It is almost — almost — amusing but then quite sad to see how objectors to design theory play with logic and worldviews issues, then run away when the substantial issues are taken up.
Let me clip from the FFT, AJ vs Charles thread to pick up these matters, but to avoid making this utterly too long, let me point here on for the underlying questions of worldviews, first plausibles and self-evident plumb-line truths such as the first principles of right reason.
While we are at it, let us observe from the diagram on the right, how worldviews issues influence everything we do as a civilisation, and how the issue arises, on whether business as usual is a march of folly and needs to be turned from to move to a more sustainable, more sound alternative.
In our day, it is pretty clear that evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers rule the roost, but that such is inescapably incoherent, self-refuting, self-falsifying and amoral, opening the door to ruthless nihilist factionalism.
So, it is a service not only to the ID community but the civilisation to say what is not politically corrupt today, the unmentionable fact that A is A.
So, now, let us proceed by clipping some posts in the relevant thread:
FFT5: The implications of the familiar extraordinary.
In this thread, there are arguments [posted] that . . . as an observable phenomenon . . . show that we are capable of significant choice and reasoning, i.e. we are responsibly, rationally, significantly free, conscious, en-conscienced, morally governed, communicating creatures. (Indeed, those trying to object are operating on the implicit premise that we are urged by conscience toward the truth and the right; and if we were not, this world would descend into a dark, chaotic ruin in short order. It is a good thing that something urges us on to the truth and the right.)
Locke, in Sec 5 of his essay on human understanding (and yes, I add scriptural references i/l/o his cites and allusions), aptly comments:
Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 – 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 – 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 – 2 & 13, Ac 17, Jn 3:19 – 21, Eph 4:17 – 24, Isaiah 5:18 & 20 – 21, Jer. 2:13, Titus 2:11 – 14 etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 – 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly. [Text references added to document the sources of Locke’s allusions and citations.]
All of that is in the context of rebuking a lazy, sneeringly supercilious selective hyperskepticism that will scorn more than adequate warrant for ethical theism, because it shuns the premise of moral government: accountability on plainly recognisable duty, before our Maker, Lord, Governor and utterly just Judge.
But, that is a bit quick off the mark.
Let’s start with computational substrates, whether mechanically or electrically analogue or digital or neural network. For instance a ball and disk integrator as was used in tide table machines or naval gunlaying computers is clearly a cause-effect, blindly mechanical system. If it has a fault or is badly programmed, it will err, and it cares not, it is just like Monadology’s Mill-Wheels grinding away blindly. Leibniz:
[P]erception, and that which depends upon it, are inexplicable by mechanical causes, that is to say, by figures and motions. Supposing that there were a machine whose structure produced thought, sensation, and perception, we could conceive of it as increased in size with the same proportions until one was able to enter into its interior, as he would into a mill. Now, on going into it he would find only pieces working upon one another, but never would he find anything to explain perception.
There is no recognition of meaning, no perception, no purpose, just blind cause-effect chains externally arranged to yield the solution to certain differential equations. GIGO, and all that. Likewise, the old Pentium chip neither knew nor understood nor cared about the wired in errors that led to the early recall. And, a neural network is not in principle any different. (BTW this points to serious design inferences on the relevant hardware and software in bio-cybernetics systems, but that is a secondary point.)
The primary point has been highlighted by Reppert:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as [C S] Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
In short, a physicalist account of mindedness (much less, guidance by light of conscience) faces an ugly, impassable gulch.
In effect, rocks — even refined and carefully organised rocks — have no dreams; computation is not intentional contemplation.
At this point, evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers — and nope you cannot properly, conveniently open up rhetorical daylight between some vague agnosticism and full-blown evo mat to deflect this — face an impassable gulch.
One, that brings out what was already highlighted: mindedness, consciousness, reasoned inference and conscience’s compass-pointing alike are all reduced to grand delusion on evo mat premises.
Grand delusion would collapse responsible, rational freedom and so falls into irretrievable incoherence and absurdity. Thence, the necessary falsity Pearcey and others have pointed to.
But in reality, rational, responsible, conscience-compass bearing consciousness is our first undeniable empirical fact. The fact through which we perceive all others.
This is the familiar extraordinary phenomenon, the pivot on which the project of building a sound worldview turns. In effect, unless a worldview is compatible with our being responsible, reasonable, conscience-guided and significantly free beings, it cannot even sit to the table for a discussion of comparative difficulties. It is silenced by being inconsistent with rationality. It is patently, irretrievably absurd and necessarily false. (Evo mat and fellow traveller ideologies, I am looking straight at you.)>>
So, we have to first face mindedness and the limitations of computational substrates.
FFT6A: Last evening, in FFT5, we looked at the familiar extraordinary; it is almost amusing to see how this has been almost studiously pushed aside. One hopes that the latest focus for hyperskeptical dismissiveness, heptades, will now settle down.
At this point, we have to deal with a key conclusion in 153:
. . . a physicalist account of mindedness (much less, guidance by light of conscience) faces an ugly, impassable gulch.
In effect, rocks — even refined and carefully organised rocks — have no dreams; computation is not intentional contemplation.
At this point, evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers — and nope you cannot properly, conveniently open up rhetorical daylight between some vague agnosticism and full-blown evo mat to deflect this — face an impassable gulch.
One, that brings out what was already highlighted: mindedness, consciousness, reasoned inference and conscience’s compass-pointing alike are all reduced to grand delusion on evo mat premises.
Grand delusion would collapse responsible, rational freedom and so falls into irretrievable incoherence and absurdity. Thence, the necessary falsity Pearcey and others have pointed to.
But in reality, rational, responsible, conscience-compass bearing consciousness is our first undeniable empirical fact. The fact through which we perceive all others.
This is the familiar extraordinary phenomenon, the pivot on which the project of building a sound worldview turns. In effect, unless a worldview is compatible with our being responsible, reasonable, conscience-guided and significantly free beings, it cannot even sit to the table for a discussion of comparative difficulties. It is silenced by being inconsistent with rationality. It is patently, irretrievably absurd and necessarily false. (Evo mat and fellow traveller ideologies, I am looking straight at you.)
What sort of world do we have to live in for there to be creatures like us?
That’s rather like a point R W Hamming made in addressing a thought exercise that counter-balances one of the mythical paradigm cases of empirical investigation, the dropping of a musket-ball and a cannon-ball from the famous leaning tower of Pisa. And yes, the very same News who so many hyperskeptics sneer at brought this to attention:
Let us next consider Galileo. Not too long ago I was trying to put myself in Galileo’s shoes, as it were, so that I might feel how he came to discover the law of falling bodies. I try to do this kind of thing so that I can learn to think like the masters did-I deliberately try to think as they might have done.
Well, Galileo was a well-educated man and a master of scholastic arguments. He well knew how to argue the number of angels on the head of a pin [–> which is actually about location vs extension], how to argue both sides of any question. He was trained in these arts far better than any of us these days. I picture him sitting one day with a light and a heavy ball, one in each hand, and tossing them gently. He says, hefting them, “It is obvious to anyone that heavy objects fall faster than light ones-and, anyway, Aristotle says so.” “But suppose,” he says to himself, having that kind of a mind, “that in falling the body broke into two pieces. Of course the two pieces would immediately slow down to their appropriate speeds. But suppose further that one piece happened to touch the other one. Would they now be one piece and both speed up? Suppose I tied the two pieces together. How tightly must I do it to make them one piece? A light string? A rope? Glue? When are two pieces one?”
The more he thought about it-and the more you think about it-the more unreasonable becomes the question of when two bodies are one. There is simply no reasonable answer to the question of how a body knows how heavy it is-if it is one piece, or two, or many. Since falling bodies do something, the only possible thing is that they all fall at the same speed-unless interfered with by other forces. There’s nothing else they can do. He may have later made some experiments, but I strongly suspect that something like what I imagined actually happened. I later found a similar story in a book by Polya [7. G. Polya, Mathematical Methods in Science, MAA, 1963, pp. 83-85.]. Galileo found his law not by experimenting but by simple, plain thinking, by scholastic reasoning.
I know that the textbooks often present the falling body law as an experimental observation; I am claiming that it is a logical law, a consequence of how we tend to think . . .
This ties back to the view that mathematics is substantially the logic of structure and quantity, which we may freely explore because we are responsibly and rationally significantly free.>>
Again: What sort of world do we have to live in for there to be creatures like us?
What sort of world do we have to live in for there to be creatures like us?
This surfaces a key issue, that two truths x and y must be such that we never have y = NOT-x; that is in a coherent world all true statements — those that accurately describe facets of reality — will be mutually compatible. I note this, fully recognising that for many, this is actually quite a difficult point today; as, various ideologies have led to a conflation of truth with perception or opinion. Hence, a conversation I had today that turned on the concept, “my truth.” Language decay is an old problem, and Orwell pointed out what could be done through new-speak and double-talk. How many are two plus two, Mr Smith?
My answer was and is, that we already have perfectly adequate words for opinions and perceptions; so, there is no need to corrupt the meaning of the precious or even vital word, truth. The truth — as Ari noted long ago in Metaphysics 1011b — says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not.
This in turn brings us to the question of being and non-being, of possible and impossible being, of contingent and necessary being. Thus, of causal roots of the world, of reality. And it points to the issue of possible worlds: comprehensive enough descriptions of how things could be or are.
Impossible beings such as a square circle cannot exist in any possible world. As, core characteristics stand in mutual contradiction and cannot hold of the same thing, X, under the same circumstances. Here, squarishness and circularity.
By contrast, possible beings could exist in at least one possible world. Contingent ones would not do so in all possible worlds but would exist in at least one. I think, in 100 years there will be unicorns, as biotech will be there and people will be willing to pay to have one. Just as we seem to be seeing ever more miniature sized horses already.
Necessary beings must exist in any possible world, as they are frameworking requisites of a world existing. For instance, two-ness or distinct identity (equivalent) must be there for a distinct world to be. This is non-trivial, as distinct identity has three immediate corollaries: Law of Identity, Law of Excluded Middle, Law of Non-Contradiction.
That is, core logic is built into any possible world; including of course the logic of structure and quantity, i.e. mathematical realities. (NB: We already see here, a key reason for the awesome power of Mathematics in our world and especially in scientific work. [So much for the sneer that this thread has little or no relevance to Science.])
Back to us, as being able to significantly freely discuss our concerns responsibly and rationally, and having an inner compass-sense that insistently points to the truth and the right — conscience.
What sort of world must this be to allow such. and what must be in its frameworking structure?
First, we already saw that the denial of responsible, rational, significant freedom lets grand delusion loose and instantly ends in absurdity. Self-evidently, this is a world in which responsibly rational and significantly free, morally governed creatures are possible and in fact actual.
That’s already a huge result and it sweeps away all worldviews — their name is legion — that are incompatible with such creatures. This of course includes evolutionary materialistic scientism, its fellow travellers, radical subjectivism and radical relativism. (Cf. the chain of comments here on, above.)
Next, we face the implication of the IS-OUGHT gap, on many levels. A world with moral government has to be such that OUGHT is well-rooted in the fabric and framework of reality. Post Hume et al and post Euthyphro et al, that can only be in the very root of reality, i.e. there must be a necessary being that so fuses IS-ness and OUGHT-ness, that they are inextricably entangled in the roots of reality.
What sort of being is capable of such?
The answer is utterly challenging, and I have long thought it is best posed in light of comparative difficulties and worldview level inference to the best candidate explanation.
We need to look at serious candidates (as opposed to something like a flying spaghetti monster, which will not be a necessary being — made up from bits and pieces, i.e. composite.)
There is just one serious candidate, after centuries of debate: the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature (thus, the law of our nature).
This is not an arbitrary imposition, if you doubt, simply put up a viable alternative: ________ (this is after all comparative difficulties analysis).
Prediction: hard to do.
This also has a further highly relevant implication. For a serious candidate necessary being will either be impossible as a square circle is, or else it will be possible thus would exist in at least one world. And, as it would be a frameworking reality, it would be present in every possible world, including our own — an actual world. (And yes, I am not saying THE actual world.)
The God of ethical theism as described, is a serious candidate [e.g. NB’s have no beginning or end, are eternal]. This means that God is either impossible as a square circle is impossible, or he is actual. And decades ago, the problem of evils used to be trotted out to make that argument, but that option is effectively dead post-Plantinga and in fact post Boethius.
Then, too, if one claims to be an atheist or agnostic, s/he implies knowing good reason to doubt or dismiss the God of ethical theism as impossible even as a square circle is impossible. It would be interesting to hear what such a reason is: _______ (esp. post, problem of evils as a serious view as opposed to a handy piece of intimidatory rhetoric).
So, now, we are at a very important threshold, the God of ethical theism is on the table as a serious candidate necessary being, root of reality that grounds a world in which responsibly and rationally free creatures such as ourselves are possible and indeed actual.
That is a momentous turning-point, and it would be interesting to see if we will hear of the viable alternatives, including reasons why such a God is an impossible being.>>
Of course, these two blanks were never ever filled in cogently. So:
FFT6C: It is worth noting the unresponsiveness to 219 and 178 above, especially at the points where objectors were directly invited to put up alternatives.
We can take it to the bank that UD is obsessively monitored by denizens of a penumbra of hostile sites. Denizens, more than willing to pounce when they see opportunity.
In short, the above blanks left unanswered speak to yet another hovering ghost or three in the room.
Here, first, the point that there is no necessary appeal to design inferences and debates to build a case for ethical theism adequate to ground commitment to such.
Second, that the atheistical objectors and their fellow travellers have no cogent answer to the need for a necessary being root to reality, nor to the point that the God of ethical theism is a serious candidate to be such (by utter contrast with the cartoonish flying spaghetti monster etc), nor to the onward point that such a serious candidate will be either ontologically impossible [as a square circle is impossible] or else will be actual.
Third, they have no cogent answer to the significance of the point that just to have a real discussion, we must implicitly accept that we are responsible, reasonable, significantly free and intelligent beings under moral government. Not least, conscience is the compass within pointing to the truth, the right and our duties of care towards such. Undermining this dimension of conscious mindedness by implying it is delusional lets grand delusion loose in our minds, ending in shipwreck.
So, we can see that the evo mat scientism picture of the world falls apart, and that there is no need to go out of our way to accommodate it. It is self-referentially incoherent and so self-falsifying.
Nor, should we yield to the trend to corrupt the concept, truth. (That, too, is part of the benumbing and warping of conscience, as say Orwell brought out so forcefully in his 1984.)
The astute onlooker will also note that we have had a worldviews discussion, not one pivoting on parsing Bible texts. Though, I have noted that this analysis is compatible with at least one key summary argument in Scripture, one that points to this sort of analysis as valid on the whole if soundly done.
Let me clip:
Rom 1:18 For [God does not overlook sin and] the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who in their wickedness suppress and stifle the truth, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them [in their inner consciousness], for God made it evident to them.
20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through His workmanship [all His creation, the wonderful things that He has made], so that they [who fail to believe and trust in Him] are without excuse and without defense.
21 For even though [d]they knew God [as the Creator], they did not [e]honor Him as God or give thanks [for His wondrous creation]. On the contrary, they became worthless in their thinking [godless, with pointless reasonings, and silly speculations], and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God for [f]an image [worthless idols] in the shape of mortal man and birds and four-footed animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their own hearts to [sexual] impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin], 25 because [by choice] they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen . . . .
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or consider Him worth knowing [as their Creator], God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do things which are improper and repulsive, 29 until they were filled (permeated, saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice and mean-spiritedness. They are gossips [spreading rumors], 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors [of new forms] of evil, disobedient and disrespectful to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful [without pity]. [AMP]
The passage goes on to highlight how the warping of mind and conscience ends up in a topsy-turvy world that approves evil and by implication disapproves the good. That alludes subtly to another text, from the prophet Isaiah:
Isa 5:18 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who drag along wickedness with cords of falsehood,
And sin as if with cart ropes [towing their own punishment];
19 Who say, “Let Him move speedily, let Him expedite His work [His promised vengeance], so that we may see it;
And let the purpose of the Holy One of Israel approach
And come to pass, so that we may know it!”
20 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who are wise in their own eyes
And clever and shrewd in their own sight! [AMP]
This summary rings all too sadly true as we look out across the moral wasteland of our largely apostate civilisation that has so often deliberately turned its back on the truth and has refused to endure sound instruction. Instead, we have ever so often chosen to go out in the ways of cleverly constructed errors, leading many astray into ruin.
Given an onward exchange, I think I should note from Eta Linnemann on the undermining of theology:
Theology as it is taught in universities all over the world . . . is based on the historical-critical method . . . . [which] is not just the foundation for the exegetical disciplines. It also decides what the systematician can say . . . It determines procedure in Christian education, homiletics and ethics . . . . Research is conducted ut si Deus non daretur (“as if there were no God”). That means the reality of God is excluded from consideration from the start . . . Statements in Scripture regarding place, time, sequences of events and persons are accepted only insofar as they fit in with established assumptions and theories . . . .
Since other religions have their scriptures, one cannot assume the Bible is somehow unique and superior to them . . . . It is taken for granted that the words of the Bible and God’s word are not identical . . . the New Testament is pitted against the Old Testament, assuming that the God of the New Testament is different from that of the Old, since Jesus is said to have introduced a new concept of God . . . . Since the inspiration of Scripture is not accepted, neither can it be assumed that the individual books of Scripture complement each other. Using this procedure one finds in the Bible only a handful of unrelated literary creations . . . . Since the content of biblical writings is seen as merely the creation of theological writers, any given verse is nothing more than a non-binding, human theological utterance.
For historical-critical theology, critical reason decides what is reality in the Bible and what cannot be reality; and this decision is made on the basis of the everyday experience accessible to every person [i.e. the miraculous aspect of Scripture, and modern reports of miracles — regardless of claimed attestation — are dismissed as essentially impossible to verify and/or as merely “popular religious drivel”] . . . . . Due to the presuppositions that are adopted, critical reason loses sight of the fact that the Lord, our God, the Almighty, reigns. [Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), pp. 83 – 88 as excerpted.]
There is nothing in historical-critical theology that has not already made its appearance in philosophy. Bacon (1561 – 1626), Hobbes (1588 – 1679), Descartes (1596 – 1650), and Hume (1711 – 1776) laid the foundations: inductive thought as the only source of knowledge; denial of revelation; monistic worldview; separation of faith and reason; doubt as the foundation of knowledge. Hobbes and Hume established a thoroughgoing criticism of miracles; Spinoza (1632 – 1677) also helped lay the basis for biblical criticism of both Old and New Testaments. Lessing (1729 – 1781) invented the synoptic problem. Kant’s (1724 – 1804) critique of reason became the basic norm for historical-critical theology. Hegel (1770 – 1831) furnished the means for the process of demythologizing that Rudolph Bultmann (1884 – 1976) would effectively implement a century later – after the way had been prepared by Martin Kähler (1835 – 1912).
Kierkegaard (1813 – 1855) . . . reduced faith to a leap that left rationality behind. He cemented the separation of faith and reason and laid the groundwork for theology’s departure from biblical moorings . . . . by writing such criticism off as benign . . . .
Heidegger (1889 – 1976) laid the groundwork for reducing Christian faith to a possibility of self-understanding; he also had considerable influence on Bultmann’s theology. From Karl Marx . . . came theology of hope, theology of revolution, theology of liberation. [Biblical Criticism on Trial (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2001), pp. 178 – 9.]
Another text has haunted me for months as I have pondered the path of our all too patently willfully perverse civilisation:
1 John 2:15 Do not love the world [of sin that opposes God and His precepts], nor the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the lust and sensual craving of the flesh and the lust and longing of the eyes and the boastful pride of life [pretentious confidence in one’s resources or in the stability of earthly things]—these do not come from the Father, but are from the world. 17 The world is passing away, and with it its lusts [the shameful pursuits and ungodly longings]; but the one who does the will of God and carries out His purposes lives forever.
18 Children, it is the last hour [the end of this age]; and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming [the one who will oppose Christ and attempt to replace Him], even now many antichrists (false teachers) have appeared, which confirms our belief that it is the last hour.
19 They went out from us [seeming at first to be Christians], but they were not really of us [because they were not truly born again and spiritually transformed]; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out [teaching false doctrine], so that it would be clearly shown that none of them are of us.
20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One [you have been set apart, specially gifted and prepared by the Holy Spirit], and all of you know [the truth because He teaches us, illuminates our minds, and guards us from error]. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie [nothing false, no deception] is of the truth.
22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed)?
This is the antichrist [the enemy and antagonist of Christ], the one who denies and consistently refuses to acknowledge the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies and repudiates the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses and acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
24 As for you, let that remain in you [keeping in your hearts that message of salvation] which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, you too will remain in the Son and in the Father [forever].
25 This is the promise which He Himself promised us—eternal life.
26 These things I have written to you with reference to those who are trying to deceive you [seducing you and leading you away from the truth and sound doctrine]. 27 As for you, the anointing [the special gift, the preparation] which you received from Him remains [permanently] in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you. But just as His anointing teaches you [giving you insight through the presence of the Holy Spirit] about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as His anointing has taught you, [c]you must remain in Him [being rooted in Him, knit to Him]. [AMP]
In the end, that is the diagnosis, and the answer to the spirit of our age.>>
Now, why should we reject these diagnostic notes, given something like this from Plato 2350+ years past in The Laws, Bk X:
247, >>Plato, on the warping of the moral compass and where it leads a community i/l/o the collapse of Athens:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .
[Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].>>
But isn’t all this just an excuse to dress up right-wing fundy theocratic Christofascist totalitarianism in a cheap tuxedo?
Of Lemmings, marches of folly and cliffs of self-falsifying absurdity . . .
FFT7: But, isn’t the whole exercise of a pretended ID science an attempt to dress up dubious religion in scientific clothes, with intent to impose onward some sort of right-wing Christofascist theocratic tyranny that for instance robs women of their “rights” to their own bodies — and maybe would gaol them for even a miscarriage? Etc?
I am of course outlining a summary of trends of strawman caricature argument commonly encountered over the years.
A serious-minded glance above will rapidly demonstrate that the main discussion I have made so far under the FFT theme, has been PHILOSOPHICAL, not theological, first and foremost setting the worldviews comparative difficulties context for discussion. It is in that context that I then proceeded to show why evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers have been tried and found wanting as inherently incoherent, self-falsifying, necessarily false views. They cannot get us to a responsibly, rationally free, morally governed, warranting, knowing mind. So they fail the test of our being able to have a rationally guided discussion.
It will be quite evident above, that active objectors and those lurking from the penumbra of attack sites, have no real answer to this. That’s not new, I have seen that for years at UD and for decades elsewhere. Before me, the point traces back to the likes of Plantinga, C S Lewis and even leading evolutionary theorist J B S Haldane.
He aptly says:
“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
I invite the reasonable onlooker to scan above and see for himself, if there is a cogent answer forthcoming from the usual objectors or their backers across the Internet.
The truth will be evident, there is no non-incoherent evolutionary materialistic account of mindedness.
As for the associated amorality, radical relativism and reduction to nihilistic might and manipulation make ‘truth’ ‘right’ etc, that unanswered problem has been on record for 2350+ years, from Plato’s reflections i/l/o the collapse of Athens. If you want to see an example of the sort of misleadership that that toxic brew spews up, try Alcibiades as case study no. 1.
Resemblance to recent history is no coincidence, try out his parable of the mutinous ship of state.
Look above, to see if you can find a serious-minded grappling with such momentous issues and their implications. Try out the penumbra of attack sites. You will soon see why I have long been concerned about a civilisation-level march of ruinous folly that manipulates the public and democratic institutions only to lead us over the cliff. Luke’s real-world ship of state microcosm in Ac 27 should — should! — give us pause.
As one simple example I note that the right to life is the first, foremost, gateway right and so a civilisation that systematically dehumanises its posterity in the womb and warps medicine, nursing, pharmacy, law, law enforcement, government, education, media and more to promote and protect the holocaust of 800+ millions in 40+ years (and mounting up at a million per week now), is corrupting its soul through blood guilt, is utterly warping conscience to do so, and is wrecking the ability to even simply think straight and live by the truth and the right. It is setting itself up to be a plague upon the earth that morally taints the land, which will vomit us out.
If we do not repent of our bloody, soul-wrecking folly as a civilisation, we will ruin ourselves. And, whatever emerges from the bloody chaos and dark age to follow, will not see freedom as an important value, as liberty turned to libertinism and wicked, blood-guilty licence.
Yes, I am out and out saying we have become the enemies of sustainable liberty under just law that duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities.
If you want a personal motive, there it is. I come from a nation that wrecked its prospects for generations through irresponsible, wicked misleadership, agit prop, media shadow shows and blood shed. That includes a murdered auntie.
I know the hard way, that the lessons of sound history wee bought with blood and tears. Those who refuse to heed them doom themselves to pay the same coin over and over again in their futile folly.
(I have said as much, many times, but no. Those hell-bent on folly have to project garish caricatures unto those who dare stand athwart the path heading over the cliff and cry out, no.)
Anyway, the reader will simply not find a sober-minded response to such concerns.
After this, I set about a sounder foundation, several days ago now, which was of course studiously ignored. This was elaborated through pondering what sort of world has to be here for there to be creatures like us, then followed up.
All, studiously ignored in a rush to set up and knock over conveniently loaded straw men.
Let me clip key points from the last, FFT6C:
It is worth noting the unresponsiveness to 219 and 178 above, especially at the points where objectors were directly invited to put up alternatives.
We can take it to the bank that UD is obsessively monitored by denizens of a penumbra of hostile sites. Denizens, more than willing to pounce when they see opportunity.
In short, the above blanks left unanswered speak to yet another hovering ghost or three in the room.
Here, first, the point that there is no necessary appeal to design inferences and debates to build a case for ethical theism adequate to ground commitment to such.
Second, that the atheistical objectors and their fellow travellers have no cogent answer to the need for a necessary being root to reality, nor to the point that the God of ethical theism is a serious candidate to be such (by utter contrast with the cartoonish flying spaghetti monster etc), nor to the onward point that such a serious candidate will be either ontologically impossible [as a square circle is impossible] or else will be actual.
Third, they have no cogent answer to the significance of the point that just to have a real discussion, we must implicitly accept that we are responsible, reasonable, significantly free and intelligent beings under moral government. Not least, conscience is the compass within pointing to the truth, the right and our duties of care towards such. Undermining this dimension of conscious mindedness by implying it is delusional lets grand delusion loose in our minds, ending in shipwreck.
So, we can see that the evo mat scientism picture of the world falls apart, and that there is no need to go out of our way to accommodate it. It is self-referentially incoherent and so self-falsifying.
Nor, should we yield to the trend to corrupt the concept, truth. (That, too, is part of the benumbing and warping of conscience, as say Orwell brought out so forcefully in his 1984.)
The astute onlooker will also note that we have had a worldviews discussion, not one pivoting on parsing Bible texts . . .
It will then be no surprise to see that the grounding of ethical theism as a responsible worldview (by utter contrast with the radically self-falsifying and amoral evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers) does not turn on design inferences on empirical signs such as FSCO/I.
Evo mat scientism and fellow travellers are utterly incompatible with the responsible, rational freedom required to have a serious, fact and logic guided discussion seeking understanding of the truth. It rules itself out so soon as we must have a serious discussion.
We then address on comparative difficulties, how can we have a world with beings such as we are.
That takes us through the IS-OUGHT gap to issues of being and non-being and rootedness of a world with moral government. Which, repeat, is a condition of serious discussion.
That points to the only serious candidate for such a root, after centuries of debate. Candidate X was duly laid out, and the open invitation was given to put forth a comparable candidate Y that does not instantly collapse.
Silence.
Silence, for good reason: something like the flying spaghetti monster is simply not serious, never mind its appallingly common rhetorical use by those who should know a lot better.
Then, a second invitation to comparative difficulties discussion was given: part of X’s bill of requisites is necessary being. A serious candidate NB either is impossible (as a square circle is impossible) or it is actual.
The challenge was given, break X’s candidacy.
Silence, again.
So — as X = the inherently good creator God of ethical theism, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature — it is clear that there is a very good warrant to adhere to ethical theism as a worldview.
Without even engaging design theory debates.
A point that needed to be put up on the table and warranted.
Which, it has.
That’s why at 220 and henceforth, I could freely write:
you will see the stage of argument in FFT6B just above. I wonder what our well-informed skeptical interlocutors will put up as alternatives? Especially, noting that THERE IS NO DESIGN INFERENCE in the argument to date, i.e. the design inference as such is demonstrably not an inherent, inextricable part of an argument to God as root of reality. Where, note, the case I am arguing here is not based in Scripture though it is compatible with it — truths will be compatible the one with the other. And of course, contrary to the talking points I heard today, the God of ethical theism is not automatically the devil, the author of evils and confusions.
Why then has there been such a hot debate over design, and why has it been laced with accusations about creationism in a cheap tuxedo and the like?
Simple: evolutionary materialistic scientism, from the outset in modern times [this is demonstrable historic fact], has tried to come up with a designer substitute that would plausibly put the creator-God out of a job. The idea is that if the world of life and onward the physical cosmos can be explained on naturalistic grounds, the perception of design can be dismissed while wearing the holy lab coat, and belief in God can eventually be made to seem to be the resort of the ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.
That rhetorical stratagem has worked and has become institutionalised.
But at a terrible price.
First, it is ill-founded and credibly false, erecting falsity as the yardstick for judging truth. Where, science first and foremost must seek to discover the empirically grounded truth about our world.
Ill-founded, as there are credible, empirically warranted signs of design, which are copiously found in the world of life and in the structure of the cosmos.
Design theory is the empirically and analytically grounded scientific investigation of such signs, which in fact are not too hard to find. Start with the algorithmically functional text in DNA and the execution machinery of the cell that puts it to work. (This points to OOL and OO body plans. Design is evident in the tree of life from the roots up.)
Likewise, the corruption of science from definitions and outlines of its methods on up makes blatant falsity into the yardstick to judge truth by. Truth cannot pass the test of agreement with relevant falsity, and so the ideological imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism inherently corrupts a pivotal institution of our civilisation.
So, those who hope to build a sound future will be found on the side of needed reformation of tainted science.
In that context, freed science can then return to its true path.
Such is being ruthlessly resisted because it threatens entrenched worldviews and power interests in many institutions. But, the only way to defend institutionalised and fairly obvious falsity is by means that cannot stand the cold light of truth, facts and logic. That is why we find the distortions, strawman tactics, stalking, stereotyping and scapegoating.
All of which are utterly corrosive to liberty, not just academic freedom.
And so, the time has come to find where one stands, why, even as our civilisation descends into chaos, confusion, folly, bizarre agendas and outright blood guilt all around us.
We stand at kairos.>>
We are at kairos, in the face of a civilisation hell-bent on a march of folly. It is time to think again, soberly. END
Comments
Heks:
As for KF and WJM, I think they deserve far more respect than you are giving them. You may have an issue with one or both of their styles, but they have both thought deeply on these issues and make many excellent points, which I don’t think you have fully appreciated.
They deserve the level of respect they show towards those they disagree with. KF has repeatedly called me a liar with no justification, and falsely accused me of things I have said without acknowledging any error when this is pointed out to him. WJM behaves childishly towards those he disagrees with. Aside from this, they both have a history of propagating unfounded conspiracy theories that can damage innocent individuals. In spite of this, I have made repeated attempts to discuss honestly with both of them only to be exposed to the same behaviour.
On the other side are people like you, Andrew, UB and many others. We fundamentally disagree on many things but we can have a discussion and still treat each other with respect.
With respect to objective vs subjective morality, the only difference in my estimation is in where they originate. Not how they affect us. Your gut reaction to killing or rape or stealing or lying is probably the same as mine. You may argue that this is due to some objective proscription on killing. Whereas I say that it is the result indoctrination from a very early age by parents, teachers, etc., reinforced by our ability to predict the possible consequences of our actions. Neither of these are akin to a preferred flavour of ice cream. They are both deeply ingrained feelings that are not easily ignored.
To give you an example of how something can become deeply ingrained, let's pick something that we both agree has absolutely no moral value. When you get up tomorrow, try buttoning your shirt in the opposite direction than you normally do (top to bottom or bottom to top). You will be able to do it, but you would be lying if you said that it did not feel "wrong". Now extrapolate that to something that you have been told is wrong from your earliest memory.Armand Jacks
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
@WJM
So, if I need and desire to get to the bottom of the cliff, what I ought do is entirely generated by me? Can my “ought” be “jump and land softly”? If not, why not, if I am generating all the ought?
If my intention is to fly, can I just make up whatever oughts I wish, or must I investigate and extract my oughts out of physics and the physical world?
The contents our theories do not come from experience. It's based on conjecturing (creatively arranging) existing theories about how the world works in an attempt to solve a problem, then testing those theories for errors. Furthermore, the existing theories we combine are themselves theory laden.
IOW, none of the contents of our theories are out there for us to observe.
From this TED talk....
Now, how do we know about an environment that's so far away and so different and so alien from anything we're used to? Well, the Earth — our environment, in the form of us — is creating knowledge. Well, what does that mean? Well, look out even further than we've just been — I mean from here, with a telescope — and you'll see things that look like stars, they're called quasars. "Quasars" originally meant "quasi-stellar object," which means "things that look a bit like stars."
But they're not stars. And we know what they are. Billions of years ago and billions of light-years away, the material at the center of a galaxy collapsed towards a super-massive black hole. And then intense magnetic fields directed some of the energy of that gravitational collapse and some of the matter back out in the form of tremendous jets, which illuminated lobes with the brilliance of — I think it's a trillion — suns.
Now, the physics of the human brain could hardly be more unlike the physics of such a jet. We couldn't survive for an instant in it. Language breaks down when trying to describe what it would be like in one of those jets. It would be a bit like experiencing a supernova explosion, but at point-blank range and for millions of years at a time.
And yet, that jet happened in precisely such a way that billions of years later, on the other side of the universe, some bit of chemical scum could accurately describe and model and predict and explain, above all — there's your reference — what was happening there, in reality. The one physical system, the brain, contains an accurate working model of the other, the quasar. Not just a superficial image of it, though it contains that as well, but an explanatory model, embodying the same mathematical relationships and the same causal structure.
Now, that is knowledge. And if that weren't amazing enough, the faithfulness with which the one structure resembles the other is increasing with time. That is the growth of knowledge. So, the laws of physics have this special property, that physical objects as unlike each other as they could possibly be, can nevertheless embody the same mathematical and causal structure and to do it more and more so over time.
critical rationalist
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
My view is that it is the proposed system of objective morals that is incoherent, rather than subjective morals. I can readily understand how a species like us would invent a system of morals to help us live together. In fact the research shows that its not just humans that do this.
But I just can't understand how morals could be objective. Or probably more accurately, I can't understand how it makes any difference. WJM says we sense the objective morals with our conscience much as we sense other aspects of the world with our other senses. But that seems to be me to be a really bad analogy. If I look at an animal and decide its a giraffe, I can confirm this by asking other people to look at the same object and tell me what it is. And I can look at photos and compare. And going further I could take a DNA sample and have it analysed. But what's the comparison if I'm trying to decide whether its moral for me to avoid losing a government rest home subsidy by putting my house in a trust (which is a common concern for older people here in NZ)? Sure, I can ask other people what they think, and I would get a range of views. But how do I find out for sure what the objective moral rule is on this?Pindi
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
Armand Jacks,
Acartia Bogart and William Spearshake were the same person as far as I'm aware, so adding Mark Frank into the mix makes only two people, not three. As for whether I had problems with them, no, not at all. We disagreed on most things but got along reasonably well. In fact, the only person here that I've had problems with as far I can recall was someone that went by the name of keiths (mentioned earlier in this thread). I typically try very hard to give people the benefit of the doubt for as long as possible, but keiths made it impossible for me to take him seriously or believe that he had even the tiniest amount of intellectual honesty.
As for KF and WJM, I think they deserve far more respect than you are giving them. You may have an issue with one or both of their styles, but they have both thought deeply on these issues and make many excellent points, which I don't think you have fully appreciated.
Now as for the bit about subjective morality being akin to a preference for ice cream, it is specifically that reference that made me wonder if you were Mark Frank. As for whether or not I personally think that subjective morality makes moral preferences akin to preferences for ice cream flavors, it depends on the context in which you're looking at. Subjectively speaking, the feeling that mass murder is wrong seems worlds apart from a preference for chocolate ice cream over vanilla, but objectively speaking, they bear identical moral weight, which is to say none. I talked about why this is so at some length with Mark Frank in the past, so if you want to know my thoughts on this point in more depth I'd be happy to find and link you to my comments explaining this further.HeKS
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Heks, so far you haven't guessed correctly. But just for interest sake, did you have any problems with these three?
But, more seriously, do you think that the concept of subjective morality is akin to a preference for ice cream flavour? You strike me as a person who actually thinks about what others say based on the merits of their arguments, not on the merits of inane and ignorant talking points repeated ad nauseum by people like WJM and KF.Armand Jacks
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
Armand Jacks,
Are you Mark Frank? Or Acartia Bogart / William Spearshake?HeKS
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
WJM@145
If you want to argue from the theatre of the absurd, dont be surprised if you are treated as an absurd character.
However, if you can get past your stupid and ignorant assertions that subjective morality is nothing more than the preference of ice cream flavours, we might be able to actually have an honest debate. Until then, don't be surprised if people laugh at you rather than with you.Armand Jacks
Bernd-Olaf Kuppers has pointed out in his book Information and the Origin of Life that “[t]he problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information.” As noted previously, intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents generate large quantities of complex and specified information (CSI). Studies of the cell reveal vast quantities of biochemical information stored in our DNA in the sequence of nucleotides.
Again, the information in an organism's DNA contains a recipe of what transformations of matter are required to convert raw materials into an entirely new instance of a cell. As such, the original of a cell's features is the origin of that knowlege.
From one of the unresponded to comments starting here....
When I ask with the origin of that knowledge, I’m looking for an explanation for how intelligence results in a designer possessing it that knowledge. What is that explanation?
Specifically I’m looking for criticism along the lines of “The explanation for that knowledge is X, Y and Z. However, evolution doesn’t fit that explanation.” This is in contrast to an appeal to induction by saying “every time we’ve experienced knowledge, it has been accompanied by intelligent agents.” and since the future (and distant past) resembles the (recent) past, the designer of organisms was an intelligent agent.
But the future is unlike the past in a vast number of ways. It’s our explanations of how the world works that indicates what we will experience. For example, if our long chain of independently obtained explanations for how our sun works indicated it would suddenly grow cold when its fuel supply is exhausted and that will occur in roughly 4.6 billon billion years after it was formed, we wouldn’t expect the sun to rise tomorrow despite having experienced it rising every day for the entirety of human existence.
In the absence of such an explanation, it’s unclear how you can say a designer is the best explanation for that knowledge. Not to mention that a designer merely being an authoritative source of knowledge is a bad explanation.
However, I can see why a theists wouldn’t find that explanation problematic as theism is based on the philosophical idea that knowledge in specific spheres comes from God, who is an authoritative source. As does empiricism, which says that knowledge comes from observations. These two views simply exchange one authoritative source for another.
[The straw an of] “Atoms or random chance isn’t an authoritative source of knowledge” is a bad criticism because it’s applicable to everything. An authoritative source of knowledge has no explanation. It “just was” complete with that knowledge. ID’s designer is abstract and has no such explanation. It is capable of designing things by nature of having the vague property of “design”, which is basically a tautology. At best, this is the Aristotelianism in the sense of saying fire has the property of dryness. Again, the flaw in creationism, ID and inductivism is that the explanation for knowledge is either inexplicable (supernatural), absent or irrational.
On the other hand, I’m saying that the explanation for how human designers create the knowledge they posses is variation and criticism. We [people] create both explanatory and non-explanatory knowledge. Evolution does fit this explanation, in that the non-explanatory knowledge in genes is created by variation and selection. Both fall under the universal explanation for the growth of knowledge.
critical rationalist
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
HeKS writes,
I think what jdk is trying to say is that while the existence of objective morality might necessitate the existence of God, the existence of God does not necessitate the existence of objective morality.
Yes, although I (following kf) I am not using the word god because that carries a lot of connotations that I am avoiding: The root-level IS that I am positing is not one that consciously, willfully takes an active interest in the specific events of the world, which is usually implied by the word God. It is, however, a constantly creative and nurturing force in the world, broadly and pervasively, in ways which we can not apprehend nor comprehend.jdk
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
Don't be so condescending, wjm.
The scenario I have sketched posits free, responsible beings, but without any external source of morals. However, to say they would be amoral would be wrong. Such beings would recognize the need for morals and other socially normative behaviors, and would create such in conjunction with the community of fellow human beings around them. However, there would be nothing in the universe that would care: this would all just be between human beings.
And, standard disclaimer for this discussion, I am merely arguing that such a scenario is not a logically impossible, incoherent, metaphysics.jdk
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
WJM #145
I think what jdk is trying to say is that while the existence of objective morality might necessitate the existence of God, the existence of God does not necessitate the existence of objective morality.
I think there are reasons to believe that's ultimately wrong, but it's not a stupid question or anything, and it's less cut-and-dried than the need for a necessary being to ground reality. Of course, theists rarely argue that objective morality must exist because God does. Instead they argue the more obvious point that if objective morality exists then God does, since the existence of objective morality is something that most people want to affirm and even those who don't want to affirm that it exists tend to live as though it does.HeKS
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Here is my very succinct argument as to why I think so-called moral subjectivism is highly irrational.
I have no obligation (epistemically or morally) to accept ungrounded personal (subjective) opinions. On the other hand, interpersonal morality requires interpersonal moral obligation (what we ought or ought not to do.) Therefore, it is impossible to base any kind of interpersonal morality on ungrounded personal opinions.
We can further conclude that what is referred to as “moral subjectivism,” cannot provide a viable basis for interpersonal morality. Indeed at best, the term “moral subjectivism” is an oxymoron; at worst, it’s just plain moronic.
From what I can see so-called moral subjectivism is just a euphemism for self-righteousness. People use euphemisms when they don’t want to face the real implications of their beliefs.john_a_designer
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
If we take my analysis further, if there are no free, responsible beings in a world without moral oughts, then no "oughts" of any kind exist, because there is no "should" in such a world - only things doing whatever "is" dictates.
"Should" only exists in relationship to a being that can freely choose one thing or another in order to acquire a goal. Without that freedom, there is only "is". So the question moves to: can free, responsible (meaning, independently responsible for their actions) beings all be amoral - meaning, they exist in an amoral universe.
Well, something to ponder for a while.William J Murray
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
jdk says:
This is an instructive example. One ought not step over the cliff because we don’t want to get hurt. That is an “ought” generated by us in respect to our own needs. The root-level IS need not care at all whether we get hurt, but we do.
Think it through a little more, jdk. Are you saying "I don't want to get hurt" is an "ought"? Nope - that's the intention of the person who meets up with the cliff. Having the intetion of not being hurt doesn't tell them what to do to not be hurt. Try again.
“Oughts” come from human beings, and are in respect to our needs and desires in the world.
So, if I need and desire to get to the bottom of the cliff, what I ought do is entirely generated by me? Can my "ought" be "jump and land softly"? If not, why not, if I am generating all the ought?
It is not logically impossible to accept this and yet hold that the root-level of reality doesn’t care at all, and thus adds nothing to the OUGHT that we ourselves generates.
If my intention is to fly, can I just make up whatever oughts I wish, or must I investigate and extract my oughts out of physics and the physical world?
Like I said, you're not thinking it through. If there is no is, there is no ought. Do you think an intention is an is or an ought? Do you think the physical world is an is or an ought?
If the intention and the world are both "is", then from where comes the ought? It comes from the relationship between an is of existence and an is of intent. Whatever my intent is, what I ought do to bring it to fruition is sewn into the nature of the world. There may be many ways to do it, but nonetheless, every possible way is indeed sewn into the nature of the world.
I'm not sure what difference it makes if a creator could possibly have created a world with no moral oughts. What difference does it make if it is logically possible or not?William J Murray
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
Jdk:
This is a legitimate philosophical position, and not a logical impossibility.
You should have learned by now. Whatever does not jive with KF's peculiar world view is a logical impossibility and anyone who says otherwise is amoral, insane, enabling a holocaust or a liar. :)Armand Jacks
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
@jdk #133
Hmmm, HeKS. It seems like AJ’s statement, “That does not preclude a world-root IS for other purposes” addresses the concern you have.
Yes, I did notice that statement from AJ, and it does provide some further clarification of the point he is trying to make. However, I was trying to point out to him that the way he had previously been framing / describing the issue would unsurprisingly lead to precisely the kind of response he had gotten from KF. In other words, even though it was clear that he was 'talking about morality', he continually seemed to be asking what a world would look like if it didn't have any OUGHTs because there was no world-root IS to ground them. KF response to that way of framing the issue was and is perfectly reasonable, and yet AJ was accusing him of lying for having said that he answered AJ's question ... even though he really had answered it. So I was just trying to get AJ to see why KF had responded as he did and that it really was a legitimate response to the way he had framed his question. He can doubt KF's motives in the way he answered, but suspicion of bad motives seems unnecessary to me, since the response was perfectly reasonable.
Moving on...
I think this confusion has, if I dare use the word, distracted us from what is my main point, and I believe AJ’s also:
A root-level of reality which grounds what IS, including life, but does not ground OUGHT–which is supremely unconcerned about specific events and behaviors in the world at all levels–is not a logical impossibility.
If we accept your point that the IS part is necessary, what is your position? Is a root-level IS without an OUGHT an incoherent impossibility or a logical possibility?
Well, I don't think that the coherence of that proposition is anywhere near as obvious as you seem to believe. I think there are several problems with the idea, both logical and empirical, and at multiple levels, and I think KF has actually touched on some of these. That said, I have to run out for a few hours, so I'll try to offer more thoughts on the subject either later tonight or tomorrow.
Take care,
HeKSHeKS
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
KF@139, What a steaming pile of nonsense.
Who is saying that we are not governed by our conscience? Our morals? All we are discussing is a where these morals come from. And then you rant about the consequences of what would happen if our morality was subjective. Using real life examples to do so. Don't you see the irony in this? You are claiming that morality is objective and then provide evidence of it not being objective. Your goal is at the other end of the pitch. Shouldn't you be shooting for it rather than st your own goal?Armand Jacks
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
As the old joke goes, there are two kinds of people in the world: those that think there are two kinds of people in the world, as those that don't.
kf is the former: all is black-and-white
He says,
Oughtness in the end is either the law of our nature as responsibly and rationally free creatures [which has to go down to root reality to find firm grounding] or else we see grand delusion utterly undermining mindedness.
Those are not the only two options. I've mentioned a third possibility that is logically possible: we are conscious, mindful creatures who are faced with the task of deciding how we want to act without recourse to anything beyond ourself. The universe doesn't care, but we do, and therefore we are forced by our very existence to make choices about the norms (moral and otherwise) that we wish to live by in concert with our significant others, however we may define them. This is a legitimate philosophical position, and not a logical impossibility.jdk
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
My criticism on UD has always been that the explanation for knowledge in creationism, ID and inductivism is either supernatural (inexplicable), absent or irrational, not that there is no independent objective reality.
Your problem CR is two-fold (at least).
1) You deliberately force biological ID to be an explanation for an ultimate source of "knowledge", which it was never intended to be. Biological ID is concerned with understanding the origin of Life on Earth. By doing this, you allow yourself the intellectual freedom to ignore the physical evidence that ID presents towards its actual goal.
2) You posit evolution as the source of "knowledge" required to explain the origin of life on earth. When it is pointed out to you that evolution is physically incapable of being that source, you merely ignore the criticism and start all over again. (see #1)
You are confused and locked into a cyclical pattern. It appears that you will need either amnesia or a strong personal will to break free. A possible alternative is to stop avoiding criticism. This will include you not merely repeating erroneous statements as if they remain valid.Upright BiPed
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
F/N: Again, observe the patterns at work:
notice how we see the implicit appeal to the government of OUGHT in many objections above intended to promote amorality: we are to be bound by the oughts they wish to impose willy-nilly and at whim; multiply that by power seized and sitting in charge of the Lubyankas, Checkists and Gulags as well as firing squads and see where that gets you, other than what Cuban dissidents report as going on all night in the early 1960’s in Castro’s Gulags: Viva Christo el Rey, BANG, repeat, repeat, repeat (until c 1963 they gagged those about to be murdered for the crime of wanting to be free in mind and conscience). That direct contradiction, that they cannot even sustain an argument without implying the binding nature of ought — at least for those they wish to domineer over — should underscore to us just how impossibly incoherent the world they want to fantasise is. And of course they never want to be accountable before the bloody, tyrannical, oppressive history that such fantasies have repeatedly led to. Just as Plato warned against long since. Until the objectors can show us how they get to trustworthy reason without responsible, rational freedom, we can set aside their fantasies as utterly fallacious and ill-informed destructive secularist utopianism.
Oughtness in the end is either the law of our nature as responsibly and rationally free creatures [which has to go down to root reality to find firm grounding] or else we see grand delusion utterly undermining mindedness. This, is simply not going to be faced by locked in ideologues, but we can take due note i/l/o where such repeatedly ends. KFkairosfocus
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
To clarify, my criticism is your explanation as to how you know what are objectively morally correct choices to make when faced with moral problems, not whether some choices are objectively worse than others.
My criticism on UD has always been that the explanation for knowledge in creationism, ID and inductivism is either supernatural (inexplicable), absent or irrational, not that there is no independent objective reality.
In this case, your explanation for moral knowledge is a supposed supernatural means (our conscience) to interpret a source of knowledge (the fabric of our existence). Being self-evident implies they are immune from criticism, which is immoral.
Actually, I said deciding that some ideas are immune from criticism, while others are not, is arbitrary. This is implied in the dichotomy of basic (self evident) beliefs that can play the role of a foundation for non-basic beliefs. However, it’s not arbitrary if we tentatively adopt hard to vary explanations that we currently have no good criticism of.
Specifically, when I suggested that all ideas are subject to criticism, why did you selected identity as an example of a supposedly self-evident truth, as opposed to other possible candidates? It was an idea you tried to criticize, but came back with none. If it was immune to criticism, you would have no reason to have selected it as an example as opposed to other ideas. The fact that identity is a useful idea that plays a hard to vary role in all of our current, best explanations, including communication, is a criticism to the idea that the idea of identity is itself wrong. IOW, this is just more criticism.
Again, not having a good criticism of an idea not the same as assuming it is immune to criticism, which is what is necessary to be a foundation of knowledge that plays a unilateral role.
Replace "identity" in the above with any supposedly self-evident moral truth.critical rationalist
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
@WJM
Humans operating in the physical universe don’t have an “infallible” means of doing anything. Fallibility is in our human nature, so you’re applying a standard that is both unreasonable and hyperskeptical.
That's my point. You haven’t actually solved the problem. The epistemological view that there can be no knowledge without a foundation is foundationalism. I’m not a foundationalist. You are. A chain is no stronger than it’s weakest link and you haven’t removed infallible humans from the chain. For example…
We’ve answered this many times, but you seem to be immune to accepting the answer as an answer. There are objective moral values and duties that we ought adhere to; it is our position that they are literally sewn into the fabric of existence. Some are self-evident and easy to recognize, like “it is wrong to torture the innocent for one’s personal pleasure”. It takes no reasoning or critical thinking to sort that out; every sane person on Earth recognizes this as true.
By easy to recognize, you seem to be suggesting that there is some way to derive them from some form of experience. But this simply pushes the problem up a level because you have to infallibly identity that source (experience) and infallibly interpret it.
Because they are sewn into the fabric of our existence, moral issues are usually recognized via a spiritual sensory capacity – the conscience – much as our other senses apprehend various aspects of the the physical world. I refer to the moral aspect of the world the “moral landscape”.
So, apparently, there is an infallible source of morality, the “fabric of our existence”, which is infallibly interpreted by some inexplicable means by our conscience. It is at least in some ways infallible because we can identify self-evident truths. It acts a last resort which cannot lead us into error.
Some are self-evident and easy to recognize, like “it is wrong to torture the innocent for one’s personal pleasure”. It takes no reasoning or critical thinking to sort that out; every sane person on Earth recognizes this as true.
Again, the term “recognize” implies some form of deriving moral knowledge from some kind of experience.
When the mind is uncertain or confused about its moral obligation in a situation, that is where critical reasoning comes in – to sort through the issue and see how more obvious rules might apply to that situation.
We use human reasoning and criticism to determine when those basic or self-evident truths would be applicable.
That’s because you don’t understand what is being discussed. You think what is being discussed is how, in practice, the moral objectivist is qualitatively different from the moral subjectivist. .
Except, I’m not a moral relativist. And I’m the one who doesn’t understand what is being discussed?
The answer is: they may not look any different at all, but that’s not the point. That they might “look” the same is entirely irrelevant to the point. That one cannot tell the difference between Joe and an android replica of Joe doesn’t mean Joe and the android are “the same thing” for all intents and purposes.
When faced with concrete moral problems we have to make choices. And we base those choices on moral knowledge. So, the intent and purpose is helping people making those choices. I mean, isn’t that the point? If not, what is?
What the debate is about is what each premise means to the state of our existence and to the nature of discussion and debate about such things if true.
You are conflating having knowledge of an objectivity true moral value or duty with whether a value or duty is objectivity true. If you don’t have knowledge of it, how you can apply it to solve moral problems. What good is it if you can’t use it?
Like all knowledge, moral knowledge is only relevant in the context of a problem. For example, we start out with a concrete problem, such as unplanned or potentially life threatening pregnancies. Or even how we can better resolve disputes about how to solve moral problems. Again, my point is, you’ve merely pushed that problem up a level without improving it.
“I believe moral authority X is the accurate and complete set of objectivity true values and duties and that set contains duty Y” doesn’t help us solve problems any more than “I believe Y is an objectivity true moral duty”
IOW, if moral subjectivism is actually the truth the nature of our existence,that means one set of things as the necessary logical consequences of such a state of being.
I’m not a relativist about knowledge, moral or otherwise. I’m suggesting you’re mistaken about how moral knowledge grows. And yes, what you’re advocating has necessary consequences, which I’ve mentioned above. Specifically,…
Again, the idea that any moral knowledge is immune to criticism is immoral because it excludes the possibility that progress can be made in these areas and others. Being fallible, we should expect all of our knowledge to contain errors to some degree and be incomplete. It is immoral because it discounts and even vilifies our means of correcting errors.
All knowledge grows though conjecture and criticism. Even moral knowledge. That means we guess about how to solve moral problems, then criticize our guesses. Do they actually solve the moral problems we encounter? How can we better solve them? For example, one solution to unwanted and life threatening pregnancies would be to transfer an embryo or fetus to an artificial womb or to a woman who wants to become pregnant, but cannot. Unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us from doing so is knowing how. But it’s not clear that you even see this as a genuine problem to be solved, as opposed to some kind of test that people are subjected to.
If moral subjectivism is true, then at a fundamental level I have no logical reason to care about morality per se at all, but rather only care about how my actions are perceived by society and how such actions might best benefit me.
Why should I care about “your opinion” of what is objectively morally correct? Without having knowledge of what is objectively morally correct, how can you apply it to make choices when faced wth concrete moral problems? Human reasoning and criticism always comes first.
However, that’s not how good, sane humans actually act in the real world. We do what is right regardless of if anyone is watching and do it even if think it will ultimately not benefit us. We will do what we know is right even if society disagrees and it will cause us social problems. We will even violate the law if for our moral duties if they are clear enough. Some of us will actually sacrifice our own lives for the cause of what is right, even in the teeth of public disgrace and humiliation. Good, sane humans always act – and must act – as if morality is objective in nature, as if by promoting the good they are serving something greater than themselves, their society, or even the majority of humanity if the majority of humanity is doing what is wrong.
Again, I’m a moral realist, not a moral relativist. My criticism is regarding appeals to authoritative sources of moral knowledge, not whether there are objectively better choices in moral situations than others, which that behavior is compatible with.critical rationalist
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
I thought that it was clear that I was talking about morality which, presumably is limited to humans. None of this has to do with whether the universe is designed. It has to do with whether or not human morality must be part of this design. Which, clearly, it doesn't. The earth would progress quite nicely without humans on it.Armand Jacks
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
wjm writes, "If gravity and physics represent the “is”, ought one step off the edge of a canyon if they want to avoid getting hurt?"
This is an instructive example. One ought not step over the cliff because we don't want to get hurt. That is an "ought" generated by us in respect to our own needs. The root-level IS need not care at all whether we get hurt, but we do.
"Oughts" come from human beings, and are in respect to our needs and desires in the world. It is not logically impossible to accept this and yet hold that the root-level of reality doesn't care at all, and thus adds nothing to the OUGHT that we ourselves generates.
And, for clarity, I'll point out that the subject at hand is whether it is logically impossible for the root-level IS to not also entail OUGHT, not whether that is the case or not.
Logical impossibility is the subject.
Noted in edit: I see that you say such as world is possible, so that satisfies me as to your answer.jdk
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
jdk:
Why do you think whether or not the root "is" is "concerned" with our behavior has anything at all to do with whether or not there are oughts derived from the "is"?
If gravity and physics represent the "is", ought one step off the edge of a canyon if they want to avoid getting hurt? Ought one dive deeper than they have the lung capacity to survive? Are gravity and physics "concerned" about your actions?
Whether or not God is personally concerned with any of our actions is utterly irrelevant to the fact that the world-root "is" nature of God and what God has created necessarily generates an entire system of oughts and ought-nots.
The more precise question is: could a creator have created a world where there are no moral oughts, only physically relational oughts? Possibly, but that is not the world any sane person experiences, now is it?William J Murray
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Hmmm, HeKS. It seems like AJ's statement, "That does not preclude a world-root IS for other purposes" addresses the concern you have. I think this confusion has, if I dare use the word, distracted us from what is my main point, and I believe AJ's also:
A root-level of reality which grounds what IS, including life, but does not ground OUGHT–which is supremely unconcerned about specific events and behaviors in the world at all levels–is not a logical impossibility.
If we accept your point that the IS part is necessary, what is your position? Is a root-level IS without an OUGHT an incoherent impossibility or a logical possibility?jdk
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Armand Jacks #120
HeKS: Now, I think that maybe what you mean to say is something like ‘imagine a world in which the world-root IS does not ground any OUGHTs
But the original question was about there not being a world-root IS to ground OUGHT. That does not preclude a world-root IS for other purposes. I have been over this many times with KF. He knows exactly what I was asking, but refused to answer because of fear of the inconsistency of any follow-on arguments he could make.
And, again, that bolded part is the problem. Even though I think I know what you mean (assuming it is as I've identified in the quote above and as jdk has described), the way you are framing the issue is by positing that there is no OUGHT because there is no world-root IS to ground it. Presented this way, KF is correct in saying that ANY world lacking a world-root necessary being is an incoherent impossibility and so you can never even get to the point of considering the possible existence of OUGHT, since the absence of a sufficient world-root means there is nothing at all in existence, and so obviously there would be no OUGHT.HeKS
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
to JAD: In 58, kf described a fundamental issue: "we need a world-root IS that inherently grounds OUGHT."
Later, in 79, kf write, "I argued that the sort of world imagined by AJ [one in which there is a root-level IS without an OUGHT] in his questioning is an incoherent impossible world, not a credibly possible world."
That is a strong statement, and a key issue which I am now engaging in, and focused on.
kf has lots to say about what he thinks the dire consequences of such a world might, but nothing to say about why such a world would be logically impossible.
I have made it clear that I don't expect kf to address the issue: that is obvious based on this morning's posts by him. But I do want to make it clear that I have seriously addressed his comment in 79, and he has not offered any argument for his assertion.jdk
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
I think my side (those who are sympathetic with traditional theism) unfortunately, has allowed our atheist interlocutors to take the discussion off the rails. The key question is: does atheistic materialism/ naturalism provide a sufficient foundation for interpersonal moral values and obligations?
That is the question that no one from their side has answered. Why haven’t they? Is it because they can’t?john_a_designer
April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
AJ has been a little strong about my proposal. :-)
1. Like kf, I refrain from calling the root-level of reality "god", as that has connotations that I am trying to avoid.
2. I know AJ was being flippant, but I'm serious about this: a root-level of reality could be responsible for all we see in the world, including potential and possible non-material aspects such as consciousness and even abstract thought, and yet have no concern whatsoever for the particular way anything played out. In whatever way such a root-level might be aware of what is happening in the universe (which is an additional speculation about its nature), it would be completely detached from any particular results arising from the ISness that it is responsible for.
This is not a logical impossibility: an IS without an OUGHT.jdk
It is almost — almost — amusing but then quite sad to see how objectors to design theory play with logic and worldviews issues, then run away when the substantial issues are taken up.
FFT5: The implications of the familiar extraordinary.
In this thread, there are arguments [posted] that . . . as an observable phenomenon . . . show that we are capable of significant choice and reasoning, i.e. we are responsibly, rationally, significantly free, conscious, en-conscienced, morally governed, communicating creatures. (Indeed, those trying to object are operating on the implicit premise that we are urged by conscience toward the truth and the right; and if we were not, this world would descend into a dark, chaotic ruin in short order. It is a good thing that something urges us on to the truth and the right.)
Locke, in Sec 5 of his essay on human understanding (and yes, I add scriptural references i/l/o his cites and allusions), aptly comments:
All of that is in the context of rebuking a lazy, sneeringly supercilious selective hyperskepticism that will scorn more than adequate warrant for ethical theism, because it shuns the premise of moral government: accountability on plainly recognisable duty, before our Maker, Lord, Governor and utterly just Judge.
But, that is a bit quick off the mark.
There is no recognition of meaning, no perception, no purpose, just blind cause-effect chains externally arranged to yield the solution to certain differential equations. GIGO, and all that. Likewise, the old Pentium chip neither knew nor understood nor cared about the wired in errors that led to the early recall. And, a neural network is not in principle any different. (BTW this points to serious design inferences on the relevant hardware and software in bio-cybernetics systems, but that is a secondary point.)
The primary point has been highlighted by Reppert:
In short, a physicalist account of mindedness (much less, guidance by light of conscience) faces an ugly, impassable gulch.
In effect, rocks — even refined and carefully organised rocks — have no dreams; computation is not intentional contemplation.
At this point, evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers — and nope you cannot properly, conveniently open up rhetorical daylight between some vague agnosticism and full-blown evo mat to deflect this — face an impassable gulch.
One, that brings out what was already highlighted: mindedness, consciousness, reasoned inference and conscience’s compass-pointing alike are all reduced to grand delusion on evo mat premises.
Grand delusion would collapse responsible, rational freedom and so falls into irretrievable incoherence and absurdity. Thence, the necessary falsity Pearcey and others have pointed to.
But in reality, rational, responsible, conscience-compass bearing consciousness is our first undeniable empirical fact. The fact through which we perceive all others.
This is the familiar extraordinary phenomenon, the pivot on which the project of building a sound worldview turns. In effect, unless a worldview is compatible with our being responsible, reasonable, conscience-guided and significantly free beings, it cannot even sit to the table for a discussion of comparative difficulties. It is silenced by being inconsistent with rationality. It is patently, irretrievably absurd and necessarily false. (Evo mat and fellow traveller ideologies, I am looking straight at you.)>>