I am not arguing for the simplicity doctrine. I fully agree with Plantinga against that conception. But that is not what I, or the original quote from Lewis, advocate. God is not reducible to a property, but that doesn’t mean that there are no properties that anything has that actually exists. Plantinga would not argue against the scripture that God is love in John. He is not making an argument that God has no particulars, only that we cannot reduce God to His particulars. And on this head we can rule out what are category mistakes, such as was articulated by Lewis, that goodness and God are different categories, they are not.

Accusatory, question-begging, unjustified, ad hominem laced assertion.

One designed to distract attention form the implications of the amorality of evolutionary materialistic secularism and the import that might makes “right.” (Which has been put out as a public warning ever since Plato in his 360 BC The Laws, Bk X.)

In fact, the Judaeo-Christian position on morality is an intelligible, reasonable one.

To wit, we are creatures made in God’s image and have minds of our own, which is what renders us capable of love thus virtue. So, we should each respect that same inherent dignity in all others.

Thus, immediately, the premise and summary of core morality: “love [thus, respect] thy neighbour as thyself.” (And, this concept of neighbourliness implies a circle of the civil peace of justice, protected by the civil authority as his primary duty as sword-bearer in the cause of justice, under God our common creator.)

Nor is this hard to find, e.g the 1776 US DOI starts from precisely this premise when it asserts that “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . . ”

Indeed, when we read in Locke’s 2nd essay on civil gov’t, Ch 2 we see the direct basis in Locke’s cite from “The Judicious [Richard] Hooker [in the 1594+ Ecclesiastical Polity]“:

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man’s hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant.

–> Of course, now that many people are so ignorant on the subject, all sorts of materialistic distortions that would formerly have been instantly corrected, will seem plausible

–> And now we see the long term implications of he moves to separate the biblical roots of our civilisation from our education system . . . a la Plato’s Cave style materialistic shadow shows substituting for accurate knowedge.

7] if God is identical with each of his properties . . .

Strawman.

I am speaking of the Character of God, which leads him to act in moral ways, as opposed to any imagined/projected equating of God with his character.

8] That may be your concept of God but it is conflict with the accounts of His nature and behavior in the primary textual evidence for His existence.

Multiple question-begging assertions.

First, the evidence for God’s existence is not primarily a matter of textual assertions; as the intellectual gymnastics imposed by the neo-magisterium to blind many people to the blatant evidence of Creation without and mind and conscience within testifies to all too eloquently.

Second, you will observe my note on neighbourliness just above, which brings to bear the issue of the special duty of the Magistrate.

The magistrate — in a world in which some abuse the power of choice to act selfishly rather than lovingly, and seek to build communities of oppression on their power — bears the sword of justice, to protect the civil peace. In that context, God is the supreme judge of the earth and wields the sword of justice in historical judgements against nations that become threats to the world. (And oh, America, please, please, please reflect soberly on where your nation — having begun so well — is now headed! It is not for nothing or merely envy that many across the world thought your nation received back some of what it asked for on 9/11; though of course Islamist radicals are murderers and threats to the world themselves.)

You may not like the implications of magistracy, but you have no credible alternative: “might makes right” multiplied by “every man [or community] does what is right in his [its] own eyes” is an obvious recipe for disaster.

9] how else would you account for natural disasters such as in Haiti and Chile except by either divine caprice, indifference or non-existence?

You obviously have not followed developments on the problem of evil in recent decades.

I suggest an introductory reading here; followed by deeper readings here.

On the particular issue of quakes as natural disasters, we should note that the saying is “quakes don’t kill, buildings do.” (This is the reason for the case where a hundreds of times stronger quake has produced orders of magnitude lower casualties. in Haiti, there was a problem of widespread corrupt building practice, not merely poverty.)

Going beyond that, we live in an orderly world that follows natural laws, which is a context in which actions have predictable consequences, a foundational requirement for morality. So, high-energy potentially destructive events are a feature of a world in which we can live, move about and do good. In such a world, where virtue is possible, good outweighs the prospect for suffering and evil. And, in the Christian theology you dismiss, redemption is the across time solution that rescues good from evil and ultimately transforms the world so that good prevails without destroying the possibility of love.

10] The presumption of a material world derives not from dogma but observation.

Let us correct that, to make it more accurately reflect the actual nature of the evolutionary materialist imposition discussed already:

The presumption of a material [-only] world derives not from dogma but [which is prior to and shapes our in- the - name- of- Science materialistic interpretation of] observation[s].

In short, a priori assumptions and assertions here substitute for observation and are distorting the ability of evolutionary materialists to see what would otherwise be obvious.

Likewise, we need to further correct the naked assertions in the teeth of facts already in evidence:

It is [not] the explanatory success of materialism that justifies [is the root of] our continued commitment to it [but instead our commitment to an a priori worldview claim]. The door is not being held shut lest a Divine foot is wedged into the gap [between what we experience and observe as minded, en-conscienced creatures in a morally and rationally ordered world, and the chaos and amorality that materialism would lead us into].

11] I doubt that Plato or anyone else around in 360 BC knew anything about modern evolutionary materialism but it us far from clear that he would necessarily have had a problem with it if he had.

Of course, Plato did not know about the details of current materialism. But he unerringly saw the premise, the core dynamics and the implications in amorality. So, immediately on seeing the a priori suppession of inference to art as a causal facto on origins — BTW this same text is the earliest currently known intellectual record on the design inference as an argument form our observed reality of causal factors tracing to necessity [phusis], chance ["accident"] and techne [art] — Plato would cry: FOUL.

And, in light of having seen what evolutionary materialism c 430 BC did to the leading Greek state, Athens, he set out on a proposal to correct it. (We may differ in details and some principles, but the basic analysis remains accurate and astonishingly insightful.)

12] it is not radical relativism that prevents us from subscribing to unsubstantiated claims of being in possession of Absolute Truth, it is the burden of proof.

Strawman, again.

This time, putting caricatured words in my mouth that do not belong there. (And similarly for informed theistic thinkers in general; i.e we here see a biased, dismissive, prejudice-laced stereotype.)

If onlookers will kindly examine my discussion on worldviews choice here — or simply recall my many discussions at UD on the warranted credible truth no 1, error exists — they will note that informed theists distinguish pure and undiluted truth from our potential for error. However, we also see that simply the point that error exists is undeniably true [on pain of immediate self-contradiction] shows that we may grasp certain truths as well warranted and credibly true, i.e. objectively true knowledge.

From error exists, we therefore can see that truth exists as that which says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not, as well as that in certain cases for good reason we can claim to have grasped it.

Further to this, a cluster of such WCT’s then leads us to the possibility of discussing worldviews on a comparative difficulties basis, and making informed worldview choice on inference to best explanation; a type of objective warrant commonly used in the world of factual experience.

Indeed, above [and in the always linked], I used just such techniques to show that evolutionary materialism stumbles coming out the starting gates and is simply not a credible worldview choice.

Summing up: no-one is claiming here to be cornering the market on “absolute truth,” though there are some truths that can be known beyond reasonable doubt; some of which (e.g. first principles of right reason, error exists etc)may even be undeniably true and self evident. And, if the objective and experienced truth of the gospel is the real object of attack — and it is — Seversky et al have already been invited to examine its warrant OBJECTIVELY (but, routinely, have ducked the challenge in favour of the rhetoric of distortion and dismissal . . . no prizes for guessing why).

13] The fact that methodological naturalism and science are amoral cannot be held against them as a criticism since they are not intended to investigate or adjudicate on questions of morality. To that extent, religion has no need to fear that science will trespass on that domain.

A contraire, the very point is that triumphalistic, materialistic positivist scientism as advocated by Lewontin, Sagan, the NAS, etc etc, seeks to dismiss all claims tot truth that do not fit into their materialistic credo.

So, what this is is a straight out self-deception projected out to the public as a claim or pretense that there is no war between the materialists who have seized control of science as a key institution of warrant for knowledge claims, and the vital issue of morality as a premise for civilisation.

But,the actual, easily observed facts, tell a very different story.

And so we have to correct yet another canard:

14] Collisions will only occur where religion sees fit to pronounce judgment on claims that also fall within the jurisdiction of science.

“But, mommy, he hit BACK first!”

Sorry, the plain record and on the ground reality that is reflected therein — which Seversky et al would plainly have us forget or disregard — inform us beyond reasonable doubt that the assertion of the devotees of materialistic scientism, is that “science [is] the ONLY begetter of knowledge,” and that is in the context of an agenda to covert the public at large to that view.

In a further context where “science” means in reality materialistic scientism.

So, we know who the real aggressor is in the civilisational culture wars.

And, worse, the assertion that science is the only beggetter of truth is a PHILOSOPHICAL claim, i.e. a non-scientific, epistemological one. That is, it is self-refuting and irrational.

So, it can only be defended by tactics of distraction, distortion, demonisation and dismissal. Which easily explains what this post has had to address and refute point by point.
________________

Okay, enough for the moment.

G’day

GEM of TKI

It seems to be time for taking on some specific points:

1] Sev, 177: neither Sagan, Monod or Lewontin claim – or claimed – to speak on behalf of all science. They were expressing their own opinions or beliefs as was their right. There is also a big difference between personal opinion and scientific theory. Everyone has an opinion on the question of origins

Actually, if you follow up my discussion and read the context of the excerpt above, you will easily see that Sagan and Lewontin DID claim to be speaking in the name of Science. Among the choicer parts:

. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [BTW, a self contradiction as this is an epistemological, i.e. philosophical claim . .. ] . . . . Sagan’s argument is straightforward. We exist as material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the consequences of physical relations among material entities. The vast majority of us do not have control of the intellectual apparatus needed to explain manifest reality in material terms, so in place of scientific (i.e., correct material) explanations, we substitute demons . . . .

To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [i.e. a metaphysical assertion about he nature of reality!] , and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . .

And, Monod was speaking ex cathedra as an eminent scientist and Nobel Prize winner.

But more to the point, in the immediate context in my always linked note [scroll up just a little] — and so accessible to participants in the years long exchanges at UD, I excerpted the US National Academy of Sciences as they sought to DEFINE science, in their notorious tract against the — shudder! — Creationists.

Here is the intro to their def’n:

In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations.

Of course, as I pointed out, this is a case of putting in the loaded contrast natural vs supernatural, in a context where by 2008 — if they had been inclined to do due diligence and fairness — the appropriate contrast is between the material causal factors (chance + necessity) and the artificial one, design.

Nature vs art in short.

So, when we see the institutional powers imposing a priori materialism into the very definition of science, and so suppressing the ability of science to fairly consider all relevant candidate causal factors on matters of origins, we have every right to our own — sadly, plainly well-warranted — opinion that the ideology of a neo-Magisterium is corrupting science from the disinterested pursuit of the truth about or world based on empirical evidence and credible explanations in light of known forces and factors.

2] . . . but there is still no theory of origins in the sense that there are theories of evolution or relativity or quantum mechanics.

First, this is quite a climb-down; though of course a deniable one. (Personal opinion, not scientific theory and all that . . . )

And, sorry, but the theory of evolution IS an origins science theory, insofar as it seeks to explain the origin of major body plans in the deep past.

And insofar as origin of life has no coherent factually well warranted theory, that simply means that the tree of life has no scientifically credible root.

As well, given that he fossil record and the world around us are replete with sharp body plan level discontinuities, we further see that there is no empirical warrant for body-plan level bio-diversification on the suggested main evolutionary mechanisms; esp. chance variation and probabilistic culling on differential reproductive success in ecological niches.

In both cases, the failure is a failure to explain credibly the origin of functionally specific complex information. Which we do observe routinely produced by art; and, which we ONLY see produced by art in a context that the associated config spaces are so huge that islands of function are unsearchable on the quantum state resources of our observed cosmos. (Just 1,000 bits specifies a space that is 10^150 times the scope of quantum states of our observed universe across its estimated lifespan, 50 mn times the usually given 13.7 BY to date. Observed life starts in excess of 100,000 bits, and novel multicellular body plans credibly need 10 – 100+ mn bits each . . .)

So, once the censoring constraint or a priori materialism is removed, design is the obviously superior explanation for observed life and for its origin.

But this thread is more on moral issues . . .

3] Sev, 178: Slightly longer answer – neither methodological nor philosophical naturalism are theories of morality nor even take positions on the question of morality. Proponents are well aware that the naturalistic fallacy precludes the possibility of validly inferring any moral position from what we observe of the natural world.

Summed up, Sev here concedes that evolutionary materialism as a worldview — and recall the claim is that in the name of Science (“the only begetter of truth”) we are placed in contact with “[physical] reality” — is inherently and inescapably amoral.

Case closed on the main point, by direct concession.

That is, evolutionary materialism can provide no is to ground ought in any binding sense beyond the politics and power games of culture.

Thus, too, Plato’s warnings on the history of Alcibiades and co becomes all too relevant to our own day. As the sad history of the century just past underscores.

Further, for those who on knowledge of the actual binding force of “ought” [just think about how we universally appeal to fairness and integrity when we disagree strongly], teh fact that this worldview is unable to face this basic fact of our nature is itself grounds for seeing it as empirically utterly and irretrievably refuted.

So also, we have every right to scratch evolutionary materialism off the list of credible worldviews, whoever may object while shaking his lab coats threateningly.

4] Adherents of individual religions are observed to claim overriding authority for their specific moralities but the grounds for their claims are no more firmly-grounded than any others unless they are grounded in evidence that their theology has some basis in fact.

H’mm, didn’t I invite us to look at a first level summary on the Ac 17 offer of warrant for grounding the Judaeo-Christian tradition in fact? And, did I not also draw attention to eh millions across 20 centuries who have had their lives transformed by personally meeting God in the face of the risen Christ and in the power of his poured out Spirit, e.g. including persons such as Pascal? [In short, notice the implicit strawman misrepresentation on the warrant for a biblical worldview.]

besides, I think it is about 60 years since C S Lewis has drawn our general attention as a civlisation — through his BBC interviews and the resulting book, Mere Christianity — to the fact that core morality (as Rom 2 discusses, and that has been around for 2,000 years or so, being the idea root for our civilisation’s idea on self-evident truth) is an in-common property across even civilisations.

5] 180: The fact that the Dilemma highlights a flaw in the claim of your faith to a supreme moral authority grounded in your concept of a ‘tri-omni’ deity is not a problem from my point of view.

Question begging assertion in the name of “fact,” in a context of failing to address the resolution of the claimed dilemma.

Again, let us note: the dilemma argument originated in the worldview context of gods who had to deal with an independent chaotic order, and so they ran up intot he problem of lacking a sugfficiently capable is to ground ought.

But the good, Creator God of theism is more than adequate to ground ought in the is of his being as a morally good God. That is morality is grounded in the basic ground of being, just as is rationality, and just as is the confidence in the intelligibility and stability of the observed world that is foundational to science. (As say Newton observed in his General Scholium to what is the greatest single work of modern science. In short, this point is obvious and accessible.)

[ . . . ]

The basic problem with your core objection, the Euthyphro dilemma — so-called, is that it works off the idea that there is an unbridgeable is-ought gap. Thus, it is exploiting he ideas, thought habits and challenges of pagan or evolutionary materialistic worldviews to tyry to impugn the one worldview that has an IS that properly grounds oughtness.

The fact that the Dilemma highlights a flaw in the claim of your faith to a supreme moral authority grounded in your concept of a ‘tri-omni’ deity is not a problem from my point of view. Nor should you feel that you are being singled out for special attention since the Dilemma is not aimed specifically at Christianity but at any attempt to preclude by fiat questioning of a faith’s moral prescriptions or any consideration of alternatives.

For, the God who as to inmost character IS Love Himself, is Truth Himself, is Justice Himself, and is Reason Himself, is also Creator: “without Him was not anything made that was made.”

For some reason, that type of claim – “God IS love” – always reminds me of Hollywood movie trailers: “Christopher Reeve IS Superman!”

In answer, I will simply repeat Plantinga’s comments quoted in another post:

In the first place, if God is identical with each of his properties, then each of his
properties is identical with each of his properties, so that he has but one property … In the second place, if God is identical with each of his properties, then since each of his properties is a property, he is a property—a self-exemplifying property. (Plantinga 1980,
47)

and

No property could have created the world; no property could be omniscient, or indeed, know anything at all. If God is a property, then he isn’t a person but a mere abstract object; he has no knowledge, awareness, power, love or life. So taken, the simplicity doctrine seems to be an utter mistake. (Plantinga 1980, 47)

1 –> As already noted, God is Creator, but also the God of a certain character in which Love, reason and Truth are essential characteristics. So, the cosmos he made and sustains will reflect that: it will be orderly, intelligible and morally ordered.

That may be your concept of God but it is conflict with the accounts of His nature and behavior in the primary textual evidence for His existence. And although we observe moral behavior being advocated and even practiced in human society there is nothing in the nature of Nature to suggest any moral order, as the recent disasters in Haiti – and now Chile – would seem to testify.

2 –> Thus, morality is not either independent of God – no more than reason is independent of God — nor is it a collection of arbitrary rulings rooted only in divine caprice.

If reason and morality are properties exemplified in God but not identical with him then they are independent of Him and there is nothing to necessarily prevent them being exemplified in other intelligent beings such as ourselves. And how else would you account for natural disasters such as in Haiti and Chile except by either divine caprice, indifference or non-existence?

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [NYRB, Jan 1997]

I was going to ignore the boilerplate quote from Lewontin but this passage is worthy of comment.

The presumption of a material world derives not from dogma but observation. In spite of a great number of immaterial or supernatural beliefs and narratives, the world around us has been revealed as overwhelmingly material and, moreover, one that has proven to be highly-susceptible to materialistic or naturalistic explanation. It is the explanatory success of materialism that justifies our continued commitment to it. The door is not being held shut lest a Divine foot is wedged into the gap. It is wide open. But, so far, no one has walked through it with evidence for the existence of a Divine anything that is anywhere near as compelling as the evidence for the alternative.

In short, at the end of the day, you still face the unanswered challenge of Plato in the Laws, 360 BC, that evolutionary materialism is radically relativist and amoral, based on the premises and assertions it imposes at the beginning of its analysis.

I doubt that Plato or anyone else around in 360 BC knew anything about modern evolutionary materialism but it us far from clear that he would necessarily have had a problem with it if he had. Regardless, it is not radical relativism that prevents us from subscribing to unsubstantiated claims of being in possession of Absolute Truth, it is the burden of proof. It should take more than someone’s word – even a lot of them – to persuade any of us of that.

The fact that methodological naturalism and science are amoral cannot be held against them as a criticism since they are not intended to investigate or adjudicate on questions of morality. To that extent, religion has no need to fear that science will trespass on that domain. Collisions will only occur where religion sees fit to pronounce judgment on claims that also fall within the jurisdiction of science.

Anyone can quote-mine.

Ha! yeah right Seversky – I misrepresented the scientist in question. Hilarious reply.

If I wanted, I could mine a few choice quotes from, say, Martin Luther or even Fred Phelps

Knock yourself out. And when you’re through, I am going to ask how it impacts the observable evidence for design.

neither Sagan, Monod or Lewontin claim – or claimed – to speak on behalf of all science.

…oh, and the effort of (S)cience and scientists to distant themselves from the overreaching comments has been deafening, hasn’t it? I’m sure the NCSE has a position paper on it.

There is also a big difference between personal opinion and scientific theory.

Yes, when the public flips on a program on TV about science, or reads a newspaper, or listens to an interview, its just too difficult to follow along with the constant stream of disclaimers being issued about scientist’s mere opinions.

Everyone has an opinion on the question of origins but there is still no theory of origins

Oh, not true at all. There is a most definite theory of origins. In fact, its so much of a theory – so captivating in its absolute certitude – it has superceded mere theory status and become a priori assumption for all science to follow.

The origin of everything happended by the authoratative mandate of chance, and chance alone.

After all, if it happened to have occured in any other fashion, it would be in immediate violation of the prescribed doctrine set forth by the community of (S)cience. (which is, of course, not allowed)

- – - – - –

Seversky, you are pushing a position and making statements that are indefensible.

Keep it up.

So, now, Sev,

The challenge still remains:

can you ground morality as a binding ought, per the premises of naturalism?

We await your answer.

Straight to the point as always so I will try to be equally succinct.

Short answer – no.

Slightly longer answer – neither methodological nor philosophical naturalism are theories of morality nor even take positions on the question of morality. Proponents are well aware that the naturalistic fallacy precludes the possibility of validly inferring any moral position from what we observe of the natural world.

All we can say is that moral codes are observed in human cultures. Their function appears to be to regulate the way that human beings behave towards one another in society so as to improve social cohesion and adhesion.

Adherents of individual religions are observed to claim overriding authority for their specific moralities but the grounds for their claims are no more firmly-grounded than any others unless they are grounded in evidence that their theology has some basis in fact.

- – – – – –

February 14th, 2010

THREAD:

Lewontin: “materialism is absolute…”

Sagan: “the cosmos is all that is…”

Monod: “Chance alone…”

Seversky “The fact is no one has a satisfactory theory of origins”.

- – – – – –

February 27th, 2010

THREAD:

Seversky: “MN takes no position on whether or not God exists”

Anyone can quote-mine.

If I wanted, I could mine a few choice quotes from, say, Martin Luther or even Fred Phelps which, by modern standards, would hardly redound to the credit of their faith. But would anyone believe that they are authoritative on contemporary Christian theology?

By the same token, neither Sagan, Monod or Lewontin claim – or claimed – to speak on behalf of all science. They were expressing their own opinions or beliefs as was their right.

There is also a big difference between personal opinion and scientific theory. Everyone has an opinion on the question of origins but there is still no theory of origins in the sense that there are theories of evolution or relativity or quantum mechanics.

You still seem to be caught up on a category mistake, in thinking that God cannot be conceived as love, or goodness. He is, at least, that, not less than that. Your argument that that is as vacuous as saying that God is wetness or heat makes no sense, for goodness and love are not material things like wetness and heat, your analogy is what is vacuous.

I had not thought to find myself agreeing with Plantinga but, in the paper by Jeffrey E Brower cited earlier by vjtorley, he states my view succinctly:

In the first place, if God is identical with each of his properties, then each of his
properties is identical with each of his properties, so that he has but one property … In the second place, if God is identical with each of his properties, then since each of his properties is a property, he is a property—a self-exemplifying property. (Plantinga 1980,
47)

and

No property could have created the world; no property could be omniscient, or indeed, know anything at all. If God is a property, then he isn’t a person but a mere abstract object; he has no knowledge, awareness, power, love or life. So taken, the simplicity doctrine seems to be an utter mistake. (Plantinga 1980, 47)

Theism Compared To Materialism Within The Scientific Method:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc....._5fwz42dg9

171
kairosfocus
02/27/2010
6:53 am

Seversky:

I must repeat.

Really?