Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Xeluan · 08-05-2002, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xeluan:


I was thinking this morning that Arm may be someone like Dembski, Wells (not saying the one of them is Arm) posting on the board. I could be wrong.

I'm replying to myself therefore I need a life.

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

From left field and a dash of conpsiracy theory thrown in, I'm thinking that Arm's postings on Arn are a hint of the Discovery Institute's next campaign.

While not outright stating that ToE has lead to the great moral decline, the fact that ToE doesn't explicity state that certain actions are "immoral" it is therefore at fault for allowing such actions. This seems to be the gist of Arm's posts.

Sounds like it is a slight modification of Phillip Johnson's position from way back when "Darwin on Trial" was released. Arm also seems to confuse methodlogical materialism with methodlogical naturalism as well. Though if you are William Provine this is not an issue (I am not sure on this myself).

Also, on talk.origins (I think), it was noted that the ID movement is supposedly preparing a tome titled "From Darwin To Hitler."

Of course the above is idle speculation. I could very well be wrong but I do like to test my prognostical powers.

Xeluan - Who is coming last in the footy tipping comp

Principia · 08-07-2002, 05:39 AM

Quote:

ANOTHER,

Thanks again for another well thought out, cordial post. "Regards"? "Thank you for considering my words"? You better stop with that, or else I'll get used to it and start expecting that type of civility from others also.

Some thoughts.

First, the phrase you quoted ("an all encompassing divine, of which darwinism is one manifestation of the creator") is not really my position and I did not previously use those words. Were you instead trying to interpret how I would phrase my placing of darwinism within my worldview; if that was the case, then no problem. But, again, my view of darwinism is not consonant with the phrase above.

-------------------------------------------------

Another: "If there is no manifestation of the immaterial, it remains irrelevant."

I would 100% percent agree with you about this sentence. Where you and I would part ways is that you believe that indeed there are no manifestations of the immaterial, whereas I submit there are plenty of manifestations of immaterial objective entities. Objective ethical laws/values are one example. To take a different approach in this post, the material universe consists of random chance events and/or deterministic natural laws; there is plenty that we observe in our daily lives that are external to these materialistic limitations. The example that I gave in my previous post (intelligent causation) is, in my mind, clearly outside of chance/law materialism and, therefore, naturalism/materialism is neither impartial nor EQUIPPED to measure its effects. How in a purely materialistic universe (random chance and/or deterministic natural laws) can you explain in matter (living beings in this case) the presence of CONSCIOUSNESS, the presence of INTENTIONALITY (aboutness, otherness), and the presence of FREE-WILL (which by definition is non-deterministic)? Materialism/naturalism are completely ill-equipped to measure and interact with these non-materialistic manifestations which we see every day. When the natural world INTERSECTS with immaterial entities (as here), a methodology/approach other than naturalism/materialism is necessary to properly understand & measure intelligent causation; that is where ID theory steps in -- to fill that gigantic void. Only if we already hold to a philosophical worldview of naturalism/materialism can we dismiss these phenomena in a reductionist fashion as being mere fictional constructs of random or cause-and-effect deterministic phenomena or "emergent properties" of matter. Top materialist philosophers like John Searle of UC Berkeley have been having a very hard time dealing with these issues and still remaining materialists. The reason why brilliant minds like Professor Searle reject non-materialistic interpretations (e.g. a substance dualist view of human beings allowing for the existence of immaterial souls which are the beds of intelligence and which interact with the physical body) is because people like Searle see that interpretation as dissonant with their previously chosen philosophical worldview of materialism. In other words, materialism was chosen before a detailed analysis of intelligence and intelligent causation, and thereafter all observations are forced to agree with that worldview; it was NOT a thorough, careful analysis of the manifestations of intelligence and intelligent causation that caused brilliant minds like Searle to adopt materialism/naturalism. If you haven't been exposed previously to the type of ideas that I'm sharing here, I highly highly highly recommend the book BODY AND SOUL by Dr. J.P. Moreland and Dr. Scott MacRae. This is the very best and thorough book on the subject that I've found, and I believe that if you take the time to examine it you will have second, third, fourth thoughts about your current position that "no manifestations of the immaterial" can be seen in our daily lives.

-------------------------------------------------

Another: "RBH (like me) does not believe that a subjective moral world is necessarily an amoral world, to use your word... Indeed, mutable systems are more flexible and can be kept current to present circumstances... By practical considerations for foundations of non objective morality - I believe I mean more than you consider. By and large, I mean everything that could have a material impact on individuals or populations."

Another, I don't believe that thorough-going, consistent subjectivists can avoid an Amoral (not IMmoral) world. Your view of the world is neither immoral nor amoral, because I believe that you, RBH, or anyone else can never consistently be thorough-going subjectivists. In a consistent subjectivist world, subjectivist systems are not capable of "keeping current to present circumstances" because this implies that a subjective system can achieve a "right," "correct" solution to changing circumstances. Subjectivist systems can never give us objectively "right" or "correct" or "just" answers to either static or changing circumstances. This advantage of subjectivism of which you speak cannot be achieved by subjectivism; it must as it usually does eventually borrow capital from an objectivist worldview in order to achieve these desired correct results. Also, an objectivist worldview is NOT inflexible and incapable of keeping to present circumstances. An objectivist worldview has foundational, general objective rules/values which can be applied to different sets of factual circumstances as they appear. It is not the objective rules/values that change; it is only the factual circumstances (which then need to be applied to the objective rules/values) that can change. We need not (nor can we) change objective rules/values as we tear out our calendar pages; the objective rules/values remain fixed (of course, they need first to be DISCOVERED and CLARIFIED; this is an on-going process). Therefore, subjectivist ethics is neither capable nor necessary to deliver to advantages you mentioned.

Perhaps I am failing to consider what exactly you mean by "practical considerations for foundations of non objective morality." I would appreciate a more thorough elaboration & explanation. First, you equated these PRACTICAL considerations to a concept of "social utility." I pointed out previously that there are many other PRINCIPLED values which compete and often trump mere practical considerations. Self-identified subjectivists themselves often hold to and apply principled values/rules that move beyond the mere practical; their own behavior betray the fact that "practical considerations" and "social utility" are INSUFFICIENT foundations for their own ethical theories. When you describe these "practical considerations" as "everything that could have a material impact on individuals or populations," you open yourself up to 2 criticisms. First, this explanation is too vague. Second, I would submit that this "everything" you mention INCLUDES the objective rules/values which exist in reality but which are external to any individual subject or group of like-minded subjects. Do you yourself not sometimes borrow capital from the objectivist worldview which goes beyond mere "practical considerations" when you consider "EVERYTHING" about a situation?

Let me attempt to give 2 historical examples of circumstances which involve decisions by our forebearers which were HIGHLY IMPRACTICAL, but which most of us would agree were correct, right, just decisions (I'm assuming here you're American; maybe I shouldn't make that assumption).
1. AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY WAR - Our American founders decided to enter into war with Great Britain. In other words, a ragtag group of farmers, merchants, disorganized militia men, and lawyers decided to fight against the most powerful navy and one of the most powerful armies in the entire world! Great Britain also had many spies and loyalists in America. The odds were certainly highly against the colonists. Any "pragmatic" weighing of costs and benefits would have weighed heavily in favor of a decision of trying to effect change from inside the British system. However, our founders looked beyond mere "practical considerations" and made the improbable, impractical choice of fighting mighty Great Britain. Why? Because they believed the objective PRINCIPLES which are delineated in the Declaration of Independence (e.g. that "all men are created equal"; right to public & speedy trials; right to confront one's accusers; etc.) were being unjustly denied by King George. They chose objective principles over practical considerations.
2. AMERICAN CIVIL WAR - Protectors of the "United" States chose to enter a civil war that they knew could be lost by the Union and that they knew would cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans (over 600,000 were killed, and many more were badly injured). Was this decision a "practical" one? Doing merely a pragmatic, cost-benefits analysis of this situation would seem to weigh heavily in favor of peace and compromise. But, objective PRINCIPLES (e.g. "all men are created equal"; no human being should be treated as another's property) trumped mere practical considerations. Lincoln chose to engage in an extremely bloody and costly war for the sake of adhering to objective ethical principles/rules/values. [SC: !!! But what 'objective morals' apparently justified slavery in the first place?]

How can these 2 decisions (which most of us view as correct and just) and which most of us (given some consideration of the circumstances) would see as highly impractical be reconciled with a thorough-going subjectivist, pragmatist ethics?

Thank you for considering my words,
Regards,
Arm.

What an ass.

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]

Principia · 08-25-2002, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xeluan:


I was thinking this morning that Arm may be someone like Dembski, Wells (not saying the one of them is Arm) posting on the board. I could be wrong.

Xeluan (Zed over at Arn).

Actually, I've been reading up on Philip E. Johnson lately, and I have to say that my bet is on him -- from his interest in the moral implications of naturalism, to the similarities in (the rather verbose and condescending) writing style, to his sudden appearance on ARN about a week after his stroke in 07/2001. Anybody else see the resemblance?

Anyway, this particular piece from Arm is a good starting point, because he recycled the same post from <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000820;p=2" target="_blank">here</a> to <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000242;p=3" target="_blank">here</a>:

Quote:

***EPISTEMOLOGY***
This post is meant especially to Myrmecos & Lizard (and others who hold epistemological positions similar to their views). The suggestion below is a cordial, educational gesture and not meant to offend in any manner. I hope that you will follow the suggestion in order to improve the tone & intellectual quality of the conversation for this discussion topic specifically & within this discussion forum in general.

There is a branch of philosophy named "epistemology." It is the branch which theorizes about KNOWLEDGE and asks & tries to answer crucial questions such as: How is it exactly that we get to know the truth? When are we properly justified in believing something is true? When are we properly warranted in believing something is true? These are very important questions which are foundational to ALL branches of knowledge (including biology).

The posts by Myrmecos & Lizard in the last several days seem to be taken straight out of either the "evidentialist" school of epistemology or (its first cousin) the "positivist" school of epistemology. I have the distinct impression that they have never directly & carefully studied epistemology, but somewhere along the line they have picked up & internalized the assumptions & beliefs within the evidentialist/positivist ("strong foundationalist") school of epistemology and they currently believe that evidentialism/positivism is OBVIOUS, UNQUESTIONABLE, ABSOLUTE TRUTH. The problem is that these positions, which were indeed dominant and popular within the halls of philosophy departments until perhaps the 1960's, have since then fallen into much disfavor, because so many irreconcilable errors within them have been exposed by epistemologists of all stripes -- from postmodernists to reformed epistemologists. By UNENDINGLY PARROTING evidentialist/positivist assertions & positions, Myrmecos & Lizard are making this discussion forum look & sound (& smell?) like a relic from the 1960's.

I invite Myrmecos & Lizard (and those of you who agree with them) to RE-EXAMINE some of these foundational epistemological issues (or perhaps examine them carefully for the very first time) by reading an accessible, thorough, contemporary introductory volume of epistemology. This will not only improve the intellectual quality of the discussion herein, but will pay many dividends to you personally as thinking individuals. I recommend volumes such as Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge by Dr. Robert Audi (1998) and Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous by Dr. W. Jay Wood (1998). Dr. Wood, for example, explains, points out strengths, and then critiques different schools of epistemology such as strong foundationalism (eg. evidentialism; positivism), coherentism, reliabilism, & reformed epistemology, and develops his own modest foundationalist view of virtue epistemology.

Here are some quotes from Dr. Wood's helpful book:

"You will recall that all nonbasic beliefs are justified insofar as they are appropriately supported by one's epistemically basic beliefs. Strong foundationalists claim the only appropriate support is logical: nonbasic beliefs must be inferable either deductively or inductively from our basic beliefs. Weak [Modest] foundationalists are more generous in recognizing other kinds of basing relations. In either case, accepting just any old belief willy-nilly, with no thought to its being suitably anchored by supporting beliefs, is unacceptable. Herein lie the rudiments of a theory of epistemic justification known as evidentialism, a theory that at one time exercised considerable hold on the philosophical imagination and that continues to hold sway in much popular thinking." (p.106) Professor Wood then exposes several fatal problems within evidentialism which are pretty much universally recognized by top epistemologists today, including infinite regress (p.107), self-referential incoherence -- a.k.a. self-contradiction (p.107-8), slippery-slope fallacy (p.108), and extreme vagueness (p.108-9).

"Strong foundationalists severely restrict what can count as a basic belief, what kind of support it lends to the other beliefs we hold, and the manner in which this support is communicated to nonbasic beliefs. They claim that the foundations of human knowledge must be unshakably certain and that the only way this certainty is transferred to nonbasic beliefs is by ordinary logical relations of deduction and induction. As we shall see, weak foundationalists (also called "soft," "modest," "minimal" and "mitigated" foundationalists) have good reasons for relaxing the standards of proper basicality and expanding the way in which basic beliefs lend support to nonbasic beliefs." (p.85)

Dr. Wood then lists and explains the 3 criteria/beliefs named by strong foundationalists as EXCLUSIVELY being "properly basic beliefs"; namely, "self-evidently true" beliefs such as the axioms of logic e.g. the law of identity & the law of non-contradiction (p.85-6); "incorrigible" beliefs e.g. "I exist"; "I am in pain" (p.86); and beliefs "evident to the senses" (p.86). Positivists limit the last criteria / basic belief because "ordinary claims about external objects can't be certain" (p.86-7). Dr. Wood also adds 4 other aspects of "strong foundationalism"; namely, "very high access requirements" (p.87); a strong element of "individualism" (p.87-8); its claim of being "universal" (p.88); and its "isomorphism" between beliefs and a mind-independent reality (p.88).

Dr. Wood also lists & explains several fatal problems within strong foundationalism that have been pointed out by numerous epistemologists (p.88-98). I don't have the time to list all of them, but here are some examples: self-referential inconsistency (p.89); and an infinite regress problem as long as strong foundationalists maintain high access requirements (p.89-92,96).

MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION FORUM, Dr. Wood lists and explains basing relations other than deduction and induction through which nonbasic beliefs can be legitimately inferred from basic beliefs. Many Darwinist persons like MYRMECOS & LIZARD who are wedded to flawed evidentialist/positivist/strong-foundationalist epistemological positions adamantly & inflexibly believe these other basing relations are illegitimate -- especially when these other basing relations are effectively applied by Intelligent Design theorists. Myrmecos & Lizard also don't seem to understand that these other basing relations are used everyday in other scientific disciplines involving the possible detection of patterns of intelligence (human or non-human), such as Forensic Science, Cryptography, Archaeology, Paleoanthropology, and SETI ("Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence"); if these other basing relations are legitimate for these scientific disciplines, then it is shameless SPECIAL PLEADING to deny their use as legitimate "scientific methodology" when ID theorists use them to prove their non-naturalistic theories (by "non-naturalistic" theories, I mean theories involving patterns that are not random cause-and-effect results of non-sentient/intelligence-deprived nature, but which involve specified-complex patterns of intelligence that are non-human because the origin of these patterns preceded the presence of humans). These legitimate basing relations (other than deduction and induction) are (#1) "RETRODUCTION" a.k.a. "Reasoning From the Best Explanation" or "Inference From the Best Explanation" -- a "back-to-front" type of basing relation (p.92-3). In addition to Dr. Wood's explanation of retroduction (called "abductive" inferential support by philosopher C.S. Pierce), please explore the following articles: "The Best Explanation Criteria for Theory Choice" by Paul Thagard, Journal of Philosophy vol. 75 (1978):76-92; and "Structural Explanation" by Ernan McMullin, American Philosophical Quarterly no. 2 (April 1978):145-146. (#2) "Congruence" -- a "lateral" type of basing relation (p.93). (#3) "Cognitively Spontaneous", immediate and noninferential, beliefs -- these are not basing "relations" because they are noninferential (p.94); they are "properly basic beliefs" beyond the usual 3 cited by strong foundationalists; egs. the commitment to the reliability of memory; the assumption of a unified center of consciousness that endures through time; perceptual consciousness; rational intuition; acceptance of testimony (see eg. pgs. 90,110,160-2).

Pages 98-104 then explain how "modest foundationalism" contains the strengths of "strong foundationalism" (discussed eg. pgs. 77-84) while avoiding its fatal weaknesses.

After having cleared up some epistemological cob-webs, you will be open & ready to tackle rigorous & sophisticated volumes such as Intelligent Design and The Design Inference by William Dembski (Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy of Science). For another well-written defense of ID with a different perspective, see Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science (2001) (Suny Series in Philosophy and Biology) by Del Ratzsch (Note: Ratzsch includes an appendix criticizing Dembski's The Design Inference). I hope that Myrmecos, Lizard, & others will take some time & effort to RE-EXAMINE their epistemological assumptions because, if they don't, they will be stuck with evidentialist/positivist/strong-foundationalist assumptions that are hopelessly flawed and seen as relics from an unenlightened past by today's top epistemologists. Good luck.

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]

tgamble · 08-25-2002, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scientiae:
[QB](1) I agree that sometimes people engage in the NATURALISTIC FALLACY, deriving "ought" ethical commands & prohibitions from "is" descriptive observations.

Such as?

Quote:

Social darwinists like Adolph Hitler, Oliver Wendell Holmes, & others illegitimately derived "oughts" such as ethnic cleansing, forced sterilization of the "retarded," segregation/apartheid, etc., from Darwin's descriptive observation that the "survival of the fittest" (natural selection; supplemented later by mutations) drove the evolution of life on earth.

Where, prey tell, is there forced sterilization in nature? What species, aside from humans, is even capable of that?

Quote:

Here's a question I have for you, however. Darwinism may not REQUIRE or sanction "might is right," but does it have any place in morally CONDEMNING in an objective sense the horrible acts which you described or in morally REQUIRING in an objective sense values which you and I would agree are virtuous?

Does gravity, germ theory, cell theory, relativity etc. do that? No? Well, shit! Let's not teeach those topics either!

Quote:

Darwinism, it seems to me, may not require acts such as ethnic cleansing, but it ALSO DOES NOT PROHIBIT such acts - IT ALLOWS FOR THEM.

Yeah, and gravity "allows" you to throw someone off a bridge.....

Quote:

(2) It seems reasonable to try to separate the substance of an ideology from its author. I think that the very large majority of darwinists are not racists, but does Darwinism objectively forbid racism?

Does "darwinism" saw ANYTHING about racism at all? Of course not!

Quote:

Even if Darwin was a racist (I don't know if he was), we cannot conclude that Darwinism requires racism; but, Darwinism seems to leave itself OPEN to such dangerous ideologies.

Darwin wasn't a racist. At least, not by the standards of the time. He hated slavery and was even romantically involved with a black woman. I can't see a racist doing that.

I seriously doubt that looking to nature could find any more acts more brutal, crual and horrible than the acts that humans have already done. Murder, rape, genocide, torture, terrorism etc.

Starboy · 08-25-2002, 09:40 AM

This is a rant directed at Christians, and perhaps it should be posted somewhere else, but in my defense the original post on this thread triggered this response.

[RANT]
The vast majority of people in this country are Christians. Wouldn't it be great if a religious upbringing actually created a person, who was decent, law abiding and caring for their fellow man? Wouldn�t it be great if Christians read the bible as if there really were moral messages in it and actually did try to teach people to be good for its own sake? If Christians practiced the morals they preach I would have much more respect for their religion, and this country would be a much nicer place to live.

If you define the good only in terms of pleasing an all-powerful being so it won�t hurt you, isn�t that already getting off on the wrong foot? Christianity at its core is morally flawed. It is built on personal selfishness. Christians preach god wants you to be ________, where the blank can be, rich, powerful, successful, happy, perfect, immortal and any other selfish desire you can think of. It is all about an individual�s personal relationship to god instead of an individual�s relationship to their family and society.

Anything built on purely selfish motives can only lead to bad things for society as a whole. We are social animals for a reason. It is the only way we can survive. Christianity as taught today is a religion for lone predators that are only in it for themselves. This country would be much better off without Christianity. They are a pox upon the land, if we can�t get rid of them at least we should keep them out of our schools and government.
[/RANT]

Starboy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-25-2002, 09:40 AM	#15
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	This is a rant directed at Christians, and perhaps it should be posted somewhere else, but in my defense the original post on this thread triggered this response. [RANT] The vast majority of people in this country are Christians. Wouldn't it be great if a religious upbringing actually created a person, who was decent, law abiding and caring for their fellow man? Wouldn�t it be great if Christians read the bible as if there really were moral messages in it and actually did try to teach people to be good for its own sake? If Christians practiced the morals they preach I would have much more respect for their religion, and this country would be a much nicer place to live. If you define the good only in terms of pleasing an all-powerful being so it won�t hurt you, isn�t that already getting off on the wrong foot? Christianity at its core is morally flawed. It is built on personal selfishness. Christians preach god wants you to be ________, where the blank can be, rich, powerful, successful, happy, perfect, immortal and any other selfish desire you can think of. It is all about an individual�s personal relationship to god instead of an individual�s relationship to their family and society. Anything built on purely selfish motives can only lead to bad things for society as a whole. We are social animals for a reason. It is the only way we can survive. Christianity as taught today is a religion for lone predators that are only in it for themselves. This country would be much better off without Christianity. They are a pox upon the land, if we can�t get rid of them at least we should keep them out of our schools and government. [/RANT] Starboy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.