidence that our brain-based behaviour/personality is actually independent from the physical constraints of the brain itself.
Men are free moral agents. They can make a choice to do good or bad. They are not robots “programmed” to do only good. To not have the ability to make moral choices and decisions would leave them incomplete, with something lacking. Since we are rational creatures, we have the freedom of decision as to choice of right and wrong—this is what some refer to as the conscience. Humans are not automatons. Humans are not animals driven by built-in instinct. Humans not only have free will but the desire to exercise it. Our behavior and personality do not always originate in the brain, although many scientists think so. Look up this article that I found, which supports this position: British Neuroscience Association. "How 'free will' is implemented in the brain and is it possible to intervene in the process?." ScienceDaily, 9 Apr. 2013. Some people don’t use rational thinking or logic when making decisions; they follow their feelings instead. And here is a counterargument from a scientist who doesn’t believe that all arguments against free will need to be shelved: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-stand-in-the-way-of-free-will.html#.UeRwr9LVDNs And here is an argument from a neuroscientist who states that our brains are, in fact, hardwired for free will: http://now.dartmouth.edu/2013/03/neuroscientist-says-humans-are-wired-for-free-will/
That our personalities, conciousness and behaviour depend on the condition of our brain is undeniable (we lose conciousness when getting hit hard in the head, also brain disorders are known to cause changes in behaviour, so our behaviour DOES exist physically in our brain, in fact the frontal lobe is especially important regarding behaviour).
Our personalities might depend on the condition of our brain, but does that mean that no one can ever change their personality? Can a person known for being mean-tempered and angry change their behavior? It’s certainly been done before. And it’s one more piece of evidence that free will exists. Our personalities aren’t set in stone. The brain is an amazing organ and a very malleable one.
And if our behaviour exists physically in our brain and networks of neurons, then that means it’s affected by the physical laws that also govern the brain and neurons. And therefore choices are born from the outcome of the physical laws that govern our brain and neurons.
Your premise—that our behavior has its origin in our brain and neurons—may or may not be flawed. If it is flawed (see the articles I posted above), then your conclusion is also flawed. You haven’t ruled out free will completely.
Please show empirical evidence (not an opinion) that the above paragraph/argument is false.
I did.
And as an extra: Do you actually believe that the condition of our brain does not determine our behaviour and our conciousness?
I think human behavior is too complex to be oversimplified to misfiring of neurons in the brain. Misfiring of neurons might account for some birth defects or mental illnesses, but it certainly doesn’t explain the actions of, say, Stalin or Lenin or Hitler. What these men did goes far beyond a simple argument of having “bad genes”. Our behavior can be determined by any number of factors, including our culture, religion, level of education, socioeconomic status, and so on. You are trying—I think—to reduce human behavior to a materialistic perspective (the brain is all that ever is, was or will be), yet neuroscience still hasn’t ruled out free will. (see also this article: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/06/10435/)Barb_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply