Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gcameron · 06-23-2003, 06:48 PM

Quote:

I do not see a survival value for sorrow: just learn from the accident and move on.

Aargh, sorry, can't resist an evo aside. What if sorrow/guilt/regret *are* the brain's way of "learning from the accident" (i.e. deterring the agent from repeating the mistake, like the sick feeling Alex gets in Clockwork Orange)? Based on my own experience, that certainly seems to be one of the functions of this spectrum of emotions. Also, displays of sorrow might be essential to social interaction, hence sexual selection, yada yada.

This is going rather beyond the simple question of whether emotions (or, rather, the subjective experience of them) can exist in a materialistic universe, however.

All of which has nothing to do with the OP.

Sorry, I'll go now...

Normal · 06-23-2003, 08:09 PM

I think all theophilus wants is an epistemologically sound, materialistic explanation for morality. For example, why is adultery wrong? In a materialistic worldview, your partner having sex with someone else should affect you approximately zilch. "Evil" happening to someone else should do nothing to interfere with your own morality as long as you do not commit "evil" subjectively, so why should you care? What basis do you have for even caring about freezing babies in Afganistan from a materialistic perspective?

Philosoft · 06-23-2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
I think all theophilus wants is an epistemologically sound, materialistic explanation for morality. For example, why is adultery wrong? In a materialistic worldview, your partner having sex with someone else should affect you approximately zilch. "Evil" happening to someone else should do nothing to interfere with your own morality as long as you do not commit "evil" subjectively, so why should you care? What basis do you have for even caring about freezing babies in Afganistan from a materialistic perspective?

I wasn't aware materialism was in any position to provide such answers. In any case, if theo is really interested, there's a place a couple of fora down that is chock-full of folk who can explain in great detail why certain behaviors were selected for. He's not going to be happy that evolution really only provides the framework for a subjective (or intersubjective) morality, but them's the breaks. He's also not happy that theism fails to objectify morality as well.

ComestibleVenom · 06-23-2003, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
I wasn't aware materialism was in any position to provide such answers.

Methodological materialism does not provide answers to moral questions, but act as a way to finding truth, the stuff with which we have the best opportunity to find the optimal mixes of moral strategies. (Even if, as some idealists posit, the maintenence of delusion is necessary for optimal moral strategies.)

HRG · 06-24-2003, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
<snip>

All arguments are "presuppositional" in nature. That's why I do not challenge the unbelievers presupposition. I challenge his ability to give a meaningful explanation, based on his presupposition, for the nature of human experience, particularly the existence of immaterial aspects such as laws of thought (logic), laws of behavior (morality) and laws of nature (in a purely contingent universe).

The point is that you dismiss naturalistic explanations as "not meaningful/cogent/coherent" based on your own presuppositions.

The first presupposition is your analogy between descriptive and prescriptive laws;

the second presupposition is the existence of an absolute morality.

The third presupposition is the characterization of ideas, concepts etc. as existing things, and not just patterns in the (material) brains of sentient beings.

Without these presuppositions, your point collapses.

The "laws of logic" ? They are consequences of the semantics of the language we use to describe the universe and do not exist independent of us. Similarly, the "laws of nature" are our descriptions of the regularities of the universe that we have observed. That such regularities exist is easily explained by naturalismm - by the absence of supernatural beings who might disturb the behavior of the universe.

Quote:

The fact that they cannot give a meaningful, cogent, coherent explanation proves that they are "importing" some assumption which is not based on their atheistic (inherently materialistic) presupposition. In fact, they are borrowing from the worldview which is based on the presupposition that the creator God has revealed homself in the Bible and that his revelation is the only authoritative foundation for understanding human experience.

The sheer chutzpah of presuppositionalism in hijacking ideas (e.g. of early Greek philosophers) for themselves has to be seen to be believed, and finds it counterpart only in the Soviet claim from a bygone area that all important discoveries have been made by Russian scientists.

Since atheists strictly deny that alleged revelations are a foundation at all, how could you claim that they borrowed from a worldview which is based on the claim in your last sentences ?

We are not "borrowing" anything. We take that which is legitimally ours and has been hijacked by presuppositionalists.

"Ubi rem meam invenio, ibi vindico" (I reclaim my property wherever I find it - Roman legal maxim).

Quote:

In doing this, i.e., borrowing from the Christian worldview, they betray that they really know that God is the author of their existence and experience and that their claim not to know him is a reflection of their rebellion agaisnt his legitimate authority over their lives.

BTW, this last part is not my opinion;

OK. It's Paul's opinion.

Quote:

it is what scripture says about the nature of those who claim to "disbelieve," so please don't anybody accuse me of claiming to know what they believe.

No, we charge you with presenting the opinion of an early Christian propagandist *) as reality, without being able to support it by any objective evidence.

*) and - until Lenin's writings - unequalled master of the technique of poisoning the well.

Regards,
HRG.

theophilus · 06-24-2003, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spenser
I suppose your use of the word objectivity makes the definition that you are asking for impossible. Morality is subjective, not objective and subjective morality has little problem existing in a purely materialistic world. Consensus works just fine here. As far as s strict moral standard, even people that get their morality from the bible don't seem to have a matching set of morals.

How, exactly, are these subjective standards worked out? I don't remember voting on them. Did the UN do this while we weren't watching.
If they are purely subjective, then there is no obligation that anyone observe them, is there. If so, how?

You confuse "standards" of morality with the concept of morality. Christians may disagree over the application of the Ten Commandments, but none would say it is okay to steal, kill, etc.

Do you believe abortion is evil? How about Euthanasia?

I believe that murder (the unjustified taking of another human life) is sinful. It is so because God has declared it so. I claim no personal authority for this standard.

Why do so many Christians disagree with you?

I don't know that "so many Christians" disagree with me. Those who disagree do not interpret these things as murder. Do you know any of these "many" who would argue that murder is okay?

Will God send all the ones that are wrong to hell?

Salvation is by grace, not performance or perfect knowledge.

I am impressed with your ability to manipulate the English language and use it to argue (except for your ignoring peoples obvious intentions in some of their statements), but it does very little to substantiate your assertions. You seem to be representing the idea that good and evil cannot exist objectively in a materialistic world. Lose the qualifier, realize that good and evil are subjective and they exist quite fine in a material world.

I am contending that "objectivity" is a necessary requirement for morality. Without it, your standards are purely preference.
The point is, you know this yourself. You don't really believe it's okay to murder under certain circumstances.
If I stole from you, you woudn't accept my defense that I had a different "subjective" standard from you. That's why we punish criminals, because they have violated certain standards which we consider to be inviolable in and of themselves. Otherwise, we'd have to accept their argument that their subjective standard is just as good as the majority's.

If the consensus of people in the world can agree that suffering is evil, I have little problem accepting it as evil.

Don't you see that you've gotten yourself into a hopeless quagmire? You've used a subjective term to qualify a subjective term, i.e., calling "suffering" "evil" just compounds the problem.

Now if there is a God, and we are all wrong, then God and the Bible are doing a crappy job of letting the world know the difference between good and evil.

Not to those who have been taught by it. To those who look at it from an inherently unbelieving position, it reveals nothing since it demands submission to its authority as the beginning of understanding. Much like the "laws" of geometry.

Now if we are supposed to be living a morally good life, yet God isn't letting us know that certain things we consider evil are really good, then how omnibenevolent is God?

Well, if you want to operate on faulty assumptions, you'll surely get faulty conclusions. The object of God's law is not so we can live "morally good" lives; it is to show us that we don't live morally good lives, i.e., that we are sinners. God's goodness is just in showing us this and warning of it's eternally destructive consequences.

It all lends to the absurdity of an actually all good being who
allows so much perceived evil and who failed communications in college. Now for more cute faces:

God's goodness is not based on man's standard of what is right and wrong. How could it be if man's standards are purely subjective?

:banghead: :banghead:

[/B]

theophilus · 06-24-2003, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HRG
[B]The point is that you dismiss naturalistic explanations as "not meaningful/cogent/coherent" based on your own presuppositions.

That is simply not true. I do not dismiss them. I argue that a "meaningful/cogent/coherent" explanation cannot be given on the "unbeliever's" presupposition and challenge the unbeliever to disprove that by demonstrating how a purely materialistic system can explain human experience, including the possibility of knowledge, morality, rationality, and science.

The first presupposition is your analogy between descriptive and prescriptive laws;

the second presupposition is the existence of an absolute morality.

The third presupposition is the characterization of ideas, concepts etc. as existing things, and not just patterns in the (material) brains of sentient beings.

There is only one presupposition, that God is the source of all existence and that his revealed word is the necessary prerequisite for all knowledge. That this is untestable by "objective" means in undeniable, just as it is undeniable that any other presupposition, as the starting point for thought is untestable by something "above" it because that thing would become the presupposition.

Without these presuppositions, your point collapses.

No, I am perfectly willing to argue on the basis of the unbeliever's worldview and ask him to explain how his worldview gives a meaningful explanation for the reality of human experience, e.g., how can materialism account for the existence of immaterial entitites.

The "laws of logic" ? They are consequences of the semantics of the language we use to describe the universe and do not exist independent of us.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
The fact is, logic is the nature of reality, it is not derived by consensus. The law of contradiction is true whether someone has ever heard of it or not.

Similarly, the "laws of nature" are our descriptions of the regularities of the universe that we have observed. That such regularities exist is easily explained by naturalismm - by the absence of supernatural beings who might disturb the behavior of the universe.

The laws of nature are not based on a naturalistic worldview. A naturalistic worldview would have to take each event as unique and could make no predictions about what might happen in the future under similar circumstances.
It is not the "laws of nature" as statements, it is the statements as "laws" that cannot be explained by materialism.
You do not know what the "regularity" of matter is. You only know how matter has "appeared" to behave until now. You have no experiential or rational basis for asserting that it will continue to behave the same way.
But we do "know" that the creation behaves in a predictable way. How is such knowledge possible? Only on a Christian theistic basis.
If you want to argue with this, please provide some evidence that I'm wrong.

The sheer chutzpah of presuppositionalism in hijacking ideas (e.g. of early Greek philosophers) for themselves has to be seen to be believed, and finds it counterpart only in the Soviet claim from a bygone area that all important discoveries have been made by Russian scientists.

First of all, presuppositionalism is not a peculiar Christian idea. As I've explained elsewhere, thought would be impossible without making some assumptions about the nature of reality, experience, perception, etc.
Second, Christian presuppositionalists do not pretend to have invented this argument. The uniquness of the argument is as a Christian apologetic method.
The argument is still valid and you're attempts to simply dismiss it or descry us for "hijacking" it don't answer it.

Since atheists strictly deny that alleged revelations are a foundation at all, how could you claim that they borrowed from a worldview which is based on the claim in your last sentences ?

Because they cannot account for the immaterial aspects of human experience based on an exclusively materialistic worldview.
Now, if they want to import some immaterial aspect into their worldview, let them acknowledge that and we can discuss whether that helps or not.

We are not "borrowing" anything. We take that which is legitimally ours and has been hijacked by presuppositionalists.

Well, that's the whole point at dispute, isn't it? If it is "legitimately" yours, you shouldn't have any trouble demonstrating that and won't need to spend anymore time trying to discredit my approach.

"Ubi rem meam invenio, ibi vindico" (I reclaim my property wherever I find it - Roman legal maxim).

And just how do you explain concepts like "legitimacy" and "property" rights from a materialstic worldview?

OK. It's Paul's opinion.

Well, it's God speaking through Paul, unless you know better. You'd have to explain how you "know" that.

No, we charge you with presenting the opinion of an early Christian propagandist *) as reality, without being able to support it by any objective evidence.

The objective evidence is that you operate on a worldview that can only be explained by the Christian system while denying that system. You may not agree with that, but it is objective. Of course, we're back to the same starting point. To prove that it is not so, you have to prove, by "objective" evidence that your system can account for the way you live.

*) and - until Lenin's writings - unequalled master of the technique of poisoning the well.

Regards,
HRG.

theophilus · 06-24-2003, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
I wasn't aware materialism was in any position to provide such answers.

Well, but that's just the point. Morality is an undeniable feature of human experience. Evolution may offer an account of why certain "behaviors" became dominant (not "selected"), but it cannot account for the "idea" of right and wrong, good and bad.

If materrialism isn't in a position to provide such answers, then atheists are in no position to claim that the presence of "evil" in the world disproves God, because their use of the term evil is meaningless

In any case, if theo is really interested, there's a place a couple of fora down that is chock-full of folk who can explain in great detail why certain behaviors were selected for. He's not going to be happy that evolution really only provides the framework for a subjective (or intersubjective) morality, but them's the breaks. He's also not happy that theism fails to objectify morality as well.

Well, you're simply wrong on this last point. I am not arguing the uniformity of moral standards, I am arguing the existence of the concept of morality as an infallible proof for the "existence of God," and that's what this thread is all about, istn't it?

theophilus · 06-24-2003, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
Methodological materialism does not provide answers to moral questions, but act as a way to finding truth, the stuff with which we have the best opportunity to find the optimal mixes of moral strategies. (Even if, as some idealists posit, the maintenence of delusion is necessary for optimal moral strategies.)

The problem is that "methodological" or any other type of materialism cannot find the truth. Since the existence of a thing must be "known" to be found, materialism must first know that truth exists before it can find it. Such knowledge cannot be explained materialistically.

Materialism cannot even explain the idea of knowledge. Since its only source of information is sensory experience, it cannot explain how these experiences relate to one another or even understand the true nature of the experience.

theophilus · 06-24-2003, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Metcalf
Originally posted by BurgDE :

This might indeed be better in Evolution & Creation, but let me make one more response here. Atheism is not, and has never been, committed to materialism. But even if we suppose materialism is true, why is the existence of sorrow less surprising on the hypothesis of theism?

Atheism has no choice but to be committed to materialism, aka, naturalism. There are only so many choices; deny the supernatural and you're left with the natural.

Now, if you want to import some element of supernaturalism, you'll have to "prove" that like you challenge me to prove God.

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

06-23-2003, 08:09 PM	#82
Normal Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 639	I think all theophilus wants is an epistemologically sound, materialistic explanation for morality. For example, why is adultery wrong? In a materialistic worldview, your partner having sex with someone else should affect you approximately zilch. "Evil" happening to someone else should do nothing to interfere with your own morality as long as you do not commit "evil" subjectively, so why should you care? What basis do you have for even caring about freezing babies in Afganistan from a materialistic perspective?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.