We cannot live by scepticism alone

_{Mario Lopez

March 5, 2009

Science}

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

Scientists have been too dogmatic about scientific truth and sociologists have fostered too much scepticism — social scientists must now elect to put science back at the core of society, says Harry Collins.

Comments

StephenB @ 63
…..”it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.” Notice the firsth three words of his comment and weep. —”It is wrong.” Incrdibly he assumes objective morality as a given without even realizing what he is doing.
Unfortunately, both you and kairosfocus have leaped to - dare I say it - the wrong conclusion. Like so many words, 'wrong' can mean different things in different contexts. We can say that claiming 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong without meaning it is immoral. We can say that driving the wrong way along a one-way street is "wrong" without meaning it is immoral - stupid, yes, but not immoral. We can also say, like Huxley, that "it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty" while meaning that making unjustified claims of certainty is inconsistent with a proclaimed desire for Truth, althoough that certainly comes closer to being a moral claim if you believe lying is always immoral. The other error lies in assuming that the statement "it is wrong" is always an appeal to an objective moral standard. It can mean that undoubtedly, but it can also imply an unstated qualifier such as "in my view". The problem lies in the grammatical structure of the English language which allows us to state value judgements as predicates in the same form as observations. Thus, we can say 'the tomato is red' and 'the tomato is gorgeous' but while, in the first case, we are referring to an objective and measurable property of the tomato - the wavelengths of light reflected by it and how they are represented in our mental model of the world - in the second case we are stating a personal opinion. Everyone with normal eyesight will see the tomato as red but not everyone with normal senses will agree that tomatoes are gorgeous.
Seversky, you seem to think that famous people who have been celebrated for their intelligence cannot be irrational. But as I have already made clear, skepticism disallows rational discussion by eliminating the standards for rational thinking. Also, Huxley may well have ignored evidence for the natural moral law. Perhaps he responded in much the same way that you did. I asked you to search out “illustrations of the Tao,” and you simply ignored the evidence and continued on as sleek as ever.
Actually, I did look up "Illustrations of the Tao" and there would seem to be room here for some measure of agreement between us. In my view, moral codes are founded on our common interests as human beings. We all need food, drink, shelter, warmth, a means of providing for ourselves and our families and a secure environment in which to live out our lives. The function of moral codes is to regulate the behavior of human beings towards one another in order to ensure that those basic needs are met and to proscribe behavior that harms those interests. On that view, we would expect to find that most if not all human societies share certain basic moral precepts such as that unlawful killing or stealing from others is wrong. To that extent you could argue that it is evidence of objective morality or natural moral laws although I would view it more as an emergent property of humans when living in groups that promotes social cohesion and stability. The problem with viewing common moral precepts as evidence of objective morality is that it suffers from the fallacy of selective reporting. It highlights shared moral beliefs while ignoring the significant differences. For example, as we all know, under Sharia law in certain Islamic states, adulterers may be stoned to death or thieves may have their hands amputated or women are not allowed out in public unless covered from head to foot. For some, though not all, Muslims these are fundamental issues of morality while most Westerners, whether Christian or not, find them abhorrent. Moral views also change over time. Is there any doubt that Christians of a thousand years ago would find some of the behavior of Christians to day quite shocking? And, without dwelling on it, there are many acts described in the Old Testament, both of the Jews and of God, that today we regard as deeply immoral.
While we are at it, Sir Julian Huxley admitted that evolutionists embraced Darwin’s theory because it provided them rational justification for throwing off those pesky old sexual mores. Does that sound rational to you?
You might want to look a little more closely at the authenticity of that claim.
Both ideas of subjective truth and subjective morality self destruct under investigation. In any case, the irony never fails. When someone informs me that there is no such thing as absolute truth, I always ask them, “Are you absolutely certain that statement is true?” They always say, “yes,” thus missing the irony and demonstrating how irrational they really are. I trust that you do not miss the irony.
As I understand it, outside of formal systems like logic, the truth of a statement about the world depends on the degree to which it corresponds with our observations. As limited beings it may be beyond our capacity to observe the world in detail sufficient to allow us to construct a perfect description or attain a perfect understanding of it, so while we are as we are, Absolute Truth might as well not exist.Seversky_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

StephenB
ID is not a belief system, so it can accomodate all kinds of world views that acknowledge the reality of design.
Can you tell me, specifically, how ID "accomodates" Tarot card reading?George L Farquhar_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

George L Farquhar: Do you believe in astrology, horoscopes, fortune telling and Tarot etc? Not a one. And indeed, simply if we were to take the Biblical injunctions against such seriously, we would shun them. In short, you may be missing the bigger picture as highlighted by G K Chesterton: it is the turning from God that opens the door in a culture to many, many irrationalities. (When our civilisation was a lot more biblical, people would have been but little inclined to take such nonsense seriously or where there may possibly be "some'at in it" after duly discounting all charlatanry and tomfoolery, they would attribute it to evil to be shinned not the Creator to be revered.) In short, you are simply further measuring the state of a civlisation living out of Rom 1. Now, let's look at a REAL issue on rationality/irrationality: a --> Suppose you were walking across a field and stumbled upon a plain vanilla garden variety stone. Would you regard that as remarkable? b --> Suppose instead, the stone were of flint, and were shaped to fit to an arrow shaft and for accuracy of flight and effectiveness of penetration into say a deer. Would you regard that as a likely accident? Or would you infer that intelligence was a better explanation? c --> Now, say you were instead to come across a functioning pocket computer; perhaps a PDA. Would you be more likely to infer to intelligence or to accident as its best explanation? d --> Now, compare the cell, and its DNA, ribosome, enzymes proteins etc. Have we not here stumbled on information storage [ 600 k bits to 3 giga bits typically], codes, interfacing and step by step -- i.e. algorithmic -- processing by nano-machinery? What is its best explanation, why? e --> Now, reckon with: just 1 k bits of functional information fits into a configuration space of 10^301 states. The total number of quantum states of the 10^80 or so atoms of the observed cosmos across its typically estimated lifespan is 10^150 or so. In short, the whole observed universe acting as a search engine could not sample as much as 1 in 10^150 of the state space, making random variation utterly unlikely to get to a functional state. [And, without already functioning states, differential success at function is irrelevant -- NONE are functional.] f --> And yet, we are often told that it is irrational to question the idea that in one postulated pre-biotic soup or other, far more complex function emerged out of more or less spontaneous chemical interactions; then that some 540 million years ago, there was a burst of development in such life that created dozens of novel body plans requiring probably 10's of millions of new bits of functional information each. _____________ I trust you see from the above the reason why inference to design, whatever else may be in error among us, is NOT an irrational view on the level of trusting that the accident of which planet [including of course the sun] was where along the ecliptic at the moment of one's birth controls one's life. In short, insofar as the survey set out to measure rationality/irrationality by implicitly making or inviting such comparisons, it was utterly flawed. It may have some utility in documenting the actual educational exposure and professional level of ID supporters, etc, but the underlying implication of comparing inference to design to belief in astrology is utterly flawed. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Notice the firsth three words of his comment and weep. —”It is wrong.” Incrdibly he assumes objective morality as a given without even realizing what he is doing. His comment assumes no morality. He is not saying that it is morally wrong, he is saying that it is logically wrong. He is not saying that it has to be wrong, he is saying the certainty of the one exposing is wrong if their is no evidence presented from which that exposing could be formed.Winston Macchi_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

StephenB [71]:
Skeptics deny objective morality, while appealing to it at every turn, as was evident in Huxley’s comment.
As I read Huxley,
…it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.
he is using the word "wrong" in the sense of "incorrect," not in the sense of "immoral." Perhaps I have it "wrong."Adel DiBagno_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Stephen: I followed up your "illustrations of the Tao," and found this as hit no 1. This, from Abolition of Man, is essentially the same as is in Mere Christianity. Seversky et al should indeed read carefully before commenting further. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

----George: "As I said, I made no real “argument” except to repeat some facts. If any, the argument I was making was that anybody can believe in irrational things. I imagine there are plenty of Darwinist biologists who check their horoscopes in the morning." You are trying to compare apples with oranges. ID is not a belief system, so it can accomodate all kinds of world views that acknowledge the reality of design. Skepticism, on the other hand, is a belief system, or rather, an anti-belief system, that contradicts itself by first affirming that nothing at all is true and then violating that principle by affirming that its anti-truth program is the truth. Further, that fact that some ID's might go off the deep end and believe in the occult, ghosts, or reincarnation is not altogether surprising since they are open to the realm of the spirit. On the other hand, the report also shows that a large number materialist/atheists, who renounce the reality of spirit by definition, end up believing in spiritual realities anyway, which shows how truly whacked out they really are. Getting away from my rhetorical flourish at the end, we still have the main theme on the table. Skeptics deny objective morality, while appealing to it at every turn, as was evident in Huxley's comment. More often than not, disdain rudeness and demand courtesy without realizing that they are appealing to an abosolute, objective standard of justice each time they raise the issue. So, I can easily defend my little rhetorical flourish, but the larger question is why did you ignore the main theme, which is the irrational nature of skepticism.StephenB_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

I started typing #69 before I saw your response which make it clear that the "shoe does not fit" and I am sorry if it offended you. I still hope my response in #67 point out that an internalist epistemology that is held by many naturalists can only lead to irrationality equal to things like fortune telling. You didmullerpr_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

I have to point out that my argument in #67, against George L Farquhar in #66 is only valid if it was in actual fact designed to insinuate that "IDists" are irrational because some of them hold irrational beliefs. If that was not George L Farquhar's intention then my response is just meant to highlight the fact that #66 brings no new insight for this discussion especially since StephenB already showed that two thirds of the US population holds to some form of epistemological relativism. In this light, I hope George L Farquhar will only "wear the shoe if it fits".mullerpr_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

mullerpr,
If those statistics are the full complement of your argument that “IDists are not rational” (or what ever you insinuate) then I pity your subjectivist make belief world.
Who rattled your cage? I was in essence repeating facts already under discussion. There is a whole thread dedicated to the report already but it seemed relevant here.
Truth is something that through proper function we actually can achieve.
I agree. Can we both agree there is nothing "to" Tarot cards, horoscopes etc?
I put it to you that, purely from the argument you tried to put together above, you have built no falsification for any of the IDist though generated in this discussion.
As I said, I made no real "argument" except to repeat some facts. If any, the argument I was making was that anybody can believe in irrational things. I imagine there are plenty of Darwinist biologists who check their horoscopes in the morning.
You actually just set the scene to indict yourself as an irrational equal to fortune telling, if you cannot come up with a good non-IDist defense of your epistemology.
I'm sorry, I don't understand that.George L Farquhar_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

George L Farquhar @ 66, If those statistics are the full complement of your argument that "IDists are not rational" (or what ever you insinuate) then I pity your subjectivist make belief world. The whole argument is that rationality is proven to be an objective truth outside the individual's subjective belief systems regarding anything, including "astrology, horoscopes, fortune telling, Tarot etc." Truth is something that through proper function we actually can achieve. What you need to show is that your view of rationality is not just the same as any of the things you declared that you don't belief in. Can you do that within an internalist epistemology and a naturalistic perspective? Tell me what is your definition of rationality, logic and truth. I put it to you that, purely from the argument you tried to put together above, you have built no falsification for any of the IDist though generated in this discussion. You actually just set the scene to indict yourself as an irrational equal to fortune telling, if you cannot come up with a good non-IDist defense of your epistemology. Try with something that resembles an argument about what is discussed in this discussion, it will make you look like a participant.mullerpr_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

StephenB
That may explain why Darwinists affirm the impossible and deny the obvious.
According to the Comres report that was recently linked here: 48 % of IDist believe in ghosts (39 % of the general population, 30 % of people accepting atheistic evolution) 36 % of IDists believe in reincarnation (27 % of all, 17 % of AE) 30 % of IDists believe in astrology/horoscopes (22 % of all, 15 % of AE) 19 % of IDists believe in fortune telling/Tarot (15 % of all, 13 % of AE) Just thought you might find that interesting. Do you believe in astrology, horoscopes, fortune telling and Tarot etc? I don't.George L Farquhar_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

@63 and 64, I trust that the words "incredibly" and "gullibility" can be discerned from their mistyped counterparts.StephenB_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

----mullerpr: "Are we looking at a poisoned civilization? Will the antidote be administered in time? The antidote has the fortunate power of rationally founded optimism, so let us be optimistic!" Once one realizes that we do indeed live in a rational universe, I would agree that optimism is a more appropriate response than pessimism. For my part, there are three possible intellectual orientations: quillibility, realism, and skepticism. Both gullibility and skepticism are extremes. In many ways, skepticism survives by illustrating the disadvantages of guillibiltiy while ignoring the truth of rationality. To believe in anything is just as destructive as believing in nothing. In fact, as Chesterton once noted, those who believe in nothing often end up believing in anything. That may explain why Darwinists affirm the impossible and deny the obvious.StephenB_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Seversky on Huxley: ….."it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." Notice the firsth three words of his comment and weep. ---"It is wrong." Incrdibly he assumes objective morality as a given without even realizing what he is doing. -----On the question of objective morality, he also wrote: -----"Of moral purpose I see no trace in Nature. That is an article of exclusively human manufacture and very much to our credit." Except, of course, that he just appealed to objective moratliy in his statement on objective truth. In any case, his position is irrational. If it is a human construction, which formulation is it that humans constructed: Is it the skepticism that you and two out of three Americans now hold to or is it the opposite view held by four out of five Americans fifty years ago. Seversky, you seem to think that famous people who have been celebrated for their intelligence cannot be irrational. But as I have already made clear, skepticism disallows rational discussion by eliminating the standards for rational thinking. Also, Huxley may well have ignored evidence for the natural moral law. Perhaps he responded in much the same way that you did. I asked you to search out "illustrations of the Tao," and you simply ignored the evidence and continued on as sleek as ever. While we are at it, Sir Julian Huxley admitted that evolutionists embraced Darwin's theory because it provided them rational justification for throwing off those pesky old sexual mores. Does that sound rational to you? Both ideas of subjective truth and subjective morality self destruct under investigation. In any case, the irony never fails. When someone informs me that there is no such thing as absolute truth, I always ask them, "Are you absolutely certain that statement is true?" They always say, "yes," thus missing the irony and demonstrating how irrational they really are. I trust that you do not miss the irony.StephenB_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Seversky, re 60: Do you understand the self-referential infinite regress and inconsistency in the following?
it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.
1 --> the above claims to be an objective, known moral truth. You are a relativist who denies the possibility of such; i.e you are internally inconsistent here. 2 --> It entails an infinite regress of proof [taking logical justification for certainty in its usual sense]. 3 --> To see why, consider the failure of Cliffordian evidentialism as summarised here, and then reflect on the contrasting argument below:
start with an abstract example, say, claim A. Why should we accept it? Generally, because of B. But, why should we accept B? Thence, C, D, . . . etc. Thus, we face either an infinite regress of challenges, or else we stop at some point, say F -- our Faith-Point.
4 --> Such a faith point needs not be arbitrary or question begging, once we address it in light of comparative difficulties of alternative worldviews. And in that regard, the resistance of evolutionary matrerialism to reason and objective morality are very definite issues we need to reflect on. 5 --> the nature in question on laws of nature is that of humans as rational, moral consciously social animals; i.e beings under moral government. For the implications of thinking morality to be a human invention, cf the implications of "might [or manipulation] makes right." ______________ I hope you heed this, but if you do not, we the onlookers need to understand the implications of where you are coming from, for reasons of our safety. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 54
For me, skepticism is a mental condition which denies the fact that the images in our mind correspond to real universals outside of the mind.
For you, perhaps, but I doubt you will find many who hold to such a radical version of skepticism. I suspect that, for most, they practice a moderate form which is more akin to the agnosticism of T E Huxley:
...it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism. Christianity and Agnosticism 1889
On the question of objective morality, he also wrote:
Of moral purpose I see no trace in Nature. That is an article of exclusively human manufacture and very much to our credit.
Seversky_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Seversky @53: There is a tendency -- as part of the rhetorical rationale for relativism and subjectivism -- to exaggerate the degree of actual difference among peoples and groups on morality. Have you read C S Lewis' discussion of the common core of morality in, say, his Mere Christianity? to see what is going on, try this: why and how do we quarrel? ANS: You unfair me! that is, a complaint of harm that violates my dignity as a person. To which the retort is not usually that "I'se cat and you'se mouse; yuh ent nutten but lunch." [Save for the case of a certain Adolph Schicklegruber and his intellectual progenitors, whose basic point was that there was an evolutionarily established inequality of races . . . ] So, we see that the appeal on morality ever has been not to power but to equality and dignity; to morality not antimorality. To reason not force and self serving incoherence. So, when he came to ground modern liberty on natural -- objective moral law, Locke cited "the judicious [Richard] Hooker" in Ch 2 Sect 5 of his 2nd essay on civil Govt:
. . . 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, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty 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.
And that should warn you, Seversky and co, what matches you are playing with, near what powder keg . . . So too, I hardly need to advert here to Kant's categorical imperative which showed the objectivity of moral principle from the corrosive and destructive effects of immoral behaviour [a thought test that soon shows up why certain behaviours are easily shown to be immoral]. Immoral behaviour parasites off the general behaviour in a community and undermines it. So, if it propagates across the community it destroys it. In so doing it USES people as tools or toys, so Kant observed that moral principles of action should be universalisable without destruction to society. [Is a society of all lies all the teime feasible? All murderers? All thievery? All cowardice? Sexual self-indulgence? And so on . . . ] In short, the objectivity of core morality is plain enough and well accepted enough. At least, for those willing to listen before it is too late. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Thank you Stephen, #54 does help and I must say that the more I think this over, from a different continent, and trying to gauge the extent of this dangerous school of thought the more I am convinced of its global reach. Are we looking at a poisoned civilization? Will the antidote be administered in time? The antidote has the fortunate power of rationally founded optimism, so let us be optimistic! As things are changing and getting ready for a "third wave", the only contribution I can make is to think and talk about a post-naturalist world. With post-naturalist I do imply that naturalism has perverted human thought during the modernist and post-modernist eras. To single out naturalism might be too simplistic, but it surely has amazing explanatory power.mullerpr_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

I have one last observation about Collins' article. It probably repeats--yet clarifies--something I said earlier. Still, it seems that addressing the limitations of skepticism by "expertise" is a form of legitimizing the fallacy known as Argument from Authority.jjcassidy_{March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped: mullerpr: uoflcard: R. Martinez: kairofocus: Thanks for the kind words.StephenB_{March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT}

Seversky, several of us hashed this out on another thread [Darwin’s Sacred Cause] where I tried to explain the natural moral law, provide a rational justification for it, and introduce it to another materialist Darwinist. I use the word “introduce,” because he argued with me for over a week before we both discovered he didn’t even know what it was. You seem to be doing the same thing. At that time, I asked him to do the same thing I am asking you to do now. Google “Illustrations of the Tao,” so you will at least know what it is that you are objecting to. Your questions suggest to me that this concept is new to you. Among other things, you labor under the misconception that the natural moral law is the product of one religion. So, I would prefer not to debate the issue until you familiarize yourself with the subject matter.StephenB_{March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

mullerpr: I cannot comment on Moreland's quote because I don’t know the context in which he used the words “skepticism” and “dominant.” From what I have heard, he is quite a thoughtful commentator, so he may well have framed the issue in a way that justified his remark. This much I can tell you about today’s keepers of the flame in the academy. On the one hand, they are absolutely sure that they are absolutely right about Darwinism. On the other hand, they also qualify as epistemological skeptics. In effect, they fiercely doubt that which obvious and arrogantly assert that which is impossible. While their Darwinism has not yet caught on with the public, their skepticism most definitely has. Two out of every three Americans no longer believe in absolute truth or absolute morality. I would call that “dominant.” In any case, they embrace skepticism without really knowing what it is. For me, skepticism is a mental condition which denies the fact that the images in our mind correspond to real universals outside of the mind. This destructive notion that universals are categorized, formalized, and finalized in the mind was visited on us by Kant, and it is he that we have to thank for modern-day skepticism and its derivative corollaries, relativism and subjectivism. Sad to day, Kant made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled skeptic. His terrible legacy continues as young (and old) skulls full of mush come to this site parading their intellectual doubts and trying to pass them off as intellectual sophistication. What they do not understand is that if their doctrine was true, there would be no reason to conduct any kind of rational investigation or attempt any kind of rational discourse at all since there would be no intellectual standard to ground these activities. If my truth is my truth and your truth is your truth, there can never be any common ground around which to build a well-ordered society.StephenB_{March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 44
[D] The natural moral law is real and ought to be acknowledged. To deny this fact is to deny reason itself. We cannot continue to live as if we are a law unto ourselves, otherwise tyrants will subject us to their arbitrary law. They are, at this very moment, planning to do just that.
This sounds to me like question-begging in the extreme. Unless you are God, you do not create something simply by asserting its existence. If the claim is that there are objective natural moral laws or an objective morality, an obvious question is whose moral laws, whose objective morality? If moral laws or morality are presumed to have an objective existence beyond the realm of human imagination, like gravity or New York or the Moon, then we would expect there to be widespread agreement amongst observers on their nature. Although cultural, ethnic or religious predispositions can affect our perceptions of the world, unless we are that rare beast a genuine solipsist, most of us agree that there is actually a world out there. An apple will fall from a tree under the influence of gravity and land on the head of anyone just as surely, be they English, American, Arab, Chinese, Caribbean or whatever. So do we, as we would expect, observe a large measure of agreement on what constitutes objective morality or moral laws between the world's faiths? Are Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans and Jedis - to name but a few - entirely as one on this question? If they are not, there appears to be three possibilities. The first is that there is an objective morality or set of moral laws but they are as elusive as the neutrino such that only one faith has lighted upon them thus far. Unfortunately this means that all other believers, however devout, are just wrong. The question is: which one is right and how do you tell? The second possibility is that, although they are there, no one has discovered these "eternal verities" as yet. Unfortunately, this seems to be indistinguishable from the third possibility which is that there is no such thing as objective morality and that to claim such is no more than the attempted reification of subjective judgments.Seversky_{March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

uoflcard @ 40
Adel DiBagno, your opinion is certainly welcome here, unlike on blogs like Pharyngula, where I was recently told to “get the **** out” once I defended my Christian worldview after a couple attacks.
in all fairness IST said something different over there
The bottom line is that you're offended that an atheist talks about godlessness on his "science blog"? Get the ...(*) over it...SB knew what they were syndicating.
(*) four letter word omitted to avoid filtering I am not a native speaker but isn't there a difference between "get over it" and "get out"?sparc_{March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

Allanius, BTW, when I said this
Excellent post, man! One of the best I’ve seen in a long time. Keep up the observant thoughts!
I was referring to your post at #45. lol I figured I should point that out xDDomoman_{March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

Stephen: Excellent! GEM of TKI PS: Muller:any support for specifically the claim that it has never been the dominant position in human thought? First absolute skepticism self destructs -- to claim that knowledge is impossible is to claim to know something. Oops. What is often done instead is to play at the selective hyperskepticism game: object to any arbitrary degree to what you don't want to accept; while accepting things that you do want to be so on a much lower standard. The inconsistency is its own refutation. The solution is simple: seek balanced and fair warrant for truth claims, but recongise that it comes in reasonable and case-appropriate degrees, in many cases being defeatable; i.e we all must live by faith, the issue is in what, why and how reasonable. So, be open to correction of error as a finite, fallible, too often ill-willed sometimes rational creature. but do not pretend that you can live without exerting faith beyond proof in SOMEthing.kairosfocus_{March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

StephenB at 44.... Perfect. Thanks!Upright BiPed_{March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

StephenB (#44): "Neither sociologists nor scientists are equipped to judge the worth of their conclusions or speculations, because judging value is a philosophical exercise. Unfortunately, philosophy, the discipline that should be making these calculations has, itself, been corrupt for centuries. Those who have been entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining and guarding the principles of right reason have not only abandoned those principles but have also gone out of their way to militate against them." Extremely well said and 100 percent true. "Philosophy, which is supposed to illuminate both science and sociology, has lost its capacity to do either." Again, I agree completely. "There are two reasons for this: First, our culture worships science and disdains philosophy, so nothing other than a truly comprehensible and common sense philosophy can ever hope to regain widespread respectability." The use of the word "culture" is too ambiguous. All polls and surveys show consistently that half of all adults in the U.S. are anti-evolutionists, Creationists and/or IDists. This collective mass does not worship science. The worship of science is called "Scientism" (Smith 2001; Scott 2001). The deities of Scientism are the presuppositions and assumptions of Materialism-Naturalism-Darwinism. The philosophy that is disdained is disdained because it has lost the capacity to make sense. This implication, by Stephen, is 100 percent true. These philosophers are Darwinists or Evolutionists: the purveyors of Scientism. Scientism does not make sense because God is excluded to explain reality. To say the appearance of design seen in every aspect of nature as NOT corresponding to the work of invisible Designer makes no sense whatsoever. This is why anti-evolutionism thrives: the obvious senselessness of Darwinism. When persons read Darwinian scientists and philosophers argue against the logic of "design = Designer" this is what convinces them that Darwinism is pro-Atheism non-sense. "Second, philosophy in its current condition deserves to be disdained because of its anti-intellectual orientation." Stephen tells us that this disdained philosophy, which I have defined as a component of Scientism, is disdained because it makes no sense and now he adds another dimension: anti-intellectualism. Again, these observations are 100 percent accurate. To put it bluntly Darwinists are stupid. How do they expect anyone with a thinking and well functioning logical mind to accept "design = unguided-unintelligent material force" as opposed to "design = Designer"? But we should not get too excited. The acceptance of an appearance of design in nature is NOT the position of Darwinism. Both Darwin (Autobio:87) and Dawkins (1986) reject design to exist in nature. The acceptance of an appearance of design as existing in nature is a reaction to the success of Dembski IDism. This is what has gotten Darwinists in logical trouble. Ken Miller, Francisco Ayala, and Michael Shermer (to name just a few) have all championed the concept of design as existing in nature, but produced by unintelligence (= natural selection). Again, the senselessness seen is what causes persons to reject these ad hoc arguments. Apparently Miller, Ayala and Shermer are not aware that their argument does not make sense. Darwinism makes a person stupid, that is, when God is excluded to explain natural reality stupidity or pro-Atheism non-sense (= anti-intellectualism) ensues. "....the only solution to bad philosophy is good philosophy...." Correct. Again, philosophy went bad when it decided to reject the light of God. The so called 18th century "Enlightenment" was really an "Endarkenment." It all boils down to God. One would do good to count how many times the word "light" appears in Scripture and how many times it is used in conjunction with the person or presence of God. RayR. Martinez_{March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Allanius, Excellent post, man! One of the best I've seen in a long time. Keep up the observant thoughts!Domoman_{March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply