Materialists Believe “The Earth Orbits the Sun” May Not Be Objectively True.

_{Barry Arrington

August 21, 2016

Intelligent Design}

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

Predictably, in response to my last post materialists (this time Rationaly’s bane and jdk) trotted out this old chestnut: “People have been wrong about morality; therefore moral truth cannot possibly be objective.”

*palm forehead* This canard has been refuted so many times I have lost count. I will try one more time.

RB and jdk, nearly everyone once thought that the sun orbited the earth. Now we know without the slightest doubt that just the opposite is the case. The earth orbits the sun. Is the fact that the earth orbits the sun objectively true? Of course it is. Now, try to follow the logic here. It is not a difficult logical chain, but you people seem to have a hard time with it, so I will go slow.

In the past people have been nearly universally wrong about at least one objective truth (i.e., the earth orbits the sun).
Therefore, the fact that people have been universally wrong about a thing does not compel the conclusion that truths about the thing in question are necessarily subjective

In philosophy-speak, you have made a category error. You are confusing ontology with epistemology. A thing’s being (its ontological status) is independent of what we know or do not know about it (its epistemological status).

The earth objectively orbits the sun (ontology). That fact was just as objectively true for the thousands of years when nearly everyone was wrong about it (epistemology).

Now, repeat after me: The fact that people have been wrong about moral truths even for thousands of years does not compel the conclusion that morality is subjective any more than the fact that people have been wrong about astronomical truths even for thousands of years compels the conclusion that astronomy is subjective.

BTW, if you disagree, then the title of the OP becomes apropos.

Comments

Wow! This is quite a discussion. I would like to see what you folks would do with an article like "An Atom or a Nucleus?" It takes the position that the thing that has virtually all the mass of the atom, and which accounts for all the properties of the atom, is actually the atom itself, not some sort of "nucleus" of something. This goes contrary to what we have been taught for the past 100 years. And it illuminates again the issue of ontology vs epistemology. The link is http://scripturalphysics.org/4v4a/ATMORNUC.html If we are wrong about THAT, we could be wrong about A LOT of things, even in an objective science like physics.BrianFraser_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Seversky, truth says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. Reality is what is. Truth is whatever accurately describes such. And, there is no inherent problem with agency (thus, mind) as root of reality. Indeed, this is our best explanation, esp in a world with moral government as an integral part of the responsible rational freedom we need just to argue seriously such as in this thread. Where, best explanation on comparative difficulties across live options, is not an arbitrary question begging assertion or blind belief. It is a reasonable, responsible view. KFkairosfocus_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 34

The claim “that people have been wrong about moral truths even for thousands of years” assumes that the existence of moral truths that people can be wrong about has been established. Yet this is the bone of contention between us. You are assuming that which has yet to be proven.

Nope. First, BA is, even trivially correct, that reality is before our ability to warrant our claims about it on whatever evidence we do or do not have in hand.
I agree, although we should note that BA77 appears to believe, based on his understanding of quantum theory, that consciousness precedes objective reality.
The general issue is, reality exists, and truth accurately describes it.
Essentially, yes. Although, again, it is worth noting that truth resides in our descriptions of reality and that descriptions obviously require a describer. This means, of course, no describer, no descriptions, no truth.
Now, the issue properly is, are we morally governed beings — as we appear to be from how we quarrel to how we disagree to how we find ourselves compelled towards the truth and the right.
I'm not clear what you mean by "moral governance". If it means that human beings in society are bound by moral codes, that is not contentious. To me, the real question is whether this moral governance is democratic or autocratic? Is it imposed by divine command or is it constructed by and assented to by the governed?
To wit, if we were to presume this widespread pervasive phenomenon delusional, it would instantly let grand delusion loose across our life as cognitive agents, that is it would undermine even the ability to argue as here.
I can't speak for other atheist/materialists but I don't regard it as delusional but I do regard morality as subjective as I see no evidence that it exists outside human consciousness.
That points to sobering conclusions about the nature of reality, as the only place where OUGHT can be grounded is by its being inextricably fused into the root of reality. (This is how the IS-OUGHT gap is bridged.)
What does it mean to claim that "ought" is "inextricably fused into the root of reality"? I'm afraid you don't bridge the IS-OUGHT gap with rhetoric.
This instantly rules out evolutionary materialism as a serious worldview, as such simply cannot ground ought. Bosons, fermions and interactions, or electrochemistry in neural networks programmed by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity are simply not under moral obligation, but instead under blind forces such as those outlined
I doubt that there are any materialists, being aware of the problem of the IS-OUGHT gap, who would disagree with the proposition that "ought" cannot be grounded in objective, material reality. That doesn't preclude a materialistic worldview that includes moral injunctions that are grounded in common human needs and interests.
Such an IS has only a very limited list of serious candidates, indeed only one: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. This may be unpalatable to many who seem to have a visceral hostility to God.
I don't know of any long-term atheists who are angry at or have a visceral hostility to God. It would be as irrational as hating the Dark Lord Sauron or Emperor Palpatine. As for that research that found that atheists were more likely to be angry at God, a closer look reveals that the anger was mostly felt by people who had been believers but were turned to atheism by some tragic and/or traumatic event in their lives. Settled, long-term atheists didn't indicate anger towards God which is what I would expect.
So, we have very good reason to acknwledge moral truths to be well warranted, and to further see that there is a reciprocity of oughts between beings of like morally governed nature, thence we see why rights obtain to life, liberty, innocent reputation etc.
Moral injunctions prescribe how people ought to behave towards one another, they are not descriptions of objective reality so, by the correspondence theory of truth, they are not capable of being either true or false.Seversky_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

O, you are right of course, thanks for the correction, as if there were any correction possible. :)bornagain77_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77
Bornagain77:
Rationalitys bane: “The words “I” bolded above speaks volumes.”
Exactly whom is this “I” that you are referring to in your sentence? I do wish you materialists/naturalists would at least be consistent in your writings towards your worldview beliefs. To avoid confusion, “You” should have instead written: “The words “the illusion of I” bolded above speaks volumes.” But then again, even being able to grasp the possibility that you may actually be a ‘neuronal illusion’ requires a perspective that is outside the material order.
Pure poetry :) However there might be a minor complication. Which contenders are there for the title "The Cause Of The Bolding Of The Words"? I would put it to you that — under materialism — there is no special central position for neurons or 'neuronal illusions' in the causal story. Like all the players in the long causal chain — starting at the big bang, leading up to the bolded words — they simply act in compliance with the laws of nature. So, why give neurons any special attention? IOWs, under materialism, it makes equal sense to say e.g. "Firefox 47.0.1 bolded the words".Origenes_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

BA77 Your #42 Don't confuse Rationality's bane, there's a good chap. He's made a good start in recognising that he is the bane of reason. An excellent starting point, I know you'll agree.Axel_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Delusional materialists. Thinking themselves wise, they became fools.Truth Will Set You Free_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

RB, it is clear that we are morally governed and that you have tried to appeal to that above. Either that is grounded in the roots of reality or is lets loose grand delusion undermining reasoning, argument, our inner life. Thus, it must be grounded. Where, evolutionary materialistic scientism cannot, as say Hawthorne summed up. But, ethical theism does, the only worldview that does. As for your repeated twisting of words and projection of false accusations that I imply that atheists on the whole are socio-/psycho- paths, the very context in which I spoke to such as deeply disturbed exceptions to the general pattern of the testimony of conscience in our inner life suffices to show that the talking point is utterly without merit. However, it seems that the visceral hostility to God too many atheists have is often turned into trying to find ways to rhetorically taint theists. No, I do not owe you an apology for your twisting reasonably clear descriptions of rare exceptions to a dominant pattern into an imaginary accusation. Instead, in addition to addressing the merits, -- with all due respect -- you clearly need to read more reasonably, in context. That said, it is quite clear that you acknowledge moral government by implication of trying to quarrel and demand apologies. You need to face the grounding challenge of bridging the IS-OUGHT gap. Which, your scheme of thought simply cannot. KF PS: I have pointed to the core issue, only some of the time is there time to do a point by point rebuttal. Nothing above from you shows an adequate response to the core matters. As for the difference between being able to accurately describe reality and currently being able to warrant truth claims, that is almost trivial. Moral truth can exist in the face of error. And moral error, when shown to be so, implies moral truth. Where, to deny our moral governance ends in absurdity. This demands grounding.kairosfocus_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

1. First of all, the original argument is an analogy, which is considered the strongest argument and the weakest proof. Reconsider
“People have been wrong about morality; therefore moral truth cannot possibly be objective.”
Have people ever been wrong about something within the realm of science? Does this impugn the scientific method in any way or it objectivity? Of course not. The statement and its permutations is nonsense. 2. To insist that the earth orbits the sun rather than the reverse is false, and demonstrates a fundamental and profound ignorance of orbital mechanics. Both masses deform space-time and thus they orbit each other. 3. According to current inflationary theory, the entire universe once occupied a single point. So which of the stars and planets in the universe is NOT at the center? -QQuerius_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

RB:
Let’s be honest here. I did not twist your words. You just don’t like the logical consequences of your words. Just man-up and admit it. Even if it was unintentional, it was extremely offensive. A simple apology for a poor choice of words would suffice. I don’t expect to receive one, but it would be appreciated.
And did KF, being the upstanding, honest individual he claims to be, apologize for the unintentional inference of mental illness towards myself?
RB, doubling down, projecting and more.
Uh, no. He was accusational, followed by a PS, a PPS, and a PPPS. All I did was ask him to acknowledge that it was inappropriate to infer mental illness for those who disagree with him about objective morality.
PPS: Just to remind of what is being obfuscated by the rhetoric of twisting, here is 43:...The point is, if such a key and pervasive sense of being governed by and accountable to ought is false to reality then this is a grand delusion spreading across our inner life.
Just to remind anyone who bothers to actually read these posts, I answered KF's challenge. In detail. And he has not responded to it. Until he does so, I don't see any point in continuing a discussion where I provide honest responses to his questions and he responds to mine with inferences of mental illness and doubling down.Rationalitys bane_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

PPPS: The original (lest it be lost in a blizzard of toxic distractors, at 34:
Seversly, 4 (attn RB, JDK, JC et al), re:
The claim “that people have been wrong about moral truths even for thousands of years” assumes that the existence of moral truths that people can be wrong about has been established. Yet this is the bone of contention between us. You are assuming that which has yet to be proven.
Nope. First, BA is, even trivially correct, that reality is before our ability to warrant our claims about it on whatever evidence we do or do not have in hand. The general issue is, reality exists, and truth accurately describes it. Our presence or absence of objectively grounded knowledge of it is strictly irrelevant to the matter, reality exists. It is also trivially true that in cases, we can describe reality as existing, thence “error exists,” which is undeniably true and knowable so schemes of thought that undermine truth and knowledge in general are all falsified at one sweep. (This includes any species of radical relativism.) Now, the issue properly is, are we morally governed beings — as we appear to be from how we quarrel
[--> do not overlook that the (unjustified) demand for an apology above for the crime of being wrenched out of context to set up a strawman caricature, itself exemplifies that in quarrelling we imply that we are under moral government . . . i.e. RB shreds his own case by his behaviour (unless he thinks we can be cynically manipulated, gulled or intimidated)]
to how we disagree to how we find ourselves compelled towards the truth and the right. Such a broad appearance carries with it a presumption of core truth, on pain of the consequences of its denial. To wit, if we were to presume this widespread pervasive phenomenon delusional, it would instantly let grand delusion loose across our life as cognitive agents, that is it would undermine even the ability to argue as here. So, we know on pain of instant, patent self referential absurdity that we indeed are morally governed. That points to sobering conclusions about the nature of reality, as the only place where OUGHT can be grounded is by its being inextricably fused into the root of reality. (This is how the IS-OUGHT gap is bridged.) This instantly rules out evolutionary materialism as a serious worldview, as such simply cannot ground ought. Bosons, fermions and interactions, or electrochemistry in neural networks programmed by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity are simply not under moral obligation, but instead under blind forces such as those outlined. Such an IS has only a very limited list of serious candidates, indeed only one: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. This may be unpalatable to many who seem to have a visceral hostility to God. But hostility does not change the force of the logic on the key facts. Facts, that seem to be habitually overlooked or even suppressed. So, we have very good reason to acknwledge moral truths to be well warranted, and to further see that there is a reciprocity of oughts between beings of like morally governed nature, thence we see why rights obtain to life, liberty, innocent reputation etc. None of this is particularly new. But we live in a day where it is often dismissed with visceral hostility. Not good. KF PS: Someone was trotting out the outdated problem of evil, and needs as a 101 to cf here on: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_gdvsevl
kairosfocus_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

RB, doubling down, projecting and more. Severe disorders are almost by definition rare. (Enabling behaviours would be far more common as a problem.) I have already clarified -- actually, corrected your gross error of twisting words -- for reasonable responsible people. Meanwhile, the issue in the main lies ducked and dodged. Telling, but in the end quite sad. Plato's point stands. KF PS: The point I made stands, the deeply disturbed are the exceptions who -- because something is severely mal-formed -- do not reliably sense the voice of conscience. (NB: I used psycho for the apparently congenital, socio for those damaged by life experiences. Some use the two as synonymous, and there are debates.) PPS: Just to remind of what is being obfuscated by the rhetoric of twisting, here is 43:
RB, we both know and count on the fact of consciousness termed conscience as a key part of the inner life of normal people. We both know that sociopathy and psychopathy are severe disorders that are destructive. We further realise that this sense affects our whole thought life, not just on traditional moral issues but on matters of reasoning, warrant and the like; whereby we find ourselves urged to truth and right. You and your ilk consistently back away from or dodge the long known import of evolutionary materialism, that might and manipulation make “right.” The point is, if such a key and pervasive sense of being governed by and accountable to ought is false to reality then this is a grand delusion spreading across our inner life. Living in a moral Plato’s cave. This instantly would undermine our entire life of the mind. Grand delusion. KF
The point being made is explicit, stated and follows on the context of the primary argument -- warrant for the objectivity of moral government by ought and of moral truth. The attempted denial ends in self-referential incoherence by implying grand delusion.kairosfocus_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

KF:
RB, twisting words to find an offense that is not there.
Let me repeat the beginning of the comment that I responded to.
RB, we both know and count on the fact of consciousness termed conscience as a key part of the inner life of normal people. We both know that sociopathy and psychopathy are severe disorders that are destructive. We further realise that this sense affects our whole thought life, not just on traditional moral issues but on matters of reasoning, warrant and the like; whereby we find ourselves urged to truth and right. You and your ilk...
So, you refer to me and "my ilk" after a spew about delusional sociopathic psychopaths, and I am supposed to conclude that they are unrelated. If they are unrelated, why are they in the same paragraph? English grammar 101. Let's be honest here. I did not twist your words. You just don't like the logical consequences of your words. Just man-up and admit it. Even if it was unintentional, it was extremely offensive. A simple apology for a poor choice of words would suffice. I don't expect to receive one, but it would be appreciated.Rationalitys bane_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

PPPS: Plato warned 2350 years ago:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X]. . . .[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].
kairosfocus_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

PPS: Will Hawthorne warns:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [[We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [[a material] 'is'.
kairosfocus_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

RB, twisting words to find an offense that is not there. Above, I spoke to the exceptions to a general rule; which by definition will be just that, exceptional. Evolutionary materialism supporters and fellow travellers face the problem that their worldview foundations lack the resources to support ought. But most have functional consciences, subject to the usual provisos about errors, struggles, gaps and benumbing. For that matter, such a worldview lacks resources to support the conscious self. But that is only to show yet another way such becomes self referentially incoherent and self-falsifying. Yet another issue that is routinely ducked or dodged. KF PS: innate blind forces of chance and necessity, psychosocial accidents and/or conditioning are simply more detailed ways of saying, Plato's cave delusional. Not a third option.kairosfocus_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

KF:
You and your ilk consistently back away from or dodge the long known import of evolutionary materialism, that might and manipulation make “right.”
I assume that you are referring to my ilk of delusional sociopaths and psychopaths. You obviously have no intention of seriously engaging on this issue, preferring to infer mental illness to those who disagree with you. But I also notice that you are dodging my "third" option, that our moral assemblage is based on some innate characteristics, early learning/indoctrination, parental and peer interactions, positive and negative feedback, etc. "
The point is, if such a key and pervasive sense of being governed by and accountable to ought is false to reality then this is a grand delusion spreading across our inner life.
Who said that the sense of being governed by and accountable to ought was false to reality? Again, not me. Unless you are suggesting that our early observations, feedback, learning, parental and peer interactions are not based in reality. To be bluntly honest, many of the things that have proven to be distanced from reality (although entertaining and otherwise educational) were the things I learned in Sunday School and church.Rationalitys bane_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

JDK, from the OP on the shaping context is evolutionary materialistic scientism. Which is exactly the well known driving force behind trying to reduce truth to knowledge. Notice, Lewontin's blunder in his classic 1997 remark, that hoi polloi were to come to view science as "the only begetter of truth." KFkairosfocus_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

RB, we both know and count on the fact of consciousness termed conscience as a key part of the inner life of normal people. We both know that sociopathy and psychopathy are severe disorders that are destructive. We further realise that this sense affects our whole thought life, not just on traditional moral issues but on matters of reasoning, warrant and the like; whereby we find ourselves urged to truth and right. You and your ilk consistently back away from or dodge the long known import of evolutionary materialism, that might and manipulation make "right." The point is, if such a key and pervasive sense of being governed by and accountable to ought is false to reality then this is a grand delusion spreading across our inner life. Living in a moral Plato's cave. This instantly would undermine our entire life of the mind. Grand delusion. KFkairosfocus_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

"The words "I" bolded above speaks volumes." Exactly whom is this "I" that you are referring to in your sentence? I do wish you materialists/naturalists would at least be consistent in your writings towards your worldview beliefs. To avoid confusion, "You" should have instead written: "The words "the illusion of I" bolded above speaks volumes." But then again, even being able to grasp the possibility that you may actually be a 'neuronal illusion' requires a perspective that is outside the material order. So in reality, it is impossible for atheists to write meaningful sentences as if agent causality did not actually exist:
Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html Physicist George Ellis on the importance of philosophy and free will - July 27, 2014 Excerpt: And free will?: Horgan: Einstein, in the following quote, seemed to doubt free will: “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the Earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.” Do you believe in free will? Ellis: Yes. Einstein is perpetuating the belief that all causation is bottom up. This simply is not the case, as I can demonstrate with many examples from sociology, neuroscience, physiology, epigenetics, engineering, and physics. Furthermore if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options. I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense. Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-george-ellis-on-the-importance-of-philosophy-and-free-will/ Human consciousness is much more than mere brain activity, - Mark Vernon - 18 June 2011 However, "If you think the brain is a machine then you are committed to saying that composing a sublime poem is as involuntary an activity as having an epileptic fit. ...the nature of consciousness being a tremendous mystery." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/17/human-consciousness-brain-activity Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test - Douglas S. Robertson Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information. http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let's Dump Methodological Naturalism - Paul Nelson - September 24, 2014 Excerpt: "Epistemology -- how we know -- and ontology -- what exists -- are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, "We cannot know that a mind caused x," laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won't include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn't write your email to me. Physics did, and informed (the illusion of) you of that event after the fact. "That's crazy," you reply, "I certainly did write my email." Okay, then -- to what does the pronoun "I" in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse -- i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss -- we haven't the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world -- such as your email, a real pattern -- we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,, some feature of "intelligence" must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we're back to physics versus physics, and there's nothing for SETI to look for.",,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set090071.html
And although Dr. Nelson alluded to writing an e-mail, (i.e. creating information), to tie his ‘personal agent’ argument into intelligent design, Dr. Nelson’s ‘personal agent’ argument can easily be amended to any action that ‘you’, as a personal agent, choose to take:
“You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t open the door. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t raise your hand. Physics did, and informed the illusion you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t etc.. etc.. etc… Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.”
The denial of agent causality by atheists is simply insane
Atheist Philosopher Thinks "We Never Have Direct Access To Our Thoughts" - Michael Egnor July 20, 2016 Excerpt: Materialist theories of the mind border on the insane. If a man walks into a doctor's office and says "I never have direct access to my thoughts and I have no first person point of view," the man will be referred to a psychiatrist and may be involuntarily hospitalized until it is established that he is not a danger to himself or others. If the same guy walks into the philosophy department at Duke University, he gets tenure. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/07/atheist_philoso103010.html "The neural circuits in our brain manage the beautifully coordinated and smoothly appropriate behavior of our body. They also produce the entrancing introspective illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world. This powerful illusion has been with humanity since language kicked in, as we’ll see. It is the source of at least two other profound myths: that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning and that there is a person “in there” steering the body, so to speak." [A.Rosenberg, The Atheist's Guide To Reality, Ch.9] The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - Ross Douthat - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0
I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s following presentation to get a full feel for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s (atheist's) position actually is.
Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ 1.) Argument from intentionality 1. If naturalism is true, I cannot think about anything. 2. I am thinking about naturalism. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 2.) The argument from meaning 1. If naturalism is true, no sentence has any meaning. 2. Premise (1) has meaning. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 3.) The argument from truth 1. If naturalism is true, there are no true sentences. 2. Premise (1) is true. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 4.) The argument from moral blame and praise 1. If naturalism is true, I am not morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of my actions. 2. I am morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for some of my actions. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 5.) Argument from freedom 1. If naturalism is true, I do not do anything freely. 2. I am free to agree or disagree with premise (1). 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 6.) The argument from purpose 1. If naturalism is true, I do not plan to do anything. 2. I (Dr. Craig) planned to come to tonight's debate. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 7.) The argument from enduring 1. If naturalism is true, I do not endure for two moments of time. 2. I have been sitting here for more than a minute. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 8.) The argument from personal existence 1. If naturalism is true, I do not exist. 2. I do exist! 3. Therefore naturalism is not true.
bornagain77_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Axel referenced this quote:
Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial…’
The words I bolded above speaks volumes.Rationalitys bane_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

'Excerpt: It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe. And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial…' - Prof Richard Conn Henry It seems to lend weight to my conjecture that we each live in a little world of our own, all of which worlds seemingly being integrated and coordinated, spatially and temporally, i.e. to make our world, its present, past - and potentially, future, since our lives are dynamic.Axel_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

rb writes,
In my opinion, and it is just opinion, we are much better off not pretending that morality is objective and live our lives knowing that we all bear responsibility for everything that we do in our lives.
Excellent statement. We would work better together, I think, at all levels up to the international level, if we didn't divide ourselves by at least some (many) thinking they are objectively right and others are delusional.jdk_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

JAD:
Such a view provides no basis at all for universal human rights. Such rights are based on our moral obligation to treat our fellow human beings with dignity and respect regardless of our sentiments and feelings, not because of… In other words, whether or not it causes us any kind of compassionate feelings or distress we are obligated to treat our fellow man a certain way. Without real and true moral obligation the very concept of human rights becomes transient, man made and therefore completely arbitrary. Unfortunately that is the way western civilization is presently moving. Our only hope is that people, who truly value freedom, wake up before it’s too late.
Just because something is unpleasant doesn't make it false. Cancer is unpleasant. Malaria is unpleasant. Halitosis is unpleasant. Justin Beaber is unpleasant. I agree, the world would be much better if morality was objective. But since there is no evidence to support it, the best we can do is to maximize communication amongst nations and cultures in an attempt to come to common ground on human rights. In my opinion, and it is just opinion, we are much better off not pretending that morality is objective and live our lives knowing that we all bear responsibility for everything that we do in our lives.Rationalitys bane_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Again, you are making an assertion that is in dispute [about moral government]. If you are saying that as we grow we establish deeply entrenched beliefs and expectations of behaviour (call them morals if you want), that cause us distress if we deviate from them, or see others deviating from them, then I agree that we are under moral government. If you are saying that these moral values are objective and writ by some designer/deity, then we would disagree. The bulk of evidence simply does not support this as the best explanation of the objective facts that we see every day.
Such a view provides no basis at all for universal human rights. Such rights are based on our moral obligation to treat our fellow human beings with dignity and respect regardless of our sentiments and feelings, not because of them. In other words, whether or not it causes us any kind of compassionate feelings or distress we are obligated to treat our fellow man a certain way. Without real and true moral obligation the very concept of human rights becomes transient, man made and therefore completely arbitrary. Unfortunately that is the way western civilization is presently moving. Our only hope is that people, who truly value freedom, wake up before it’s too late.john_a_designer_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

KF
To wit, if we were to presume this widespread pervasive phenomenon delusional, it would instantly let grand delusion loose across our life as cognitive agents, that is it would undermine even the ability to argue as here.
Who is suggesting that morality is delusional? Here, let me provide some definitions:
1)a belief that is not true : a false idea. 2)a belief that is held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. 3) Someone who is not thinking clearly, or thinks something will happen that, in all likelyhood, will not.
I believe that we all have deeply entrenched beliefs in what constitutes good (i.e., moral) behaviour. I hold these beliefs with strong convictions. When I think that killing and stealing and lying are wrong, I am thinking clearly and can even provide logical arguments as to why doing so will not be beneficial for me or my family in the long run. If this can be easily explained by subjective morality (and it can), and supported by objective evidence, where is the delusion?Rationalitys bane_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

RB writes,
Then it is a good thing that I am not talking about scientism.
Yes, as has been pointed out (but kf doesn't seem to hear),we are not talking about scientism. Human beings have moral beliefs and moral concerns that arise from, among other things, innate human emotions such as love, compassion, the need to be a part of a social group, etc. There are many important things in the life of people that are not part of science. (And human beings have all sorts of other qualities such as values, preferences, etc. which are not part of scientific knowledge, also.) So the arguments being made here about morals are not advocating for scientism. And I agree with what RB says succinctly,
Again, you are making an assertion that is in dispute [about moral government]. If you are saying that as we grow we establish deeply entrenched beliefs and expectations of behaviour (call them morals if you want), that cause us distress if we deviate from them, or see others deviating from them, then I agree that we are under moral government. If you are saying that these moral values are objective and writ by some designer/deity, then we would disagree.The bulk of evidence simply does not support this as the best explanation of the objective facts that we see every day.
jdk_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Seversly, 4 (attn RB, JDK, JC et al), re:
The claim “that people have been wrong about moral truths even for thousands of years” assumes that the existence of moral truths that people can be wrong about has been established. Yet this is the bone of contention between us. You are assuming that which has yet to be proven.
Nope. First, BA is, even trivially correct, that reality is before our ability to warrant our claims about it on whatever evidence we do or do not have in hand. The general issue is, reality exists, and truth accurately describes it. Our presence or absence of objectively grounded knowledge of it is strictly irrelevant to the matter, reality exists. It is also trivially true that in cases, we can describe reality as existing, thence "error exists," which is undeniably true and knowable so schemes of thought that undermine truth and knowledge in general are all falsified at one sweep. (This includes any species of radical relativism.) Now, the issue properly is, are we morally governed beings -- as we appear to be from how we quarrel to how we disagree to how we find ourselves compelled towards the truth and the right. Such a broad appearance carries with it a presumption of core truth, on pain of the consequences of its denial. To wit, if we were to presume this widespread pervasive phenomenon delusional, it would instantly let grand delusion loose across our life as cognitive agents, that is it would undermine even the ability to argue as here. So, we know on pain of instant, patent self referential absurdity that we indeed are morally governed. That points to sobering conclusions about the nature of reality, as the only place where OUGHT can be grounded is by its being inextricably fused into the root of reality. (This is how the IS-OUGHT gap is bridged.) This instantly rules out evolutionary materialism as a serious worldview, as such simply cannot ground ought. Bosons, fermions and interactions, or electrochemistry in neural networks programmed by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity are simply not under moral obligation, but instead under blind forces such as those outlined. Such an IS has only a very limited list of serious candidates, indeed only one: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. This may be unpalatable to many who seem to have a visceral hostility to God. But hostility does not change the force of the logic on the key facts. Facts, that seem to be habitually overlooked or even suppressed. So, we have very good reason to acknwledge moral truths to be well warranted, and to further see that there is a reciprocity of oughts between beings of like morally governed nature, thence we see why rights obtain to life, liberty, innocent reputation etc. None of this is particularly new. But we live in a day where it is often dismissed with visceral hostility. Not good. KF PS: Someone was trotting out the outdated problem of evil, and needs as a 101 to cf here on: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_gdvsevlkairosfocus_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

KF:
RB, scientism is self-referentially incoherent.
Then it is a good thing that I am not talking about scientism.
There is such a thing as evil science.
No there isn't. Science may be used in an "evil" fashion, but there is no such thing as an "evil" science.
Ethical truths need to be evauated by proper rules and principles, which necessarily go beyond science.
Again, there is no such thing as an ethical truth. There are behaviours that we as a society have agreed to abide by and label them as ethical.
A key empirical point here is that we find ourselves inescapably under moral government,...
Again, you are making an assertion that is in dispute. If you are saying that as we grow we establish deeply entrenched beliefs and expectations of behaviour (call them morals if you want), that cause us distress if we deviate from them, or see others deviating from them, then I agree that we are under moral government. If you are saying that these moral values are objective and writ by some designer/deity, then we would disagree.The bulk of evidence simply does not support this as the best explanation of the objective facts that we see every day.
...where, might and manipulation make ‘right’ does not even make it out of the starting blocks.
I agree that might and manipulation don't make right (whatever right is). But it does occasionally make the rules. but it is not a choice only between objective morality and might and manipulation make right. You completely ignore the impact of early learning, indoctrination, feedback, parental and peer interactions, etc. in the establishment of our moral assemblage.Rationalitys bane_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

F/N: truth is that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not, that it is not. That is, accurate description of reality -- an ontological matter; things as they are. Knowledge is a subsidiary matter: how do we confidently warrant claim X to be true? (There is a tendency to collapse truth into knowledge, and knowledge into "science." This fails.) KFkairosfocus_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply