Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

In a meaningless world, does truth always have value over delusion?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I care about truth if there is a God. But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.

Two thousand years ago, someone echoed those sentiments:

What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Paul of Tarsus
1 Cor 15:32

There was an exchange between KeithS and I in another thread, and he fired off this comment:

Your comment epitomizes one of the biggest problems with Pascal’s Wager. It doesn’t ask the question “What is most likely to be true?” It only asks, “How can I get the best payoff?”

That’s anathema to anyone who truly cares about truth.

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s Wager;Comment 100

To which I responded:

But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.

Why, logically speaking should an atheist care about truth in a meaningless universe? Perhaps the logical answer is no answer. If you say, truth has a better payoff, well, then you’ve just put payoffs ahead of truth! Right back where you started.

Further KeithS wrote:

Because the value of truth doesn’t depend on the existence of God.

To which I responded:

Value means PAYOFF! What is the payoff if there is no God?

I recall Dawkins in a debate with Lennox was asked about how humans can live their lives in a meaningless world. Dawkins said, “we create our own meaning”. Other atheists have repeated that statement such KeithS:

Life is full of meaning even without God. We create our own meanings, whether you realize it or not.

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s wager; Comment 59

to which I responded:

[the phrase] “we create our own meaning” is pretty much to me “we concoct our own unproven falsehoods to make us feel better”.

this whole “we create our own meaning” is worse than the religious ideas you are criticizing. You “know” there is no meaning, but you’ll pretend there is anyway. Reminds me of Coyne who “knows” there is no free will but he’ll pretend there is anyway.

And that is what continues to puzzle me about the atheistic variety of Darwinists (not Christian Darwinists). They seem to find much purpose in life in proving life has no purpose!

[posted by scordova to assist News desk with content and commentary until 7/7/13]

Comments
OP: In a meaningless world, does truth always have value over delusion?
Back to the OP. Answer: noCentralScrutinizer
July 25, 2013
July
07
Jul
25
25
2013
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
FTR:
I guess the Phinehas ant has special knowledge that is denied to the rest of the colony. For example, how do you know that God shares absolutely no limitations with humans?
First, I wasn't making a positive argument that God shares absolutely no limitations with humans. I'm sure humans and ants share some limitation or another as well. It was keiths who made positive statements about God's limitations and he should thus reflect a bit on his own question:
How do you know that the unicorn’s horn spirals clockwise, and not counterclockwise?
I will point out, however, that there is a significant shortcoming in his comparison. There is nothing about the direction of the spiral on a unicorn's horn that is inherent in the very idea of a unicorn. In contrast, omniscience, omnipotence, transcendence, and the basic notion that He can overcome normal human limitations are all typical concepts that inhere in the very idea of God. So, perhaps when keiths is finished with his stories about a god who lives in a cardboard box (but doesn't really exist), he can regale us with tales about a unicorn that looks nothing like a horse and doesn't have a horn at all.Phinehas
July 25, 2013
July
07
Jul
25
25
2013
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
KF calls Lizzie a liar. I think this justifies me calling KF a hypocrite.Alan Fox
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
Dr. Liddle @ 723: I agree with your post. I was trying to explain my position to Proton, who seems to think that we are all ultimately reducible to neurons and their synapses. I think humans are far more than basic biochemistry.Barb
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT
I said:
Banning keiths was an unintelligent coward’s move (I suspect a trinitarian)... and now keiths can play the martyr-card.
And now Kantian Darwinist (apperently a lemming) has followed in his boot-steps into the abyss. Liddle, do you want to go next?JWTruthInLove
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT
F/N: I Let BA speak for himself: 1] https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nick-matzke-book-burner/ >> Nick Matzke famously got the publishing company Springer to suppress the publication of the papers of a conference held at Cornell. See here. He did this without having seen, much less read, any of the papers. Obviously, his motivation could not have been the content of the papers. He was motivated by the mere fact that several of the conference participants were well-known ID proponents. Let us do a little thought experiment. Suppose that Nick had published his famous piece on Panda’s Thumb a few days later, and the head of Springer had called him up and said, “Hey, Nick, I’ve got some bad news and some good news. The bad news is that it is too late to stop publication of the book. The printer has done his work and the first printing of the book is finished. The good news is that not a single copy has left the printer’s warehouse, and they are all in a pile that has been drenched in gasoline. Nick, all you have to do is come over and toss a match on the pile of books and it will be as if they were never published in the first place.” Nick follows UD and posts here from time to time, so I have two questions for him: (1) Nick would you have tossed the match? (2) If the answer to (1) is “no,” are you not a hypocrite? After all, the ultimate outcome from tossing the match would be identical to what you actually did – i.e., no book out there for people to buy. >> 2] https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/it-gets-better/ >> WJM writes (See Nick Matzke – Book burner): “Does Liz think that Nick, not having even read the papers, has a sound reason to reach out to the editorial board and “warn” them about publishing work he hasn’t even read?” Liddle responds: “As much right as Springer had to offer to publish them, having not read them. And indeed to rescind the offer when alerted as to the nature of the conference.” Huh? Lest anyone forget, Springer’s publication decision was not in the early stages. They were on the verge of sending the book out the door. It already had a Library of Congress number for goodness sake. Yet, Liddle suggests that Springer had never read the papers and was in just as much ignorance about their content as Nick, and they were alerted to the papers’ content only by Nick’s heroic efforts.** “Idiotic” was the first word that comes to mind when I read this. I have known for a long time that Liddle is nice enough when she spews her nonsense, but she will say literally anything, no matter how stupid, when she has determined to defend the indefensible, which she is doing here. Dr. Liddle, there is still time. You can still redeem yourself by condemning Nick’s efforts to suppress the publication of the papers he never read. I predict you won’t. Liddle writes: “I’ve written to journals myself when I’ve thought that a paper did not meet the rigor expected of that journal.” Dr. Liddle, did you read the paper first? If you did read it first, then what does that incident have to do with what Nick did? **Update: Julianbre brings new information to the table: ” The book had been peer reviewed by two reviewers at Springer and was ready for publication. You think Springer publishes books, especially ones that cost over $100.00 with out even reading them? Really? Springer pulled the book after the panda people contacted them and threatened a boycott of their company if they went ahead with the publication of Biological information–New Perspectives.” >> 3] https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/liddle-doubles-down/ >>Far from attempting to redeem herself, Elizabeth Liddle has actually doubled down on her censorship/fascism apologetics (see comment 113 to my post). Liddle admits that the book Biological Information—New Perspectives had already been peer reviewed. She admits that it was on the verge of publication. But, she notes, after Matzke’s publication on Panda’s Thumb all of a sudden Springer “decided that additional peer review would be necessary” before pulling and ultimately dumping the book. Liddle writes: “This is not surprising: if a lot of scientists write to a publisher and say: we have reason to think that this may not have been properly reviewed, then it’s only responsible to send out for further review.” Oh really? A lot of scientists write to a publisher to say they have reason to think a paper THEY HAVE NEVER READ has not been properly reviewed? Liar. Springer put out its fig leaf about further review to give cover for people just like you, and it is nothing short of pathetic that you take that fig leaf up and try to hide your malice behind it. You should be ashamed, but it is clear to me that you have no shame.>> 4] https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/liddle-finally-comes-around/ >> [EL] “If they pressured Springer to reject the papers out of hand, that would have been wrong.” (See Nick Matzke – Book burner.) [BA] Tepid, but we’ll take what we can get. WJM writes: “What happened is that Nick and others exercised thuggish intimidation on Springer and Springer, acting in fear of what a few devoted people can do to reputations (especially via the internet) should they set their mind to it, pulled the book from publication at the last minute.” Liddle responds: “IF this is what happened, I condemn it.” Better except for the unnecessary qualification, because everyone familiar with the whole sordid affair knows that is exactly what happened. >> KFkairosfocus
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
Lar 758,
Vivid, continuing that conversation serves no purpose. I am done with it.
Thanks for the response. FWIW I agree. Vividvividbleau
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
758, Vivid, continuing that conversation serves no purpose. I am done with it.LarTanner
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
AF
You appeared to be labouring under the impression that KeithS was ignoring you and I merely wished to set you straight.
If you followed the thread you would recognize you have no idea what you are talking about. Lars made a comment and I asked HIM a question in 697 not Keith. Lar
That post is a waste of time because all the commenter needed to do was read with slightly more subtlety than my 5-year-old has.
Read what? Vividvividbleau
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
O'Leary can certainly speak for herself, but that doesn't make her allegation about me true, KF. I DO NOT SUPPORT CENSORSHIP OF EVIDENCE AND THEORY FROM WHICH I DISSENT. I hope that is now completely clear. Nor are the rest of your allegations true. But you seem only concerned about the truth of allegations when they concern yourself.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Onlookers: This is the game going on on the part of the darwinist ideologues: drag red herrings across the track of truth, lead them out to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems, set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. If someone objects or disciplinary action is taken in response to smears, twist the matter about and make turnabout accusations. Just calibrate their credibility by the fact that for hundreds of posts above, we had a stout and unyielding resistance to basic self evident truths, like, once I am aware, I cannot be mistaken about that fact. Likewise, they objected to the principle that it is undeniably true that error exists, something which to try to deny immediately supports. As for the first principles of reasoning implicit in something distinct like a red ball sitting on a table, they will simply not go there. No no no, they want to play a game with the same name, logic, where when they like it, they use it, but when it points where they don't want to go, they can discard it. Stolen concepts, stolen words, stolen emotions, in short. These are ideologues pushing an agenda that in the end is contrary to reason, plain and simple. Beyond that, they are disciples of Alinsky, so anyone who objects to their agenda will be smeared by any means fair or foul. And I think Mrs O'Leary will be able to speak for herself, more than enough:
Elizabeth Liddle has written, “If Nick Matzke or any ‘liberal’ lays so much as a match to a children’s library book I shall be the first to protest.” Touching. Heart warming. The typical fellow traveller of idea censors always denies the charge, pointing to some situation that would induce her to protest – except that that situation isn’t happening, and wouldn’t much matter if it did happen. No one harms the cause of ideas or even literacy by buying a children’s book at a garage sale and burning it, to make a statement. Liddle supports the kind of censorship that actually matters and then defends herself by preening about what doesn’t. What surprises me is why she would even bother. She supports censorship of evidence and theory from which she dissents. Period. It’s common enough, and growing more common. In many circles, it is a source of pride.
KFkairosfocus
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
I ask a question of Lar Tanner and Alan Fox responds. Very strange. Why strange. You appeared to be labouring under the impression that KeithS was ignoring you and I merely wished to set you straight.Alan Fox
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
AF
Perhaps, in view of Uncommon Descent’s reversion to type in banning KeithS (without explanation – how cowardly?)
I ask a question of Lar Tanner and Alan Fox responds. Very strange. Regarding Keith I think he wanted to get banned after all isn't getting banned here at UD something like getting the medal of honor. He now has a shiney badge that he can flash to the peanut gallery. JWT
So, keiths: Please answer vividbleau’s questions.
JWT actually I was asking him to respond to my answer to HIS question :)A bit hard for him to do now and I have no interest in going to another blog. Vividvividbleau
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
I trust that things can now start on a better footing.
Well, I am an optimist. Do you have the capacity to appreciate that disagreeing with you is not tantamount to insanity? Anyway I am much better read about Montserrat now.Alan Fox
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
First of all I have seen no evidence that Matzke even wrote to Springer, although he may have done. At least two people did write, and those were not Matzke. The two people who did write did not ask for it to be withdrawn. Springer looked into it, and discovered that only the proposal had passed peer-review, not the actual articles. So they agreed that further review was appropriate. They then rejected the proposal. This is not censorship by any definition I am aware of. It is simply the peer-review process having its feet held to the fire. Had the papers passed peer-review - no problem. If ID opponents were actually interested in censoring the articles, why would they be distribution the URL to the free downloads? That's the very opposite of "bookburning". Nobody has objected at all to the free availability of these papers. There is an extremely important difference between not publishing an article in a peer-reviewed publication unless it passes peer-review (duh) and campaigning to have the article suppressed (burned, made otherwise unavailable to the public). Nobody gives a hoot that Granville's MI paper is widely available - the issue was not whether it should be available, but whether it rose to the standard expected of a peer-reviewed journal. In contrast, a paper that apparently had been accepted for publication in BIOcomplexity (by Joseph Bozorgmehr) was rejected because the editors didn't like the political opinions (holocaust denial) he'd posted on the internet. I would hope that would not happen in other journals - it may, but the only example I know of happens to be in an ID journal. Be that as it may, journal editors are entitled to make their own editorial decisions about what they will and will not publish. Rejecting a submission is not censorship - it's rejecting a submission. Contrast this with actual censorship in countries in which the possession of banned written material is a crime. Nobody minds anyone possessing ID articles - in fact, I am more than happy for people to read them. All people mind is the articles being published as peer-reviewed when they haven't been.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: You have a case of censorship, by Matzke. For cause, it is observed that you will not bring yourself to speak against it. Mrs O'Leary has made an apt reply. Case closed. Furthermore, earlier, KS disagreed with something I said in rebuttal to his claim that ALL thoughts/claims we make are subject to error. In that rebuttal and earlier comments, I highlighted several counter-examples. Instead of expressing mere disagreement, KS willfully chose to make six false accusations of deception. He doubtless did this in order to provoke a disciplinary response for willful, insistent slander. He then wants to claim "censorship" and you are supporting him in slander, as you have been supporting others in much worse and potentially destructive slander for months. I hope you understand why I have had to draw the conclusion that my understanding of and response to your behaviour has to fundamentally change. This is not the first time I have had to deal with ideological enabling working with nihilists. In the end, bad and manipulative cop, worse cop ends up so corrupting the atmosphere that hardly ever can things be restored. Kindly understand that those are the matches you have chosen to play with, and that censorship and unjustified career busting are just the beginnings of the reapings from sowing such dragon's teeth. KF ====== AF: I see your apology in the next thread. I trust that things can now start on a better footing. KRkairosfocus
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
KF, quoting O'Leary:
She supports censorship of evidence and theory from which she dissents. Period.
I do not. O'Leary saying so does not make it true. It is a false accusation. I do not accuse her of lying, as she probably thinks it is true, but it is not.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
Oops - Mandolin ensemble! (2 mandolins, 1 mandola, 1 bass mandolin - eclectically amusing choice of music!)Alan Fox
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
No, it doesn’t, William. I could be dead, and still make that statement, presumably.
Do you mean as a spirit? That doesn't change anything.
It tells me nothing about the world, or whether there is one. Hence solipsism.
You are apparently conflating "the world" with some physical manifestation. I said, if "the world" is "what exists", then if "what exists" is a non-physical mind - even if it is just yours (solipsism), then "you"(whatever "you" are) exists in that world (even if "the world" is your mind), and even if "existing" means as a mental projection in that perceived state.
I am not a solipsist, but I do accept that “I exist” in itself tells me nothing about the world.
If "the world" is "what exists", then "I exist" is necessarily a true statement about the world. The world is the full set of "what exists"; if you exist, you are either the full set of what exists in that world (solipsism), or you are a subset of what exists in that world. "I exist" must be a declaration of truth about the world (what exists). It cannot be otherwise. It appears to me that this hyperskepticism about making truth claims about the world borders on the pathological.William J Murray
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
@ KF Here is my apology, unfortunately posted in another thread!!!Alan Fox
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
I'm glad you spotted it, Lizzie. Using this stupid tablet is like threading a needle wearing gloves. @ KF Sorry about the delay. I was force-marched to our local church to endure a performance by a madolin ensemble.Alan Fox
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
EL: Kindly, show me the apology tot he people of Montserrat for trying to belittle them, I scanned and have seen no such remark by AF. I did notice a challenge that invited the suggestion that I had been misleading, which is what led me to speak in plain terms to AF and then a gap then a taking up as if nothing happened. KFkairosfocus
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
EL, not so's I noticed; though I stand to be corrected if one was made. He did seem to take a few hours off when I pointed out to him the magnitude of what he had done, but I saw no trace of an actual apology to the people of Montserrat. KFkairosfocus
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: Mrs O'Leary's rebuke is dead right:
Elizabeth Liddle has written, “If Nick Matzke or any ‘liberal’ lays so much as a match to a children’s library book I shall be the first to protest.” Touching. Heart warming. The typical fellow traveller of idea censors always denies the charge, pointing to some situation that would induce her to protest – except that that situation isn’t happening, and wouldn’t much matter if it did happen. No one harms the cause of ideas or even literacy by buying a children’s book at a garage sale and burning it, to make a statement. Liddle supports the kind of censorship that actually matters and then defends herself by preening about what doesn’t. What surprises me is why she would even bother. She supports censorship of evidence and theory from which she dissents. Period. It’s common enough, and growing more common. In many circles, it is a source of pride.
I suggest you heed it. KF ------- JWT: If you cannot recognise and deal with a false accusation of lying properly, that is sadly revealing. You do need to think again, and that is friendly advice. KFkairosfocus
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
JWTIL
UD is a full of slanders by Trinitarians and Darwinists alike. Again: observe the hypocracy.
I agree. Which is why I do not censor slanders on my site. I do move accusations of lying (but I do not delete them).Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
737 - he did apologise, KF.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
KF
albeit I think the citation from the slogan over the entrance at Concentration Camps was overdone,
Precisely. And accusing someone of lying is against the rules at my site. I don't catch all cases, and I could be more diligent, and in any case they would not be deleted, but moved to Guano. If someone wants to bring a slander case, fine. But if people on internet discussion sites could not allege lying without fear of suit for slander, the world would be a much poorer place, in my view. In any case, your link is not to TSZ but to UD, so your case is with Barry, not me. And at TSZ the rule is intended to apply to other posters, not anyone in the the world. I would not move a post to Guano if it accused Obama, say, of lying. If you post at TSZ, any post that accuses you of lying will be moved to Guano, as long as I see it. If I don't, you can notify me.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
@kf:
Take time to think again. KF
I'm sorry I didn't come to the same consclusion as you. Next time I'll try to do better, master.JWTruthInLove
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
@Alan Fox:
I think you need to register before accessing the members’ list. The forum is accessible to guests.
I've tried to register... It says a member with my name already exists. I wanted to look at the members-list and the error appeared. I don't think the error-message is part of the specified normal behaviour of the forum.
Where would you like him to respond? He has already opened a thread at TSZ Shall I just relay the questions? Confirm what it is you want asked and I’ll oblige.
Ok, I didn't know he answered on TSZ. I've only looked at antievolution.JWTruthInLove
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
JWT: Take time to think again. KF AF: The otehr day, you tried to needle me by making light of the plight of a nation, and have not had decency to apoloise. Today, you are making snide personal insinuations in defence of slander. That tells me all I need to know about you. KFkairosfocus
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
1 2 3 26

Leave a Reply