Ask the materialist...

[MarcoPolo]

Yes, you are very wrong. Read up on the subject of emerging attributes. How and why complexity brings up new “stuff”.

Maybe you could summarize it for me, because I learned a different meaning for “materialist.”

 

[ateista]

Maybe you could summarize it for me, because I learned a different meaning for “materialist.”

Very well. I will not go into too much detail, but show you how to start.

Take 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. When they combine, they will form a water molecule. The properties of the water cannot be reduced to nor explained by the molecule’s physical structure. The attributes of the water are emerging attributes.

According to your previous argument you should question what is this “wetness” the water exhibits, after all it is just a bunch of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Matter interacts with matter via the chemical bonds, and the resulting “water” is something new. There is no need to hypothesize a “water-molecule-soul” which somehow, mysteriously creates a new substance.

It is just protons, electrons, neutrons, etc… It is the configuration of these particles, their physical arrangement is what creates water out of those hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms. None of the attributes of water, good solvent, lousy conductor of electricy, etc… can be reduced to the protons, electrons, etc. Do you find it incompatible with the materialist worldview?

Are you with me so far? If yes, we can continue.

 

[OTavern]

You have a belief system, you should be able to practice it freely. But not to impose it on others.

Here we have a problem because the “law of the land” is based upon one or a combination of belief systems which are then “imposed” on others. There is no getting away from it. At some point someone’s belief system gets imposed on others (through the judicial system) and in the end may entail defending your belief system from the incursion of others because somewhere along the line belief systems will clash with one another.

Capital punishment or no, abortion or the “rights of a woman,” free speech or limitations, what is taught/not taught in the education system, the list goes on. At some point an adherent has to either capitulate, compromise or resist.

The materialist / atheist definition of morality (and you will probably disagree with it): “The written and unwritten rules of a specific society in a specific time”. What society “expects” from its members. How people “ought to” behave according to the generally accepted norms.

The reason I disagree here is that my moral sense is NOT dictated by society. Somethings are good and right, others are not; but the reason for holding them so is not merely because society expects a certain kind of behaviour. Conscience holds an authority over behaviour that social norms or rules do not.

 

[brycelaliberte]

Finally, the world with humans (or other conscious beings). The categories of “moral” and “immoral” enter the picture. Up until this point we probably agree.

The materialist / atheist definition of morality (and you will probably disagree with it): “The written and unwritten rules of a specific society in a specific time”. What society “expects” from its members. How people “ought to” behave according to the generally accepted norms. Deviation from the norms can be considered criminal, or merely in bad taste, depending on the acts and circumstances.

In a primitive tribal soceity cannibalism was considered “moral” though it usually was restricted to eating the warriors of other tribes. Even those societies consider eating women and children unacceptable. Their morality was imposed on them by the scarcity of proteins. They did not eat their own tribesme, however they left old people to die when resources ran low was acceptable.

Today we find cannibalism reprehensible, but not absolute. In the famous tragedy of the plane lost in the Andes when people had to resort to cannibalism no one “threw the first stone”. Extraordinary circumstances will make accepted rules irrelevant, and a new “set of rules” must be put in place.

Before you or someone else brings up the Holocaust: the majority of the people in Germany disagreed with the extermination of Jews and other minorities, they were simply intimidated to speak their mind. Therefore the Holocaust cannot be considered “moral”. It did not reflect the rules, it was violating them.

Unfortunately it happens sometimes that people’s views get distorted to such an extent that they will view other humans as “sub-humans” and will not extend the protection of soceity to those. In such a society otherwise totally reprehensible behavior will become the norm, what they consider “moral”.

Unlike the Nazi Germany in the 20th century, in Europe during the middle ages the pogroms against the Jews were accepted and they were kept in ghettos. Jews were viewed as the “murderers” of Jesus, they were considered to be sub-humans. Of course that fact that Jews held considerable fortunes did not help either. The religious fanaticism combined with envy made the Jews the perfect target.

In America blacks were considered to be sub-humans to be worthy only of slavery. These views were the “norms” and the few dissenters were persecuted. (“Mississippi burning”, anyone?) Where did these views come from? You guessed right, they came from the Bible. Therefore in those times it was the “moral” behavior.

One final example. In Brazil, which is a predominantely Catholic country, women are treated as goddesses - until marriage. After marriage, it is a whole different story. If the husband orders his wife to bring a can of beer, and she does not jump, he can mutilate or even kill her. Ditto, if she wants to get education against his will. So far it is pretty horrible, but that is not the worst. If he can hide from the police for 24 hours, he can go and declare what he did, claim that “she violated his honor” - and the case is closed.

Sorry for the long post, but your questions could not be answered in a “sound-bite”.

Ok, so I do see you have the exact same idea of my friend.

What I must ask, then; If moralities are essentially defined by the “society’s standards,” then where does the ability to consider another society ‘sub-civil’ come from? What is the base that we may consider other society’s views on certain areas better or worse? For there must be an ‘absolute moral standard,’ if you will, to be have groundings to do such. To say otherwise would be to have ‘pulled the ground out from under your feet’ so to say.

Also, there is a difference between something being ‘socially acceptable’ and something being ‘morally acceptable.’ Society doesn’t = morality, obviously. And while things may have been ‘justified’ with the Bible, that doesn’t mean it was truly, objectively being done so. You of all people should realize it is very hard to convince people of something inconvenient.

On a side-note; If you consider the idea of holding other human beings of a certain ‘caste’ as sub-human, what are your views on abortion? For I should think following this idea, there is no way to compensate with the taking of a human life simply because it is so young.

And notice; I didn’t bring up Germany at all. Though some very good points could still be made by the fact that, would/should we have considered those who stood by without speaking out and acting against the Nazi’s ideals having committed a morally wrong act by omission? (Consider this an example for an umbrella of situations)

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Schnobble sed:

Nope, he is very clear about what he means by metaphysical truth. A metaphysical proposition is true and cannot be false.

The Materialist replied:

I am not sure I follow. Any proposition is a set of concepts organized into sentences. Any proposition is either true or false or undecidable. Why would a metaphysical proposition be automatically true?

A proposition put forth for our consideration as metaphysical is not automatically true just because it is proposed as such. Whether or not a proposition is metaphysical is open to question and subject to evaluation according to its logical consistency and coherence and empirical adequacy and applicability. But once we become convinced it is a metaphysical statement, it must be true by definition. Metaphysical truths are necessary truths.

 

[ateista]

Here we have a problem because the “law of the land” is based upon one or a combination of belief systems which are then “imposed” on others. There is no getting away from it. At some point someone’s belief system gets imposed on others (through the judicial system) and in the end may entail defending your belief system from the incursion of others because somewhere along the line belief systems will clash with one another.

Capital punishment or no, abortion or the “rights of a woman,” free speech or limitations, what is taught/not taught in the education system, the list goes on. At some point an adherent has to either capitulate, compromise or resist.

You are absolutely correct. To live in a soceity is to compromise. Our individual freedoms must be curtailed. So far we agree. Where we might not agree is to what extent should they be curtailed or limited.

My measuring rod is simple in pronciple, though it is not so easy to implement. It is based upon the concept that our individual freedoms should be respected, as long as they do not interfere with other people’s freedom. One sentence describes it: “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. However, this simple principle is not easy to put into practice. As usual, the devil is in the details.

The reason I disagree here is that my moral sense is NOT dictated by society. Somethings are good and right, others are not; but the reason for holding them so is not merely because society expects a certain kind of behaviour. Conscience holds an authority over behaviour that social norms or rules do not.

Again, you are right, but you forget that your conscience was formed by your genetic makeup, your family and your environment. The good old nature vs. nurture problem raises its “ugly” head here.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Ateista sed:

Well, we have to differentiate between the “existence” and the “veracity” of the rational propositions. Some philosophers argue that the existence of propositions is independent from the existence of a perceiving agent. They argue that the propositions: “everything is itself” or “1 + 1 = 2” exist even in a world void of physical entites. They argue that these propositions are “abstract objects”.

I disagree with this view, and see absolutely no reason why to accept it. Mind you, the veracity of “everthing is itself” does not depend on any agent, but the existence of it does.

A perceiving subject can think about concrete and physical objects and form ideas about them. A subject can also generalize from specific objects and think in terms of classes of objects. That we can think of dogs, for example, in a general sense, does not mean that this particular abstraction or class exists in a physical sense. The class of dogs exists conceptually. Reference to the class of dogs means that we have defined certain traits of dogginess and find them exemplified in specific concrete objects.

Now we can move up the ladder of abstraction and generality. Let’s say we are talking about numbers and quantity. In stead of dogs we want to talk about any physical object. So we talk in terms of X and Y which can stand for any class. Along the way we discovered that we can do this because the mathematical relation in question holds whether we are talking about dogs or cats or whatever.

So yes, merely rational propositions exist conceptually. (They may or may not be exemplified in the physcial world.) I too don’t think of them as abstract objects with independent existence in some Platonic realm. Specific dogs exist in the physical world, including mah huntin dawg Zoe. I have the idea of dogginess but that exists in my mind.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Schnobble put Ateista to the test:

Here is the test: Do you or do you not espouse the Verifiability Principle? It says that only the following two types of propositions make sense: 1. Merely Empirical Propositions, whose meaningfulness is established by the possibility of finding factual evidence that can prove the statement true or false. and 2. Mere Rational Propositions, whose meaningfulness is established by conceptual definition. (Here truth is “necessary” if the proposition follows the given (arbitrary) definition.)

to which he replied:

Simple answer: “yes”. To be more precise, I cannot even conceive of propositions which do not belong to one of these categories.

OK, provisionally anyway, we dub thee Logical Positivist. It is my fond wish to turn you into a Metaphysician, that is one who not only admits the meaningfulness of merely empirical and rational propositions but also propositions of a third kind which are unavoidably true.

 

[ateista]

What I must ask, then; If moralities are essentially defined by the “society’s standards,” then where does the ability to consider another society ‘sub-civil’ come from? What is the base that we may consider other society’s views on certain areas better or worse? For there must be an ‘absolute moral standard,’ if you will, to be have groundings to do such. To say otherwise would be to have ‘pulled the ground out from under your feet’ so to say.

An analogy will suffice: to compare two objects and decide if one is lighter or heavier than the other, there is no need to have an “absolute” measurement of weight. A simple balance scale will do.

Also, there is a difference between something being ‘socially acceptable’ and something being ‘morally acceptable.’ Society doesn’t = morality, obviously.

True, they are not. Certain behaviors - which are not “important” are simply judged to be in “bad taste”, for example being dirty and stinky without any good and compelling reason. One might get shunned or ostracized but not considered immoral. Only when something is “important” do we start to impose the label, moral and immoral unto it.

And while things may have been ‘justified’ with the Bible, that doesn’t mean it was truly, objectively being done so. You of all people should realize it is very hard to convince people of something inconvenient.

True again. As a side note here (not wishing to derail the conversation) is the problem that the Bible is not simple, straightforward, and easy to understand. Even for two Christians, who hold that the Bible is “essentially” true there are many “local” issues, where they disagree and still both can find “supporting arguments” from the very same Bible. Among other things this is why atheists reject that the Bible could have come from an infallible deity.

On a side-note; If you consider the idea of holding other human beings of a certain ‘caste’ as sub-human, what are your views on abortion? For I should think following this idea, there is no way to compensate with the taking of a human life simply because it is so young.

Ah, the good old problem of abortion.

First, I wish there would never be an abortion, if every child brought into this world would be expected with a happy smile on the parents’ face. I wish that every child would have a reasonable chance to live a healthy, loved and careless childhood. I wish that every conception would be a conscious decision, practiced by two responisble adults, after careful deliberation. But obviously this is not a practical expectation.

Having said that, I do not believe that existence per se is preferable to nonexistence. I do not believe that a few cells after the fusion of the sperm and egg is already a full-blown human being, with equal rights and protection. This comes from the fact that I consider the concept of an “immortal soul” nonsensical and without merit.

I differentiate between the potential and the actualized. When I eat an omlette, I am not under the delusion that I just had a fried chicken.

And notice; I didn’t bring up Germany at all. Though some very good points could still be made by the fact that, would/should we have considered those who stood by without speaking out and acting against the Nazi’s ideals having committed a morally wrong act by omission? (Consider this an example for an umbrella of situations)

Very good problem. My view is that everyone is responsible for himself first. If one can speak out against real or perceived injustices without fear for “loss of limb and life”, if one can rectify injustices without fear of repercussions, than one is morally obligated to do so.

An example would be watching a child who plays with a ball close to a road with heavy traffic. It can be reasonably expected that the ball will roll out into the traffic, and child will run out to retrieve it. To stand by and do nothing I consider immoral and unacceptable.

However, this is a simple problem. Speaking out against the Holocaust would have brought beatings, and murders from the thugs. Not speaking out may be termed “cowardly”, but most of us are not heroes, and cannot stand a chance against an armed and ruthless opponent. Most people chose silent opposition, hiding and helping the persecuted ones.

Now, just because I am an evil atheist (), I will turn the table. The difference between comission and omission is irrelevant if the being in question has nothing to fear. If the being can do whatever he wants to do without even the possibility of repercussions then there is no excuse not to act - obviously I am talking about God here. I do not see any difference between comission and omission, when God is considered. (Let’s not get into this problem any further, but - since you asked - I wanted to give a full answer and of course, I am “evil” - by definition ).

 

[MarcoPolo]

Are you with me so far? If yes, we can continue.

I’m think I’m following. Go ahead another step.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I do not believe that a few cells after the fusion of the sperm and egg is already a full-blown human being, with equal rights and protection. This comes from the fact that I consider the concept of an “immortal soul” nonsensical and without merit.

I differentiate between the potential and the actualized. When I eat an omlette, I am not under the delusion that I just had a fried chicken.

There’s a fairly obvious slippery slope problem here, isn’t there? Certainly you’re right that the zygote is not a full-blown human being, in a certain sense, at the moment of conception. But that statement is almost equally true of a newborn baby. The baby is certainly not a full-blown human. It can’t walk, can’t talk, can’t do nothin’ but cry and suck.
The statement is only somewhat less true of a toddler. Now it can walk and talk a little, but its cognitive abilities lag way behind adults’.
So how do you determine when the potential has been actualized? What are the objective criteria for personhood?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread has gone off topic by developing into a discussion on a side issue. Please take side discussions to new or existing threads. Thank you all.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I thought understanding the materialist worldview was the central issue of this thread.

 

[ateista]

A proposition put forth for our consideration as metaphysical is not automatically true just because it is proposed as such. Whether or not a proposition is metaphysical is open to question and subject to evaluation according to its logical consistency and coherence and empirical adequacy and applicability.

So far I agree completely.

But once we become convinced it is a metaphysical statement, it must be true by definition. Metaphysical truths are necessary truths.

Do you differentiate between a metaphysical proposition and a metaphysical statement? This seems to be the source of my confusion. To me these two phrases are identical.

A perceiving subject can think about concrete and physical objects and form ideas about them. A subject can also generalize from specific objects and think in terms of classes of objects. That we can think of dogs, for example, in a general sense, does not mean that this particular abstraction or class exists in a physical sense. The class of dogs exists conceptually. Reference to the class of dogs means that we have defined certain traits of dogginess and find them exemplified in specific concrete objects.

Now we can move up the ladder of abstraction and generality. Let’s say we are talking about numbers and quantity. In stead of dogs we want to talk about any physical object. So we talk in terms of X and Y which can stand for any class. Along the way we discovered that we can do this because the mathematical relation in question holds whether we are talking about dogs or cats or whatever.

So yes, merely rational propositions exist conceptually. (They may or may not be exemplified in the physcial world.) I too don’t think of them as abstract objects with independent existence in some Platonic realm. Specific dogs exist in the physical world, including mah huntin dawg Zoe. I have the idea of dogginess but that exists in my mind.

Well said, I agree completely.

OK, provisionally anyway, we dub thee Logical Positivist. It is my fond wish to turn you into a Metaphysician, that is one who not only admits the meaningfulness of merely empirical and rational propositions but also propositions of a third kind which are unavoidably true.

I am not sure that it fits completely (Just like OJ’s famous glove. )

Here is the reason. Logical poistivists deny the “merit” of any statement or proposition which cannot be empirically verified. At least that is my understanding, and I am too lazy to look it up.

I don’t agree with them. I think that the Pythagoras theorem cannot be empirically verified, and yet, it has “merit”.

Where I am confused is that you posit (1) empirically verifyable proposiitons, (2) logically deductible propositions (from some set of axioms) and (3) some other kinds, which are not axioms, nor are they the corollaries of axioms, and also not something that pertain to reality, and as such empirically verifyable. I maybe wrong, but this is my perception.

If I am right in my perception, then we disagree. I cannot see this third kind of propositions at all.

Now, I don’t deny that there are universally true propostions. “Everything is itself” is one of them. Or “The universe exists”. But these are axioms on their own right. They cannot be reduced to something “more” fundamental, because they are the very fundamentals, that everything else rests upon. They are not “meaningless”, though rather trivial.

 

[ateista]

There’s a fairly obvious slippery slope problem here, isn’t there?

Yes, there is. And it can be very slippery, indeed.

Certainly you’re right that the zygote is not a full-blown human being, in a certain sense, at the moment of conception. But that statement is almost equally true of a newborn baby. The baby is certainly not a full-blown human. It can’t walk, can’t talk, can’t do nothin’ but cry and suck.
The statement is only somewhat less true of a toddler. Now it can walk and talk a little, but its cognitive abilities lag way behind adults’.

Also very true. The question is where do we draw the line, which is the point where we (prettty much arbitrarily) decide that the potential has been actualized. Also I would agree that it is better to err on the side of caution.

Here is an analogy: when does a medical student become a doctor? At the time he is accepted in college? At the time he learned anatomy? At the time when he finished his final exams? At the time he receives his diploma?

Most people would agree that the deciding point is the diploma. Even 5 minutes before that event (which is largely symbolic) the student cannot claim that he is a doctor, should be allowed to practice. Now, this example is not supposed to be taken as equivalent of allowing to live or not. It is only supposed to illustrate the difficulty of the problem of drawing a line somewhere.

So how do you determine when the potential has been actualized? What are the objective criteria for personhood?

I can offer my own view, subject to criticism. I draw the line at the start of the electrical activity of the brain. My reason is that any and all of our “specifics” can be removed or replaced (transplants or protheses) and we stay essentially the same as long as our brain works. And conversely, a brain-dead individual, who may be kept “alive” in the vegetative sense of the word is not a person any more.

 

[ateista]

I’m think I’m following. Go ahead another step.

Very good. We agree (I hope) that a complex structure may be more than its constituent parts. Even with simple quantitiative changes at a certain point some qualitative changes can occur.

Going from the simple to the complex, at the lowest level we have some subatomic particles. They combine into atoms, which combine into molecules. The molecules can combine and change into living organisms. (Important to observe, that the dividing line between “living” and inanimate matter is not objective, it is a relatively arbitrary decision).

Living organisms can become more complex (from single-cell organisms to multi-cellular ones). At the lowest level (algae and plants) they have no nervous system. At higher ones they develop a nervous system. Eventually some very high level ones (humans) appear.

Even though everything we see is just “dancing” of the electrons (or subatomic particles) the complexity creates new attributes which cannot be reduced to the “building bricks”.

Quantum physics deals with the subatomic particles. Physics deals with the next step. Chemistry studies molecules and their attributes. Biology studies living organisms. Sociology deals with human interactions. Philosophy deals with abstactions, etc…

Now that does not mean that at every step we need to assume some mysterious, maybe supernatural “influence”. There is no such assumption between atoms and molecules. No one assumes that the properties of molecules must be either reduced to the properties of atoms (impossible) or be explained as a divine action (unneccesary).

The same principle applies at other levels of development. Sure, our feelings, thoughts, desires are just the elecro-chemical activities of the brain, but they are real nevertheless.

I hope this is sufficient explanation.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I don’t mean to cherry-pick, but I only have a few minutes. Could you clarify this for me, when you have a chance?

No one assumes that the properties of molecules must be either reduced to the properties of atoms (impossible) or be explained as a divine action (unneccesary).

What properties of molecules can not be explained as properties of atoms? If you meant to say that it’s easier to treat them as qualitatively different, that’s fine. But impossible? I don’t get it.

Thanks!

 

[ateista]

What properties of molecules can not be explained as properties of atoms? If you meant to say that it’s easier to treat them as qualitatively different, that’s fine. But impossible? I don’t get it.

Wetness for one. Transparency, being a good universal solvent.

Or take carbon. Six carbon atoms arranged in a flat, hexagonal format (graphite) will have totally different properties than the same 6 atoms arranged at the vertices of an octahedron (diamond). Same building material, same 6 carbon atoms, completely different properties - due to the structure or arrangement. Stuff like that.

 

[OTavern]

Again, you are right, but you forget that your conscience was formed by your genetic makeup, your family and your environment. The good old nature vs. nurture problem raises its “ugly” head here.

Not limited to nature vs nurture. There is another possibility: that a person may forge their own conscience using reason and truth as guiding principles. This means a person may overcome both the effects of nurture and alter natural “tendencies.”

Reason is our commitment to truth and this lifts us above both nature and nurture. Your assumption that conscience is only formed by genetic makeup or environment precludes “a choice” to move past these and to “be free” of both – only possible by taking “the rudder” into one’s hands. If you deny the existence of a rudder on a ship, or dismiss its efficacy, then that would entail never discovering its purpose or “virtue” (in the Aristotelian sense) and you would never take control of the direction of your ship.

We could also bring grace into the debate; akin to harnessing the power of the wind by hoisting a “sail.” Again, not recognizing grace, like dismissing the power of reason, would mean a person could never actively “work with” grace to form conscience or alter behavior. Why raise a sail if you don’t believe in wind? Thus, a severe limiting condition is imposed by an unnecessary assumption.

In other words, if nature and nurture are the only players you allow in the game, you are part of a team with a severe handicap even before the game starts. Why limit possibilities by making an assumption that does not need to be made.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Ateista sed:

Do you differentiate between a metaphysical proposition and a metaphysical statement? This seems to be the source of my confusion. To me these two phrases are identical.

Sorry to confuse. Substitute proposition for statement.