Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Hate-Monger of the Gaps

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[From a colleague:]

The problem is that methodological naturalism prevents us from detecting a “hate” crime, since “hate” is an immaterial property had by agents that can only be inferred from behavior, speech, etc. Other minds cannot be observed, just inferred by analogy, like the traditional argument from design.

Because it is always possible that what appears to be “hate” may very well be the result of non-agent causes that merely manifest themselves in a way that appear to be agent caused, attributing “hate” to a cluster of cells we call a “human being” is just “hate-monger of the gaps.” It is an argument from ignorance because we have not yet discovered the non-agent causes that made the hate come into being.

Comments
russ writes: "If someone burns down Dave’s house while Dave is in it, Dave is destroyed. Does that mean that Dave is made of wood, drywall and nails?" Russ, your analogy implies that Dave's mind is separate from, but housed in, Dave's brain. If so: 1. Why are Dave's memory and judgment impaired when he goes on a bender? (Sorry, Dave, this is purely hypothetical!) 2. Why can a stroke impair Dave's ability to understand speech, when his hearing and his ability to recognize sounds remain unimpaired? 3. Why can damage to Dave's brain change his personality and even his morality?keiths
December 8, 2005
December
12
Dec
8
08
2005
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT
DaveScot writes: "If you destroy someone’s leg the mind and intellect remain. If you destroy their eyes and ears, the mind and intellect remain. If you destroy the brain the mind and intellect are destroyed with it." Dave, This is perhaps the first time I've found myself in whole-hearted agreement with a post of yours. It's such a milestone that I have to ask: You weren't being ironic, were you? :-) As Dave says, the mind depends on the brain. The medical and scientific evidence for this is overwhelming, and it applies to emotions, behavior, and morality as well as cognition. The weight of this evidence has convinced me that there cannot be an immaterial soul that acts as the body's puppeteer and departs it at death. I'd be interested in learning, from those of you who believe in an immaterial soul (if any of you do), how you reconcile your belief with the evidence presented by modern neuroscience. Given all of the functions carried out by the brain, all of which appear to be disruptible by injury or disease or intoxication or even transcranial magnetic stimulation, what functions are left for the soul to furnish?keiths
December 8, 2005
December
12
Dec
8
08
2005
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT
DaveScott wrote: "If you destroy the brain the mind and intellect are destroyed with it." If someone burns down Dave's house while Dave is in it, Dave is destroyed. Does that mean that Dave is made of wood, drywall and nails?russ
December 8, 2005
December
12
Dec
8
08
2005
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
"Essentially a mind and intellect are supernatural phenomena in the sense that the mind and intellect are not made up of matter/energy." Certainly they are made of matter/energy. If you destroy someone's leg the mind and intellect remain. If you destroy their eyes and ears, the mind and intellect remain. If you destroy the brain the mind and intellect are destroyed with it.DaveScot
December 8, 2005
December
12
Dec
8
08
2005
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
Cutting to the core dilemna of materialism and it's notion of an "emergent" illusion of consciousness and unique self.Bombadill
December 8, 2005
December
12
Dec
8
08
2005
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Perfect. Yes. It's amazing how simple the logic gets when you get to the exactly where the conceptual hoodwinking begins with de facto, committed people proclaiming the absence of de facto commitments. Keep it up. Who knows, if Carl Jung was on to something, maybe this'll spread in many more ways than can be "seen"...ya know...like those lovely tree-scents in your car, after you've hung one from the rear-view mirror, and then don't realize until dinner that you have an inescapable nimbus of French Vanilla all around yourself. :)DaysofNoah
December 8, 2005
December
12
Dec
8
08
2005
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
I Love it !! Can I say that?... is it objective ? Of course I cannot be Objective because as an apparently (?) evolved being I cannot have Objectivity. Everything I do,think,feel,monitor and decide to collect data on, is conditioned by evoultion so there are no objective facts at all-including the fact that there are no objective facts. Even my inferences-drives yer mad dunnit? WormHerder outWormHerder
December 8, 2005
December
12
Dec
8
08
2005
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Our minds design things all of the time but the only mind we have experience of as being real is our own since we cannot see, touch, taste, weigh, etc, a mind and intellect. Essentially a mind and intellect are supernatural phenomena in the sense that the mind and intellect are not made up of matter/energy. We take it for granted that our minds are intelligent designers yet find it impossible for an intelliegent designer to exist with powers greater then our own because calling upon a supernatural designer is irrational?mentok
December 8, 2005
December
12
Dec
8
08
2005
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Not surprisingly, Mr. Colleague fails to provide an alternative to methodological naturalism which would provide superior results in accurately detecting hate crimes. ;)Mark Nutter
December 8, 2005
December
12
Dec
8
08
2005
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
It's always fun to make a similar argument against the SETI folks and accuse them of postulating an "alien-of-the-gaps".taciturnus
December 8, 2005
December
12
Dec
8
08
2005
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
LOL!!tragicmishap
December 8, 2005
December
12
Dec
8
08
2005
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply