Morality and Subjectivity

[tonyrey]

I have, from time to time, found myself in the position of having a feeling that something was missing, something was wrong with the supernaturalist arguments presented for things like consciousness, but not really knowing enough - either philosophically or scientifically - to articulate the problems. The fact is that naturalistic explanations - or at least the supposition that there are naturalistic explanations waiting to be found - resonate more strongly for me, now, based upon my own experience and research, than the claim that there is some supernatural phenomenon at work.

A supposition is a very weak basis for an interpretation of reality. If that is all you come up with …

Indeed, and to be frank, the recourse to the supernatural frequently seems to me to be a form of intellectual cowardice - the unwillingness to admit that there is a natural, material explanation for observed phenomena, particularly when these phenomena are close to home, as consciousness obviously is.

It is a form of intellectual cowardice to be unwilling to admit that there is a more powerful and direct explanation of consciousness rather than regarding it as the outcome of a blind evolutionary process. The thought that there is a Being higher than yourself is obviously daunting and humbling… It is far safer to stay in your comfort zone…

Clearly - at least to me - we have a strong attachment to the notion of superiority and specialness that comes with the assumption that we possess something more than a highly sophisticated animal brain, and it’s a hard notion to abandon - but I have since learned that letting go of supernaturalist ideas opens up whole vistas of potential knowledge and understanding, and gives an entirely new character to our concepts of morality (amongst other things).

In other words you are content to live at a “higher ape” level in a closed physical system… …

I think that in the matter of morality, there is always tension between our selfish and our social preferences. The desire to fulfil personal, selfish preferences is circumscribed by our desire to maintain sound relationships with others. Thus the concept of free will becomes a perfectly natural requirement to navigate and perhaps compromise between potentially conflicting needs and desires.

It always amuses me to observe how atheists attempt to explain away free will - together with the self, the power of reason and purposeful activity.

 

[tonyrey]

I have, from time to time, found myself in the position of having a feeling that something was missing, something was wrong with the supernaturalist arguments presented for things like consciousness, but not really knowing enough - either philosophically or scientifically - to articulate the problems. The fact is that naturalistic explanations - or at least the supposition that there are naturalistic explanations waiting to be found - resonate more strongly for me, now, based upon my own experience and research, than the claim that there is some supernatural phenomenon at work.

A supposition is a very weak basis for an interpretation of reality on which you base your philosophy of life!

Indeed, and to be frank, the recourse to the supernatural frequently seems to me to be a form of intellectual cowardice - the unwillingness to admit that there is a natural, material explanation for observed phenomena, particularly when these phenomena are close to home, as consciousness obviously is. Clearly - at least to me - we have a strong attachment to the notion of superiority and specialness that comes with the assumption that we possess something more than a highly sophisticated animal brain, and it’s a hard notion to abandon - but I have since learned that letting go of supernaturalist ideas opens up whole vistas of potential knowledge and understanding, and gives an entirely new character to our concepts of morality (amongst other things).

It is undoubtedly a form of intellectual cowardice to be unwilling to admit that there is a greater Being than yourself. It is far safer to stay in your comfort zone as a higher animal rather than an autonomous person with an eternal destiny…

I think that in the matter of morality, there is always tension between our selfish and our social preferences. The desire to fulfil personal, selfish preferences is circumscribed by our desire to maintain sound relationships with others. Thus the concept of free will becomes a perfectly natural requirement to navigate and perhaps compromise between potentially conflicting needs and desires.

How on earth can tension between preferences produce the power of self-control?

 

[R_Daneel]

The fundamental problem for atheists of your kind is that you think fine words like “emergentism” dispose of all the problems.

Incorrect thinking. It does not “dispose” of the problems, it is the recognized starting point of looking for real explanations for those actual and valid problems. Not the meaningless goddidit “answer”.

What atrocious logic!
Strawman!

Typical non-answers… as usual. So what is the explanation for the wetness of the water? Why is graphite soft and diamond hard? Where is the god-of-wetness, god-of-softness and god-of-hardness who created these “supernatural” phenomena? At least be consistent… And once again; materialism is not reductionism. Maybe if I repeat this simple truism, eventually it will sink in, but I do not hold my breath.

I wonder why you came in the first place since you’re so sure of yourself…

To teach. In my life I have met some people who are unwilling to learn, and usually I just leave them to their ignorance. Which is mostly what I am doing here… Btw, my post was directed to Leela. Since you chose to respond to it, now I respond to you. But I don’t expect that you will comprehend what I am saying.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hear, hear! That is the fundamental problem for the theists of Tony’s kind. They do not comprehend the concept of emerging attributes. To use a very simple example, the wetness of water cannot be reduced to the properties of hydrogen and oxygen - it is an emerging attribute. Of course they are not too stupid to bring up a “supernatural” explanation for wetness (a hypothetical god-of-wetness) - which they really should if they were consistent.

Materialism is not reductionism - and that is the stumbling block they are unable to understand. Their simplistic view that emergent attributes (social interactions, or consciousness, or free will - for example) must be explained in terms of particle interactions shows a complete ignorance of what scientific, materialistic view is all about.

Emergent properties, ah the wonder!

Here’s the question, though. I suppose you will agree that consciousness is an emergent property, no? What is it an emergent property of? Matter. And there you have it, you have “explained” consciousness. You have not told us, however, what it means to be conscious. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Great! Wonderful!

Still, small voice: “What is the whole?”

The scientist and the humanist are not in conflict. The scientist asks the question, “How?” The humanist asks the question “What?”

“What is anger?” for example. You and I both agree that anger can probably be reduced to interactions between physical particles, etc, but this explanation does not account for the experience of anger. It is a parallel process, just as the projection of light onto a screen is a parallel process to the experience of watching a film.

If you don’t like reductionism, what else have you got to offer? What if I ask deeper questions, like “What is sympathy?” or “What is despair?” or “What is existence?” Of course, “What is free will?” may be the deepest question of all. I commend your willingness to avoid reductionistic answers, but the only place that you find answers that aren’t reductionistic are in the humanities.

(And please, don’t accuse me of thinking that everything that we don’t understand can be explained simply by saying that God is the answer. I don’t hold such a “reductionist” philosophy, and very few theists do.)

 

[tonyrey]

Incorrect thinking. It does not “dispose” of the problems, it is the recognized starting point of looking for real explanations for those actual and valid problems. Not the meaningless goddidit “answer”.

Recognised by a small subsection of humanity as the **starting point! **And that’s about it! Has it enlightened you as to how you should live and make important decisions? Or is it the meaningless
matterdidit answer which, ironically, leaves you in the dark about everything that matters?!

Typical non-answers… as usual. So what is the explanation for the wetness of the water? Why is graphite soft and diamond hard? Where is the god-of-wetness, god-of-softness and god-of-hardness who created these “supernatural” phenomena? At least be consistent… And once again; materialism is not reductionism. Maybe if I repeat this simple truism, eventually it will sink in, but I do not hold my breath.

Why is a person conscious? What is the explanation of free will? How is a person purposeful?Where is the “matter” of consciousness, the “matter” of free will and the “matter” of purposefulness? No answers… as usual. Materialism is the belief in the magical power of matter to produce absolutely everything that exists. In addition to being a superstition it is also a substition because it deprives everything of meaning, value and purpose… You say materialism is not reductive yet you cannot deny that you regard life as ultimately meaningless, valueless and purposeless - and that persons exist for absolutely no **reason **whatsoever…

To teach. In my life I have met some people who are unwilling to learn, and usually I just leave them to their ignorance. Which is mostly what I am doing here…

What makes you believe you are so enlightened and have a mission to teach others? Are you a disciple of Richard Dawkins?

Btw, my post was directed to Leela. Since you chose to respond to it, now I respond to you. But I don’t expect that you will comprehend what I am saying.

Your post was directed to Leela but since it contained a disparaging reference to me I believe I have the right to respond to it. Or doesn’t that fit into your arbitrary code of conduct? In the light of past experience I know that you won’t comprehend what I am saying because, from the point of view of philosophy, you are clearly well and truly out of your depth…

 

[Sair]

Emergent properties, ah the wonder!

Here’s the question, though. I suppose you will agree that consciousness is an emergent property, no? What is it an emergent property of? Matter. And there you have it, you have “explained” consciousness. You have not told us, however, what it means to be conscious. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Great! Wonderful!

Still, small voice: “What is the whole?”

The scientist and the humanist are not in conflict. The scientist asks the question, “How?” The humanist asks the question “What?”

“What is anger?” for example. You and I both agree that anger can probably be reduced to interactions between physical particles, etc, but this explanation does not account for the experience of anger. It is a parallel process, just as the projection of light onto a screen is a parallel process to the experience of watching a film.

If you don’t like reductionism, what else have you got to offer? What if I ask deeper questions, like “What is sympathy?” or “What is despair?” or “What is existence?” Of course, “What is free will?” may be the deepest question of all. I commend your willingness to avoid reductionistic answers, but the only place that you find answers that aren’t reductionistic are in the humanities.

(And please, don’t accuse me of thinking that everything that we don’t understand can be explained simply by saying that God is the answer. I don’t hold such a “reductionist” philosophy, and very few theists do.)

Hmm…since the thread appears to have been shunted a little off-course anyway, I might as well throw another spanner in the works - although I don’t think it’s entirely irrelevant to the original premise of the subjectivity of morality.

I can understand how it can be very easy to see materialism as reductionism, and in a sense it’s also easy to see how the explanation for things like the wetness of water and the hardness of diamond can be ‘reduced’ to the way certain arrangements of molecules behave - such things are, on the face of it, fairly simple and largely uniform. But when it comes to something like consciousness, we’re dealing with a wide and complex range of properties, and the explanation is made all the more difficult by the fact that we’re observing all these things from the inside, from the position of the ‘subject’ of the many physical and chemical factors at work in our brains.

My questions, then, are as follows. The very use of the term ‘reductionist’ implies that there is something from which to be reduced. What is that something, in the case of humans? What is personhood, if not the combination of properties we find in human animals? Those who object to the notion that consciousness might ultimately have a materialist, naturalistic explanation obviously feel that this would make it something different to what we experience as consciousness. Supposing that all our subjective experiences arise from molecular activity in our brains - would this be different from what we do experience, and if so, how, and does this matter to our concept of personhood?

Here we run face-first into the difficulties inherent in explaining ourselves from the inside - if there are materialist explanations for the experienced phenomena upon which we have built our understanding of ourselves as people, why would this necessarily make a difference to how we think and behave? If we experience the act of differentiating between preferences as free will, why should our understanding of it as free will be altered by the knowledge that our brains are managing this differentiation at a molecular level? And why, oh why, do immaterialists insist upon distinguishing between us and our brains? Are not brains a key part of persons? It makes no practical sense to say, “my brain made this decision” as if that were a different claim to “I made this decision”.

 

[Sair]

A supposition is a very weak basis for an interpretation of reality on which you base your philosophy of life!

It is, however, a supposition for which I have encountered a great deal of empirical and experiential evidence in my life.

It is undoubtedly a form of intellectual cowardice to be unwilling to admit that there is a greater Being than yourself. It is far safer to stay in your comfort zone as a higher animal rather than an autonomous person with an eternal destiny…

How is an autonomous person different to a ‘higher animal’? And surely having any kind of destiny would interfere with the process of autonomy? As with anything, it depends upon your point of view, and how it has been shaped by experience. One man’s cowardice may be another’s heroism. What I will say is that letting go of the notion of a higher being is often seen as an act of arrogance on the part of atheists, but the implications of this are staggering and profoundly humbling. We are, for all we know, alone as conscious entities in a vast impersonal universe, but we are. nonetheless, part of that universe, part of something far greater than ourselves. In moral terms, this view means letting go of the notion that our morality is handed down and shaped for us by a higher power, and embracing the responsibility for understanding and managing our own behaviour.

How on earth can tension between preferences produce the power of self-control?

In the act of resolving the tension by following one of the conflicting preferences, whether it be the short-term gratification or working towards the long-term goal; acting according to selfish desires or social desires. We interpret the two former options as a lack of self-control, while we see the two latter as exercising self-control.

 

[R_Daneel]

Emergent properties, ah the wonder!

It is amazing. Take a bunch of carbon atoms, and pile them up… nothing special will happen. Take a bunch of uranium atoms and do the same. Up until a point it will be just a pile of atoms - but adding one more to them will cause the pile blow up. It reached the critical mass. A simple quantitative change can cause qualitative change. Science is happy with establishing this fact. Some people may posit a question: “why is the number N so special that piling up N uranium atoms will cause an explosion, while N-1 atoms are still stable?” This is a typical non-question.

Here’s the question, though. I suppose you will agree that consciousness is an emergent property, no? What is it an emergent property of? Matter. And there you have it, you have “explained” consciousness. You have not told us, however, what it means to be conscious. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Great! Wonderful!

To be more precise: the whole has new properties, which cannot be reduced to the “mass” alone - just like the pile of uranium atoms. In this case, it is a bit different. It is not the mass of the brain material which causes the difference, it is the arrangement, the interaction of the neural network. A newborn already has the brain material, with some essential properties, the most important of which is the ability to learn. The elephant’s brain is much larger, and still simpler.

As we all (?) know every bit of learning process creates changes in the brain. Every time something new is seen, or heard, or tasted, new connections are formed in the neural network. If a piece of the brain gets damaged, the prior connections can be lost. To say that the brain is merely a “conduit” to some intangible “soul” is just about as primitive a notion as the old Greek assumption was, which held that the brain is just a cooling organ for the blood. (And those “primitive” people are still held in high regard - philosophically! As if nothing happened in the last 2000 years… amazing.)

Still, small voice: “What is the whole?”

It depends.

The scientist and the humanist are not in conflict. The scientist asks the question, “How?” The humanist asks the question “What?”

“What is anger?” for example. You and I both agree that anger can probably be reduced to interactions between physical particles, etc, but this explanation does not account for the experience of anger. It is a parallel process, just as the projection of light onto a screen is a parallel process to the experience of watching a film.

If you don’t like reductionism, what else have you got to offer? What if I ask deeper questions, like “What is sympathy?” or “What is despair?” or “What is existence?” Of course, “What is free will?” may be the deepest question of all. I commend your willingness to avoid reductionistic answers, but the only place that you find answers that aren’t reductionistic are in the humanities.

(And please, don’t accuse me of thinking that everything that we don’t understand can be explained simply by saying that God is the answer. I don’t hold such a “reductionist” philosophy, and very few theists do.)

Now these questions are quite interesting. How does memory work? How do we recognize our mother’s face even on a very blurred photograph? How does the subconscious work? No question about it, these are fascinating questions. We don’t have the answers, and maybe we shall never have them - for one specific individual. Take the autistic people for example. They literally are unable to conceptualize “a dog”. If they hear the word “dog”, they recall each and every dog they have ever seen in their life (which is a long process), but for them there is no “abstract dog”. The brain is not just incredibly complex, but also unique. For you the “abstract dog” is quite likely different from mine.

So where does that leave us? Throw in the towel, and say “goddidit”? Not for me, and quite possible not for you either. There are many wonderful religious scientists, and they do not throw in the towel either. What is the solution? Accepting the hypothesis that these questions can be answered without resorting to some “supernatural”, and find the materialistic answer.

Now, way before we shall “understand” the intricacies of “how” the brain produces “consciousness” (for example) we shall be able to recreate it. Even today, artifical intelligence starts to produce more and more similar results to the actual working of the higher functions of the brain. And these machines are incredibly crude compared to the billions of brain cells we all have. As soon as the first machine will (and it will!) pass the Turing-test, the whole question of “how does the ‘natural’ brain produce these functions” will become much less important - from the philosophical point of view.

As you correctly said, only a few theists hold the answer “goddidit” satisfactory, and none of the scientists (religious ones too) do. That is what makes them scientists. Yet, unfortunately there are many people who use the bumper sticker, which says: “Jesus said it, I believe it, and that is the end of it”. Those are the ones, who need to be educated, but they are also the ones who resist the education with all their subborn might. What to do? Disregard them, as hopelessly stupid and ignorant.

 

[tonyrey]

…1…

It is, however, a supposition for which I have encountered a great deal of empirical and experiential evidence in my life.

You need to specify the precise ways in which your supposition that everything has potentially a naturalistic explanation has increased your insight and understanding of rationality, consciousness, morality, personality, self-control, truth, human rights, and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity! You also need to define how you interpret “nature” because it seems a vague term capable of indefinite expansion to accommodate new discoveries about anything! How do you distinguish “natural”, for example, from that which can be observed by the senses? Does it include intangibles?

How is an autonomous person different to a ‘higher animal’?

This is evident in legal systems throughout the world and in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

And surely having any kind of destiny would interfere with the process of autonomy?

Not if you believe that we alone determine our destiny.

As with anything, it depends upon your point of view, and how it has been shaped by experience. One man’s cowardice may be another’s heroism. What I will say is that letting go of the notion of a higher being is often seen as an act of arrogance on the part of atheists, but the implications of this are staggering and profoundly humbling.

Don’t you think belief in a Supreme Being is even more staggering and profoundly humbling because it means we are in the presence of the Source of all life, consciousness, wisdom and love - rather than absolute masters of all we survey and ultimately answerable to no one but ourselves?

We are, for all we know, alone as conscious entities in a vast impersonal universe, but we are. nonetheless, part of that universe, part of something far greater than ourselves.

Greater only in the sense of more voluminous and physically powerful! As Pascal remarked, we are superior to the universe because we know the universe exists but the universe is not aware of anything… By itself it is, as Steven Weinberg observed, pointless - and by implication valueless, meaningless and purposeless. And so too in such a context is our existence. The atheist existentialists Sartre and Camus realised the intrinsic absurdity of everything in a Godless universe. It is not surprising that many people have committed suicide when confronted with such a bleak view of reality…

In moral terms, this view means letting go of the notion that our morality is handed down and shaped for us by a higher power, and embracing the responsibility for understanding and managing our own behaviour.

In other words we become the supreme authority and the measure of all things. We alone determine what is good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust… It amounts to a declaration of absolute independence from anything or anyone! That is why it is such an attractive proposition because it satisfies the deepest urge of all - the lust for power! Utter solitude entails isolation and desolation but it has its compensations… unlimited freedom…
On the other hand, belief in a Source of Love means we are slaves! Yes, but willing slaves because we know that in love lies freedom from ourselves and the only means of true liberation. We have the divine Model in Whose image we are made and we have a far greater responsibility than the atheist: to seek perfection as our heavenly Father is perfect - at a level of sanctity and heroism which is unattainable for an animal, however high it may be. If the atheist fails there is always the temptation to believe failure is inevitable. If the theist fails there is the temptation to feel a sense of guilt - which may be justified. But it does not end there because true religion consists in acknowledging our ignorance. We are not entitled to judge ourselves or anyone else because we cannot know ourselves as we really are. So we live in constant hope in spite of our imperfections, inspired by the example of the saints (including the unrecognised atheist saints!), and, if we are Christians, above all by the life and death of a Jewish carpenter. He must have been insane to tell us to love our enemies. Sheer madness by humanist standards. The folly of the Cross… yet the only way to end the cycle of evil and violence which causes the horrific suffering which has dominated and continues to dominate human society. It is tragic that people believe they can solve all their problems by ridding themselves of the “superstitions” of the past and “outdated” morality like the Ten Commandments in order to rely on science and technology to produce a recipe for peace, justice and harmony.

 

[tonyrey]

…2…

In the act of resolving the tension by following one of the conflicting preferences, whether it be the short-term gratification or working towards the long-term goal; acting according to selfish desires or social desires. We interpret the two former options as a lack of self-control, while we see the two latter as exercising self-control.

“following” still implies a lack of choice. You rightly regard the distinction between self-control and lack of self-control as simply our interpretation of our behaviour because it is nothing more than that! What really happens, according to the naturalist, is that there is one thought after another, from one goal to another. The goal selected is decided by neural events which amount to calculations - since the brain is a biological computer. If we had enough information we could predict exactly which choices a person will make. So in reality self-control is an illusion because all physical and mental events are caused by biochemical processes. If the self is merely a product of brain activity it is absurd to believe it has any power to alter the course of events. As atheists on this forum have explained, for them the self is no more than a collection - in David Hume’s phrase “a bundle of events”. Even supposing what seems impossible, if the collection of impulses could alter the course of events it would not constitute a rational, responsible decision because it would still be a mechanical operation without insight. The fact that animals are intelligent and sentient shows that they too are more than biological calculating machines.

Free will implies that we are “prime movers”, that we initiate activity rather than doing what we are compelled to do by our physical makeup, that the self is an entity rather than a collection and that we transcend material objects. The buck stops with us and not with our brain. Why does it stop with us? Because we exist at a higher level than any other being on this planet and we alone are responsible for what we think and do. All living organisms live at a higher level than inanimate objects because they have an unconscious purpose and urge to survive but they are not responsible for their behaviour. The upward process of development from particles to persons is evidence not of a fortuitous series of accidents but a sublime masterpiece which reveals a Source of personality, consciousness, creativity, truth, goodness, freedom and love - all that we cherish most highly and are often prepared to die for, whatever else we believe - so it is reasonable to believe they are fundamental aspects of reality which are common to all rational beings, human or otherwise, rather than just concepts invented by strange freaks of nature on a tiny planet in the immensity of time and space…

 

[Sair]

You need to specify the precise ways in which your supposition that everything has potentially a naturalistic explanation has increased your insight and understanding of rationality, consciousness, morality, personality, self-control, truth, human rights, and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity! You also need to define how you interpret “nature” because it seems a vague term capable of indefinite expansion to accommodate new discoveries about anything!

I think I might take a leaf out of Touchstone’s book here and declare that you have no reason to demand specifics of me when you have yet to offer any yourself! You must first explain how supernaturalism enhances your own understanding of various human attributes, before you pronounce my reasoning deficient.

In general terms, things like human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity make perfect sense to me in the light of understanding humans as social animals, and understanding how knowledge changes over time, with experience and recourse to the experiences of our ancestors. We don’t need supernatural intervention to see the benefits of such concepts.

‘Natural’ is that which can be understood as subsisting within the scope of empirical, observable, experiential reality - as opposed to those things that are not possible, given the constraints of physical laws. If things are ‘natural’, they will yield to empirical investigation. The naturalistic understanding of the universe is a work in progress, with the emphasis upon in progress.

This is evident in legal systems throughout the world and in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

These are human institutions, created to serve human ends. Why would their definitions of personhood be useful in anything other than an exclusively human context?

Not if you believe that we alone determine our destiny.

No arguments from me here.

Don’t you think belief in a Supreme Being is more staggering and profoundly humbling because it means we are in the presence of the Source of all life, consciousness, wisdom and love - rather than absolute masters of all we survey and ultimately answerable to no one but ourselves?

But the thing is, I don’t believe humans are ‘masters of all we survey’ - I think you’ll find religious worldviews have the monopoly on that notion. We are part of, and dependent upon, the rest of nature.

Greater only in the sense of more voluminous and physically powerful! As Pascal remarked, we are superior to the universe because we know the universe exists but the universe is not aware of anything… By itself it is, as Steven Weinberg observed, pointless - and by implication valueless, meaningless and purposeless.

This only obtains if one assumes that ‘purpose’ comes from beyond the entities for which said purpose is sought - when it comes right down to it, the universe does not need a purpose for existing. It just does. Life exists - why seek a purpose beyond this? As conscious beings, we can build purpose in our lives - but that’s not the same as saying we have a divinely-ordained purpose reaching beyond this life.

Values are entirely subjective. We understand the universe, impersonal as it may be, to be our home, and as such, we value it and desire to learn all we can about it. Any serious scientist - or even anyone interested in science - is overcome with wonder when contemplating the grandeur and vastness of the known universe. This is a subjective experience, and one that I, personally, would not be without.

In other words we become the supreme authority and the measure of all things. We alone determine what is good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust… It amounts to a declaration of absolute independence from anything or anyone!

You’re conflating atheism with individualism. None of us exist in a vacuum - atheists may not have a god to answer to, but we still have the responsibility inherent in social animals to maintain relationships, and to preserve the environment in which we live.

We have the divine Model in Whose image we are made and we have a far greater responsibility than the atheist: to seek perfection as our heavenly Father is perfect - at a level of sanctity and heroism which is unattainable for an animal, however high it may be.

To me, this seems like the rankest arrogance - by investing in the idea of a personal god who created us in its own image, we automatically set ourselves above everything else in our world. Theists, throughout history, have abandoned allegiance and responsibility in this world to focus upon the next world - which is, for all intents and purposes, purely speculative. If you want to remove the responsibility for really living your life, there is no better recourse than belief in an afterlife…

If the atheist fails there is always the temptation to believe failure is inevitable. If the theist fails there is the temptation to feel a sense of guilt - which may be justified…snip…] The folly of the Cross… yet the only way to end the cycle of evil and violence which causes the horrific suffering which has dominated and continues to dominate human society.

Hmm…one is tempted to note the observed failure of the crucifixion of Christ in ending the cycle of violence in human societies - even the motivation to commit violence in the name of Christ - and it is difficult not to attribute many acts of violence and oppression in the modern world to outdated and superstitious notions (such as Muslim suicide bombers).

You ought to talk with more atheists - at the moment, you seem to be confusing them with nihilists.

 

[Betterave]

Exactly. It is one meter long simply because we define it to be one meter.

When a Christian says that God is good, do they mean anything more than to define good as being what God is like? Or do they mean to be describing God as good? Is saying God is good supposed to say something about God or about goodness or is it a meaning less tautology.

Hi Leela,

Interesting. I’m not sure your point is the one I would glean from the question posed (“How do we know if the standard meter in Paris is a meter long?”) The point isn’t that we have “simply defined it to be one meter,” it’s that the question is senseless because the standard meter is the standard (the “judge”) by which all meter sticks are (directly or indirectly) judged.

It seems fairly obvious to me that the Christian describes both God and goodness in saying that God is good. I don’t see how choosing one or the other horn could make sense. How about you?

 

[Betterave]

The fact is that naturalistic explanations - or at least the supposition that there are naturalistic explanations waiting to be found - resonate more strongly for me, now, based upon my own experience and research, than the claim that there is some supernatural phenomenon at work.

So are we (you) saying that ‘free will’ (supposing it existed) would be a ‘supernatural’ phenomenon? That’s rings rather oddly to my ear. (Reminds me of the claim: IF subjective, THEN not-objective – it just don’t work that way, I’d say!)

 

[Betterave]

It is amazing. Take a bunch of carbon atoms, and pile them up… nothing special will happen.

Really? Teach us more about this! (Thanks for coming here to teach - very kind of you (although it seems that you possibly have a thing or two to learn about pedagogy). ) – Is this necessarily true? I wouldn’t have thought so, but you’ve described the situation so vaguely…

Take a bunch of uranium atoms and do the same. Up until a point it will be just a pile of atoms - but adding one more to them will cause the pile blow up. It reached the critical mass. A simple quantitative change can cause qualitative change. Science is happy with establishing this fact. Some people may posit a question: “why is the number N so special that piling up N uranium atoms will cause an explosion, while N-1 atoms are still stable?” This is a typical non-question.

So I take it you are calling a catastrophic nuclear chain reaction a “qualitative change”? Could you characterize this more precisely for us? And such a reaction is caused solely by virtue of a “quantitative change”? But what new quality emerges here? I think I understand how nuclear reactions work and it seems that what you are saying here is simply false.

And the emergence of consciousness is somehow an analogous kind of “qualitative change”?

 

[Leela]

Hi Leela,

Interesting. I’m not sure your point is the one I would glean from the question posed (“How do we know if the standard meter in Paris is a meter long?”) The point isn’t that we have “simply defined it to be one meter,” it’s that the question is senseless because the standard meter is the standard (the “judge”) by which all meter sticks are (directly or indirectly) judged.

It seems fairly obvious to me that the Christian describes both God and goodness in saying that God is good. I don’t see how choosing one or the other horn could make sense. How about you?

I don’t think choosing either horn makes sense, either. In saying that it is obvious to you that Christians mean both that they are describing God by saying God is good and also describing goodness at the same time you are saying that you accept both horns. If accepting neither horn makes sense, how could it make sense to accept both? Are you really saying that you accept neither and argue that the question is senseless? If so it seems senseless to say that God is good, but if you can’t say that, Christians can’t claim to have a foundation for morality. That’s fine with me. I don’t buy into foundationalism. I just wish Christians didn’t see foundationalism as a useful cudgel for attacking nonbelievers and their views in morality. The Euthyphro dilemma shows a significant problem with foundationalist ethics.

 

[tonyrey]

You need to specify the precise ways in which your supposition that everything has potentially a naturalistic explanation has increased your insight and understanding of rationality, consciousness, morality, personality, self-control, truth, human rights, and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity!

It is ironic that you ignore most of what I have written and then assert that I have yet to offer any specifics!

In general terms, things like human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity make perfect sense to me in the light of understanding humans as social animals, and understanding how knowledge changes over time, with experience and recourse to the experiences of our ancestors. We don’t need supernatural intervention to see the benefits of such concepts.

In other words you reduce morality to expediency despite your strictures on utilitarianism. It is not a matter of supernatural intervention but of our supernatural origin.The view that we are made in God’s image is a far more convincing explanation than the social animal theory to any unbiased person. We see only too often how people behave like animals even when they purport to believe in a heavenly Father. If they believe we are just animals they are tempted not to care about such abstruse explanations. Try appealing to a thug’s sense of justice and empathy in the context of our social nature!. Abstractions carry no weight to many people faced with temptation. Voltaire was right: " If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him". Your hypotheticals would be greeted with a blank stare. Human concepts and conventions obviously do not carry the same conviction as the consequences of belief in a Creator. Crude though the image of a Father may be for many “enlightened” people in modern society it rams home the message that we do not exist by chance, we are all brothers and sisters, that we are all equal, responsible for what happens to one another and ultimately obtain what we deserve.

‘Natural’ is that which can be understood as subsisting within the scope of empirical, observable, experiential reality - as opposed to those things that are not possible, given the constraints of physical laws. If things are ‘natural’, they will yield to empirical investigation. The naturalistic understanding of the universe is a work in progress, with the emphasis upon in progress.

In other words you believe only in what you can see, hear, smell, taste and touch? You reject everything that is intangible? You think the naturalistic understanding of the universe is the only work in progress and the only work which produces valuable results? Try telling all that to your friends and family!

This is evident in legal systems throughout the world and in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

These are human institutions, created to serve human ends. Why would their definitions of personhood be useful in anything other than an exclusively human context?

So you don’t believe the** principles** on which they are based apply to persons elsewhere in the universe? You think they are exclusively human?

Not if you believe that we alone determine our destiny.

No arguments from me here.

But you have yet to explain how we are capable of doing so…

Don’t you think belief in a Supreme Being is more staggering and profoundly humbling because it means we are in the presence of the Source of all life, consciousness, wisdom and love - rather than absolute masters of all we survey and ultimately answerable to no one but ourselves?

But the thing is, I don’t believe humans are ‘masters of all we survey’ - I think you’ll find religious world views have the monopoly on that notion. We are part of, and dependent upon, the rest of nature.

I have pointed out in the past that we are not the masters but stewards of Creation - who have abused our power and polluted this planet. Do you really believe we are ultimately answerable to no one but ourselves - meaning the human race? Or are we also responsible for what happens to other forms of life both on this earth and with life we may contact elsewhere in the universe? Do we have greater responsibility than any other creature on this earth? If so do we invent that responsibility or is it an objective fact?

 

[tonyrey]

This only obtains if one assumes that ‘purpose’ comes from beyond the entities for which said purpose is sought - when it comes right down to it, the universe does not need a purpose for existing.

The universe does not need a purpose for existing but it is not self-evident that it is purposeless. It could have been chaotic, irrational, inhospitable and devoid of life, let alone rational beings. The odds are far greater that a universe should be uninhabitable given the immense number of conditions that need to be satisfied. Why is life such a rarity in this universe? Why has it survived on this planet despite cataclysms which nearly brought it to extinction? Sheer chance?

Life exists - why seek a purpose beyond this?

Is that a scientific attitude? Do biologists exclude purpose from their research on principle? To close your mind reveals a parochial concept of reality. Antony Flew, a well-known English atheist, once wrote that purpose is an extremely rare phenomenon in the universe and concluded it is insignificant. He has since changed his mind…

As conscious beings, we can build purpose in our lives - but that’s not the same as saying we have a divinely-ordained purpose reaching beyond this life.

You take it for granted that we can build purpose. On what? On purposeless processes? With what? With abilities derived from their survival value? For what? Physical survival?

Values are entirely subjective.

You have changed your tune! Before you stated that values depend on our needs as social beings…

Any serious scientist - or even anyone interested in science - is overcome with wonder when contemplating the grandeur and vastness of the known universe. This is a subjective experience, and one that I, personally, would not be without.

Not only scientists but artists, poets and anyone with the slightest sensitivity are overcome with wonder and realise that they are incapable of grasping or explaining the immense power, beauty and value implicit in reality. It is a subjective experience based on objective facts. The most inadequate explanation of all is that all this grandeur exists for no reason or purpose whatsoever…

You’re conflating atheism with individualism. None of us exist in a vacuum - atheists may not have a god to answer to, but we still have the responsibility inherent in social animals to maintain relationships, and to preserve the environment in which we live.

That responsibility is self-imposed? Or does it stem from our needs and those of other forms of life?

To me, this seems like the rankest arrogance - by investing in the idea of a personal god who created us in its own image, we automatically set ourselves above everything else in our world. Theists, throughout history, have abandoned allegiance and responsibility in this world to focus upon the next world - which is, for all intents and purposes, purely speculative.

Speculative for some one with a closed mind who believes there is no need for a solution to the gross injustice and unmerited suffering in this world. It is going to the other extreme to limit your horizon to physical reality. It is not arrogant but reasonable to recognise our role as stewards of Creation - as far as this world is concerned. Can you suggest an alternative? As for abandoning responsibility in this world to focus upon the next that is sheer tripe! Who founded most of the universities, schools, orphanages, hospitals, asylums and hospices throughout history and throughout the world?

If you want to remove the responsibility for really living your life, there is no better recourse than belief in an afterlife…

In view of what I have written - and with which you have agreed - it is illogical to allege that allegiance in this life is excluded by allegiance after death. What we choose to believe and, more important, how we live determines our destiny in the next. It is absurd to suppose we have less responsibility when we have an even greater responsibility than the person who believes that death is the end. You don’t have to concern yourself about a person’s spiritual welfare for the simple reason you don’t believe it exists!

The folly of the Cross… yet the only way to end the cycle of evil and violence which causes the horrific suffering which has dominated and continues to dominate human society.

Hmm…one is tempted to note the observed failure of the crucifixion of Christ in ending the cycle of violence in human societies - even the motivation to commit violence in the name of Christ - and it is difficult not to attribute many acts of violence and oppression in the modern world to outdated and superstitious notions (such as Muslim suicide bombers)

It is not the failure of Christ but the failure of human beings to follow His teaching that is the cause of the horrors of violence. It is because people regard Christianity and the belief that we are created in God’s image as outdated and superstitious they believe violence can put an end to violence and that man alone can establish peace and justice on this planet…

You ought to talk with more atheists - at the moment, you seem to be confusing them with nihilists.

Like your remark about my knowledge of evolution this one is even more misguided considering that I have specialised in this subject and discussed it with atheists since before you were born! You should think carefully before making statements about others on a public forum. When the truth comes out it makes you look foolish and brings atheists into disrepute. Why make such unnecessary statements at all?
I could have added that both Sartre and Camus were both humanists in spite of their doctrine of absurdism but there are limits to what we can write.

 

[Sair]

The universe does not need a purpose for existing but it is not self-evident that it is purposeless. It could have been chaotic, irrational, inhospitable and devoid of life, let alone rational beings. The odds are far greater that a universe should be uninhabitable given the immense number of conditions that need to be satisfied. Why is life such a rarity in this universe? Why has it survived on this planet despite cataclysms which nearly brought it to extinction? Sheer chance?

The majority of the universe, so far as we can tell, is inhospitable to life. The fact that there is life on this planet, and that said life has evolved intelligence, may well be a matter of chance - remembering that given large enough numbers, a slim chance becomes a near certainty.

Is that a scientific attitude? Do biologists exclude purpose from their research on principle? To close your mind reveals a parochial concept of reality.

Purpose is difficult to discover empirically, and thus is problematic in a scientific context. It is one thing to demonstrate the usefulness of a particular aspect of nature - such as the giraffe’s neck, the elephant’s trunk, the ape’s long arms - but there is a vast difference between saying, “this aspect clearly evolved because it has survival value” vs “this object was designed for this purpose”. Purpose implies consciousness, but one cannot infer one undetectable phenomenon from another undetectable phenomenon - one cannot simply say, without any other evidence, that there is purpose in the universe, therefore there is a higher consciousness at work, because it’s clear that there is purpose in the universe. That’s just a circular argument.

You take it for granted that we can build purpose. On what? On purposeless processes? With what? With abilities derived from their survival value? For what? Physical survival?

You ought to know that there is much more to human needs than mere physical survival - especially now that we have (at least in the West) made physical survival remarkably easy, comparatively speaking. Does the existence of an accumulation of purposeless processes and physical particles preclude the formulation of purpose? We build purpose in the context of human society, through the use of our abilities and realisation of our potential. None of this requires that purpose be pre-ordained.

You have changed your tune! Before you stated that values depend on our needs as social beings…

Yes - subject to our needs and desires, as opposed to existing independently, waiting to be discovered.

That responsibility is self-imposed? Or does it stem from our needs and those of other forms of life?

Certainly it is implied by the objective needs of life forms - but we have the ability to either take up or abandon this implied responsibility, depending on whether we care about the consequences or not.

Speculative for some one with a closed mind who believes there is no need for a solution to the gross injustice and unmerited suffering in this world.

People with closed minds don’t speculate. However, it’s one thing to think about possibilities, and quite another to act upon observed realities. There is no body - not even an individual piece - of evidence that proves the existence of an afterlife. It’s possible, but not something that’s safe to stake your life upon, so to speak. We think about what might be, but we are still only in a position to deal with what is. If there is a solution to gross injustice and unmerited suffering in this world, it’s a human problem and it is human agency that will solve it, if nature doesn’t get her own back on us first.

In view of what I have written - and with which you have agreed - it is illogical to allege that allegiance in this life is excluded by allegiance after death. What we choose to believe and, more important, how we live determines our destiny in the next. It is absurd to suppose we have less responsibility when we have an even greater responsibility than the person who believes that death is the end. You don’t have to concern yourself about a person’s spiritual welfare for the simple reason you don’t believe it exists!

How do you define spiritual welfare? How is it distinct from physical and psychological welfare?

It is because people regard Christianity and the belief that we are created in God’s image as outdated and superstitious they believe violence can put an end to violence and that man alone can establish peace and justice on this planet…

Much as I like to avoid cliches, did the crusaders think Christianity was an outdated superstition? Did those who ‘christianised’ the barbarian tribes through means of mass slaughter think that Christianity was an outdated superstition? Do the Islamic fundamentalists who blow themselves up in public places think that their faith is outdated superstition? I suspect not. Religious faith alone cannot solve the problem of violence. It takes human agency and intelligence to deal with human problems.

Like your remark about my knowledge of evolution this one is even more misguided considering that I have specialised in this subject and discussed it with atheists since before you were born!

Longevity does not guarantee erudition. My remark was a response to your tirade against atheism as a depressing and hopeless worldview. To me, it betrayed a stereotypical misunderstanding of atheism by a theist who is convinced that a worldview with which he does not agree cannot possibly be valid. You demonstrated the very closed-mindedness in your response that you earlier pronounced despicable.

 

[R_Daneel]

Really? Teach us more about this! (Thanks for coming here to teach - very kind of you (although it seems that you possibly have a thing or two to learn about pedagogy). ) – Is this necessarily true? I wouldn’t have thought so, but you’ve described the situation so vaguely…

So I take it you are calling a catastrophic nuclear chain reaction a “qualitative change”? Could you characterize this more precisely for us? And such a reaction is caused solely by virtue of a “quantitative change”? But what new quality emerges here? I think I understand how nuclear reactions work and it seems that what you are saying here is simply false.

Elementary chemistry and physics. Sorry, I am not going to teach that.

But here is another example, this time biology. The number of individuals in a closed population can and does lead to breakdown and stress when the number of individuals grows beyond a certain limit. Many experiments corroborate this fact. Up until a certain limit the population is healthy, but beyond that limit frictions will develop - even if there is ample food available, due to the lack of personal space. Humans are also susceptible to this, observe the conditions in the ghettos. (Suggested reading: “The hidden dimension” by Edward T. Hall.)

And the emergence of consciousness is somehow an analogous kind of “qualitative change”?

Yes, that is the hypothesis. And the experiments with AI are the attempts to substantiate it. What kind of experiments are you conducting to show that consciousness is “supernatural”, it is externally imposed on us? Or is that just another empty proposition?

 

[bridgeforsale]

Elementary chemistry and physics. Sorry, I am not going to teach that.

But here is another example, this time biology. The number of individuals in a closed population can and does lead to breakdown and stress when the number of individuals grows beyond a certain limit. Many experiments corroborate this fact. Up until a certain limit the population is healthy, but beyond that limit frictions will develop - even if there is ample food available, due to the lack of personal space. Humans are also susceptible to this, observe the conditions in the ghettos. (Suggested reading: “The hidden dimension” by Edward T. Hall.)

Has this ever been demonstrated with humans through sociological statistical sampling? When you mention ghettos, affluent urban populations immediately come to mind, whose populations don’t appear to suffer poorer health as compared to those who live in less densely populated areas (at least as far as I know).

I think with humans the overriding factor in longevity is affluence versus how close our neighbor is

Yes, that is the hypothesis. And the experiments with AI are the attempts to substantiate it. What kind of experiments are you conducting to show that consciousness is “supernatural”, it is externally imposed on us? Or is that just another empty proposition?

If you guys are referring to quantum mechanical experiments, recent experiments show conscious observation has nothing to do with uncertainty (it’s purely the act of measuring). I can’t imagine there’s any way to prove a supernatural consciousness (that’s absurd).

Almost sounds like William Lane Craig and his bizarre statistical gymnastics (this guy is a pretty well known apologist who actually thinks he can prove atheism is impossible, and the resurrection probable, using a statistical model called Bayes theorem, and logical arguments). It’s the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever seen (it’s an insult to the human mind quite frankly). I suspect he’ll build far more atheists than theists