Morality and Subjectivity

[R_Daneel]

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

Both are important factors. But the point was that quantitative changes can produce qualitative changes, the emergence of new attributes, which cannot be reduced to mere “number” of elements (be they atoms or humans).

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).

I am simply talking about the AI experiments, which are an attempt to substantiate the emergence of consciousness without referring to “supernatural” causes. Of course it is absurd to expect to show supernatural origins - for anything.

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

Craig is an idiot, does not understand the difference between a-priori and a-posteriori probabilities. Most people don’t. Of course that is not a problem per se, the problem is that semi-educated people try to use arguments which they don’t understand.

 

[Betterave]

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.

I’m afraid I don’t follow. What’s this about a cudgel? I’m still saying what I said: “God is good” describes both God and goodness. What is the problem with this? (What would you say to the claim that “the standard meter is a meter long” describes both the standard meter and all meter sticks/meter measurements?)

 

[Betterave]

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

Again, I’ll suggest that some lessons in effective pedagogy might be useful for you. As far as elementary physics and chemistry go, I do have a science degree and I thought I had a basic grasp of physics and chemistry. Could you please just humor me by saying something informative in defense of your comments, as opposed to red herrings and ad hominems (that kind of thing is worse than just poor pedagogy).

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.)

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?

I could ask for clarification of your biology example too, but I suppose you’d just tell me it’s basic biology, so you’re not going to teach it – some teacher! Multiplying ineffective examples won’t help your cause. Why not just explain the one I asked about? You’ve proposed an analogy. Your analogy doesn’t become an hypothesis that might be substantiated (in any interesting sense) unless it makes sense in the first place. So explain, please.

Btw: are you suggesting that if I am not doing experiments to prove a proposition that I believe, then that proposition is ‘empty’?? Also, I haven’t tried, and I’m not trying, to show that consciousness is “supernatural” - where is this coming from (other than an excessively pugnacious disposition)?

 

[R_Daneel]

Again, I’ll suggest that some lessons in effective pedagogy might be useful for you. As far as elementary physics and chemistry go, I do have a science degree and I thought I had a basic grasp of physics and chemistry. Could you please just humor me by saying something informative in defense of your comments, as opposed to red herrings and ad hominems (that kind of thing is worse than just poor pedagogy).

I could ask for clarification of your biology example too, but I suppose you’d just tell me it’s basic biology, so you’re not going to teach it – some teacher! Multiplying ineffective examples won’t help your cause. Why not just explain the one I asked about? You’ve proposed an analogy. Your analogy doesn’t become an hypothesis that might be substantiated (in any interesting sense) unless it makes sense in the first place. So explain, please.

I have no idea what your problem might be. Do you deny the **fact **that when uranium atoms reach a critical mass, a qualitative chage (explosion) will occur? And substituting carbon atoms, no such event will take place? Or the fact, that overpopulation will result in excessive stress and massive die-out of the population? Or maybe you deny that these are **qualitative **changes? That new properties will occur due to some quantitative changes? Or what? Since you have a science degree, you sure must be aware of the difference between graphite and diamond. The difference is due to the different arrangement of the six carbon atoms which compose the molecule. Again, just an example of emerging attributes.

Btw: are you suggesting that if I am not doing experiments to prove a proposition that I believe, then that proposition is ‘empty’?? Also, I haven’t tried, and I’m not trying, to show that consciousness is “supernatural” - where is this coming from (other than an excessively pugnacious disposition)?

Any conjecture needs to be substantiated in some manner to be taken seriously. This is what is happening with the experiments of construting an AI, which will (hopefully) pass the Turing test - thus substantiating the hypothesis. If you - personally - agree that the mind is simply the function of the brain (and not some “supernatural” phenomenon), we have nothing to argue about.

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m still saying what I said: “God is good” describes both God and goodness. What is the problem with this? (What would you say to the claim that “the standard meter is a meter long” describes both the standard meter and all meter sticks/meter measurements?)

The “meter” is an arbitrarily selected distance. The proposition “God is good” does not describe either God, or good, it equates two undefined “things”. The dilemma cannot be solved by arbitrarily equating God with goodness. If “goodness” cannot be defined apart from God, then (“God is good”) lacks meaning. Elementary, my dear Watson.

 

[Sair]

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.

Whether it represents a failure of my interpretation, your elucidation, both, or neither, the impression I took from your previous post was that you firmly believe atheism implies a hopeless, meaningless, valueless, purposeless existence as a matter of necessity - in other words, you were equating it - erroneously, I believe - with nihilism. It may be that you have indeed spent a lot of time discussing the meaning of life with various atheists, and have honestly come away with this impression; or it may be that your impression is heavily coloured by your theistic beliefs. Either way, it was dishonest of you to represent your beliefs as received wisdom and objective truth, rather than an impression garnered from your own experience and findings. I try (though probably don’t always succeed in doing so) to present my beliefs as based upon my own experience, observations and research - and furthermore, I think I have generally based my criticisms upon what is written in each post, as opposed to disparaging the person of the writer.

 

[Sair]

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!)

Well, I’m not saying that free will is supernatural; in fact, I’ve been arguing against the claim that what we experience as free will is necessarily unable to be explained in naturalistic terms. That is a claim I have encountered from a few posters to this forum.

 

[Sair]

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

Your specifics, based upon what you have posted so far, consist in asking questions about how subjective concepts like fellowship and human rights can exist without supernatural intervention. That doesn’t constitute an explanation.

In other words you reduce morality to expediency despite your strictures on utilitarianism.

Not expediency alone - we have the ability to consider long-term consequences, remember? We don’t act only for immediate benefit.

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.

The above are not the statements of an unbiased person. Our ‘supernatural origins’ are unproven, and not demonstrated by any empirical data. The idea that we are made in God’s image is more convincing to you - and your biases are inherent in your writing.
The words “people behave like animals” are redundant if you accept the premise that humans are animals. We are simply a different kind of animal in a vast array of life. Furthermore, the understanding that humans are connected by a vast evolutionary tree to every other animal on the planet allows us to extend the idea of fellowship beyond other humans, beyond the limits imposed by the belief that humans alone have a higher value bestowed by a god.

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.

You are taking notions that apply to a select number of people and making them universal. There are many human concepts and conventions that carry sufficient weight with many people - like the American ideals of ‘truth, justice and the American way’, to give an obvious example. Political convictions often carry more weight than religious convictions, and philosophical positions can be equally powerful - maybe not to the kind of people you would classify as ‘thugs’, but then, how often have you encountered a philosopher rather than a chaplain in a prison? Often what we believe is a matter of what we are exposed to.

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!

Not sure what you’re implying here - of course there is more to life than external sensory data - we use our sensory data to build our understanding of the world, and that understanding itself is one of your ‘intangibles’. Our senses and perceptions can be mistaken, as can our assumptions. But if one’s sensory experiences regularly and repeatedly harmonise with the concepts we are taught, and the ideas we acquire, then life begins to make sense. And there was nothing in what I wrote that implied the naturalistic understanding of the universe was the only work in progress. You are reading into my post that which is not there.

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?

If there are other creatures like us in the universe, living in highly complex social groups, it is likely that they will have some principles in common with us, or at least similar - but their principles, like ours, will have been derived from the experience of living in said complex social groups.

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?

We are responsible for the choices we make. To say “we are answerable to no-one but ourselves” is a very subtle misrepresentation of what I believe to be the truth - that because we have the ability to differentiate between a variety of preferences, we own responsibility for our actions and the effects they have on others. This is a much more all-encompassing, and far less selfish-sounding, articulation of what it means to be morally responsible. We don’t need to know the precise mechanisms by which we make choices in order to infer that there are mechanisms by which we make choices. If you expect precision from materialists in order to suppose their beliefs justified, then you ought to be able to explain precisely how, when, and by what specific agency the supernatural parts of the self operate, in order to justify your beliefs, rather than simply denying that a materialist explanation is possible.

 

[tonyrey]

The universe does not need a purpose for existing but it is not self-evidently purposeless. It could have been chaotic, inhospitable and devoid of life. The odds are far greater that a universe should be uninhabitable given the immense number of conditions that need to be satisfied.

You believe that given enough time** anything** is possible? Do you believe there are any limits to what chance can achieve? If so what are they? If not you are virtually glorifying a blind Goddess! Have you ever calculated the probabilities? To regard life as a sheer accident amounts to an act of faith in the superior power of irrational processes - which is hardly reflected in the way any rational person lives. There is also a discrepancy between “may well be” and “near certainty”… Which is it to be?

The majority of the universe, so far as we can tell, is inhospitable to life.

Most of the known universe and the majority of known planets seem inhospitable to life as we know it. What conclusion can be drawn from that? Does the (in)frequency of a phenomenon cast any light on the nature of its origin? We are only aware of this universe and this form of reality but does that make the existence of others improbable? To think so reveals a parochial mentality and overweening confidence in our understanding of reality. Any specialist, whether in science or philosophy, realises that the inestimable complexity of existence, e.g. one “simple” living cell, tells us that we are merely scratching the surface…

Purpose is difficult to discover empirically, and thus is problematic in a scientific context.

Do biologists and archaeologists find it so difficult? Is SETI based on fantasy or fact? Do biologists exclude purpose from their research on principle?

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”.

Since survival value is clearly an inadequate explanation of the evolution of living organisms, and human beings, in particular Design is a more reasonable view.

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.

The flaw in your argument is that purpose is not undetectable. "A purpose, an intention, a design, strikes everywhere even the careless, the most stupid thinker… " - the words of an archsceptic, David Hume.

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?

Such a hypothesis needs clarification and confirmation. It is certainly not self-evidently possible.

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.

The formulation of purpose does not entail the** reality** of purpose. In the context of purposeless processes it remains an illusion unless you can explain what is entailed by purposeful activity.

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.

You are using “subject” in two different senses! You seem to suggest that values are subjective in the sense that we as subjects determine what those values are but also that values are subject to (i.e. determined by) our needs as social beings.
Which has priority? Surely our objective needs - which we don’t invent! Since we cannot be sure that we know what all our needs are (given different philosophical and psychological theories about the nature of the mind) they may well be waiting to be discovered. The need to love and be loved - in a fuller sense than your sexual interpretation of love - is a good example…

Is responsibility 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.

Good! We have established that responsibility is an intangible, objective reality that cannot be observed empirically. For you the question remains as to whether we choose to care - or do so as the result of the way we have been formed by events. If choice is only an illusion so too is responsibility… We have also established that values have an objective basis in the needs we have in common and that we discover them rather than invent them.

 

[tonyrey]

People with closed minds don't speculate.

You underestimate the inconsistency of people with closed minds.

However, it’s one thing to think about possibilities, and quite another to act upon observed realities.

Do you regard the contents of your mind as an observed reality?

There is no body - not even an individual piece - of evidence that proves the existence of an afterlife.

Have you examined all the evidence? And what are your criteria of what constitutes evidence? The evidence of your senses? In that case you have no evidence that you have a mind. You could well be a mindless body…

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

Don’t you ever allow for unforeseen contingencies? What to come is still unsure but we cannot sit on the metaphysical fence. You think it is “dangerous”, so to speak, to take a future life into account, thereby confirming my view that you have a mind closed to the possibility of miracles, answers to prayer and the power of love…

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.

That confirms what I have just pointed out! You place all your trust in Chance and Necessity rather than Providence because you believe we are the product of those factors…

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. 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?

I have already mentioned the love which you reject - the love which cannot be explained in terms of needs but a creative power unknown to science that can transform a person into a saint capable of incredible acts of self-sacrifice and courage for the sake of others. I have met people who have everything they need physically and psychologically yet they know there is something missing in their lives - an unfilled void they cannot explain. Jung observed that the main cause of psychiatric disorders is spiritual and linked with our most fundamental beliefs and values. You dismiss with scorn the idea that materialism does not inevitably lead to nihilism but that is because you do not follow it through to its logical conclusion. It is a metaphysical conjuring trick to produce free will, purpose and love out of inanimate objects. One atheist on this forum applauded me when I suggested that all human activity is basically the interaction of sets of atomic particles.Emergentism does not alter that simple fact.

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? Religious faith alone cannot solve the problem of violence. It takes human agency and intelligence to deal with human problems.

Do you think the atrocities committed by Christians and Moslems were in accordance with Christ’s injunction to love our enemies? I’m afraid you cannot distinguish the truth from a distortion of the truth. If we are to judge by the crime, violence, injustice, suffering and misery in secular society human agency has failed miserably…

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.

It is not a question of longevity alone but dedication and sheer hard work which you clearly despise simply because they undermine your views and in spite of the fact that you ignore most of the points I make because you don’t know how to refute them! When some one begins to cast aspersions instead of dealing with the issues at stake it is a sign of frustration and confusion…

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.

Yet another distortion of my views as well as being a vain attempt to distract attention from the issues at stake. I have noticed that a fair number of militant atheists are unduly sensitive and rant and rave in an astonishingly uncharacteristically aggressive manner when they are confronted with calm opposition to their views! If religion is false it is more logical to dispatch it nonchalantly rather than display such emotional attachment to their opinions… The truth is not always palatable but we should we prepared to accept it. BTW Where did I state that atheism cannot possibly be valid?

You demonstrated the very closed-mindedness in your response that you earlier pronounced despicable.

Please cite the exact statements I made which demonstrate my closed-mindedness. Your aggression is certainly become more pronounced…

 

[tonyrey]

Political convictions often carry more weight than religious convictions, and philosophical positions can be equally powerful - maybe not to the kind of people you would classify as ‘thugs’, but then, how often have you encountered a philosopher rather than a chaplain in a prison?

I extract this from your most recent post to display the type of arguments you employ
on a philosophy forum!

 

[Sair]

Originally Posted by Sair

Political convictions often carry more weight than religious convictions, and philosophical positions can be equally powerful - maybe not to the kind of people you would classify as ‘thugs’, but then, how often have you encountered a philosopher rather than a chaplain in a prison?

I extract this from your most recent post to display the type of arguments you employ
on a philosophy forum!

And you mean to imply what, exactly? Again you are assuming that your interpretations are universal understandings. Please explain yourself.

 

[Leela]

I’m afraid I don’t follow. What’s this about a cudgel?

Believers often claim that because atheists don’t believe in God that they have no foundation for morality. In the face of such claims, I generally refer to the Euthyphro dilemma to show that demanding a a foundation for is problematic even for believers.

I’m still saying what I said: “God is good” describes both God and goodness. What is the problem with this? (What would you say to the claim that “the standard meter is a meter long” describes both the standard meter and all meter sticks/meter measurements?)

The problem that the standard meter doesn’t have and that God does have in this analogy is that no one claims that meter-ness is anything but arbitrary. Conforming to the meter-ness of the standard meter is conforming to an arbitrary standard. Is goodness arbitrary? It is merely whatever God says it is? If God wanted to make rape a good thing, could he in his omnipotence do that? Or instead does he only do things that are actually good? If goodness is a standard that God conforms to, why not cut out the middle man and say that morality is based on goodness rather than God? And since goodness by itself isn’t the sort of philosophically interesting foundation that tells us what is good and what is bad, there is no point in claiming to have a foundation for ethics.

Best,
Leela

 

[Sair]

Do you regard the contents of your mind as an observed reality?

Observed reality to me - as opposed to observed reality that is metaphysically objective.

You think it is “dangerous”, so to speak, to take a future life into account, thereby confirming my view that you have a mind closed to the possibility of miracles, answers to prayer and the power of love…

I have a mind open to verifiable evidence. That which exists in your mind exists only in your mind, unless you can verify that it has an objective existence outside your mind, and outside the minds of those who have shared the ideas contained in your mind. I have no doubt that you believe in the possibility of miracles and the efficacy of prayer, based on your experience - but that is your experience and interpretation, not metaphysically objective reality.

That confirms what I have just pointed out! You place all your trust in Chance and Necessity rather than Providence because you believe we are the product of those factors…

Chance and necessity - the factors which govern the processes of evolution. They are enough to explain our existence, and are a less complex explanation than the notion that we were created by a being infinitely more complex than the known universe. How do you explain the existence of providence, in a way that cannot be accounted for by the processes of chance and necessity? We are moral beings through the necessity of maintaining relationships within human communities. Does this imply, to you, that morality is necessarily less important than it would be if it were divinely ordained?

I have already mentioned the love which you reject - the love which cannot be explained in terms of needs but a creative power unknown to science that can transform a person into a saint capable of incredible acts of self-sacrifice and courage for the sake of others.

Creative power unknown to science? Whence this statement? Such love as you seem to be inferring can be explained in terms of preferences - the people in question were following preferences that were not selfish preferences, but social preferences.

I have met people who have everything they need physically and psychologically yet they know there is something missing in their lives - an unfilled void they cannot explain.

Then they do not have everything they need, psychologically.

It is a metaphysical conjuring trick to produce free will, purpose and love out of inanimate objects.

Just as it may be a metaphysical conjuring trick to produce the hardness of diamond and the softness of graphite out of different arrangements of carbon atoms. What we experience as free will, purpose and love, amongst other subjective experiences, are in all probability products of the molecular properties of our brains and bodies - there is no metaphysically objective evidence that suggests otherwise. If you have it, please share it.

I’m afraid you cannot distinguish the truth from a distortion of the truth. If we are to judge by the crime, violence, injustice, suffering and misery in secular society human agency has failed miserably…

The point is that human agency is responsible for interpreting (and probably creating) religious teachings - and is therefore responsible for the atrocities committed as a result. People interpret religious writings according to their circumstances, not according to any universal notion of truth. The only way violence, injustice and suffering can be dealt with is through disinterested recognition of human needs and preferences, independent of differences in religious faith.

It is not a question of longevity alone but dedication and sheer hard work which you clearly despise simply because they undermine your views and in spite of the fact that you ignore most of the points I make because you don’t know how to refute them! When some one begins to cast aspersions instead of dealing with the issues at stake it is a sign of frustration and confusion…

Your points are difficult to refute simply because they are nebulous - you can say one thing and then, when challenged, claim you were saying something else. Having said that, it is not casting aspersions to discern your views from what you write. Your single-minded disparagement of atheism does not suggest, to me, that your dedication and sheer hard work have produced a disinterested, impartial assessment of whatever data you have collected.

If religion is false it is more logical to dispatch it nonchalantly rather than display such emotional attachment to their opinions… The truth is not always palatable but we should we prepared to accept it.

If religious faith is objectively true, there would be empirical evidence of the supernatural beings invoked by it. I can imagine no atheist who takes morality seriously who would have cause to fear any empirical proof of a god; the trouble is, no such empirical proof exists.

Where did I state that atheism cannot possibly be valid?
Please cite the exact statements I made which demonstrate my closed-mindedness. Your aggression is certainly become more pronounced.

If I have become more aggressive, it is in response to attempts to portray my beliefs as uninformed and lacking in understanding. Your closed-mindedness to the possibility of naturalistic, atheistic understandings is demonstrated by the following:

You dismiss with scorn the idea that materialism does not inevitably lead to nihilism but that is because you do not follow it through to its logical conclusion.

…and the fact that your rejection of the possibility that atheism is a valid worldview is implicit in much of your writing.

 

[R_Daneel]

Have you examined all the evidence? And what are your criteria of what constitutes evidence?

Don’t try to wiggle out. Don’t worry about what atheists will accept as evidence. Just present your best evidence for your claims about some “providence”.

 

[Sair]

You believe that given enough time** anything** is possible? Do you believe there are any limits to what chance can achieve? If so what are they?

The limits are provided by what we understand as physical laws - the way matter and energy characteristically behave.

Most of the known universe and the majority of known planets seem inhospitable to life as we know it. What conclusion can be drawn from that? Does the (in)frequency of a phenomenon cast any light on the nature of its origin?

Only that it is statistically improbable.

We are only aware of this universe and this form of reality but does that make the existence of others improbable?

Not necessarily improbable - just unverified.

To think so reveals a parochial mentality and overweening confidence in our understanding of reality. Any specialist, whether in science or philosophy, realises that the inestimable complexity of existence, e.g. one “simple” living cell, tells us that we are merely scratching the surface…

Considering that we are yet to acquire a complete understanding of the reality we are part of, I think it’s a bit much to expect us to understand every possible reality… and in any case, I think most scientists, and perhaps most philosophers too, are quite prepared to acknowledge the incompleteness of our understanding of the complexities of life and of the universe - however, many are content to live with the gaps and keep looking, rather than inserting supernatural agency by way of explanation wherever they can.

Do biologists and archaeologists find it so difficult? Is SETI based on fantasy or fact? Do biologists exclude purpose from their research on principle?

Don’t know enough about SETI research yet to comment, but I was merely pointing out the difficulty of discerning purpose through empirical evidence. Sure, you can infer purpose, but how can you prove it without recourse to a consciousness that imparts purpose? Until we can empirically verify said consciousness, there’s no way we can verify purpose, at least in terms of the emergence and evolution of life as we know it.

Since survival value is clearly an inadequate explanation of the evolution of living organisms, and human beings, in particular Design is a more reasonable view.

Blatant opinion.

The flaw in your argument is that purpose is not undetectable. "A purpose, an intention, a design, strikes everywhere even the careless, the most stupid thinker… " - the words of an archsceptic, David Hume.

Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges the illusion of design. The trouble is, one can infer purpose, but there are other explanations for the complexity of life which don’t require the existence of an unverified creative consciousness. Generally speaking, the less complicated explanation is the more probable one.

 

[tonyrey]

Don’t try to wiggle out. Don’t worry about what atheists will accept as evidence. Just present your best evidence for your claims about some “providence”.

It’s about time you presented some evidence! How about proving that** you exist for a start… Can you see, hear, touch, taste or smell yourself**?

 

[Sair]

The formulation of purpose does not entail the** reality** of purpose. In the context of purposeless processes it remains an illusion unless you can explain what is entailed by purposeful activity.

This is a problematic statement, from your point of view - you claim that purpose cannot be formulated, but is not that exactly what you do when you infer purpose to life in general? Again there is the problem of verifying the consciousness that creates purpose. From that point of view, the only purpose we can verify in any way is that which we formulate for ourselves. Purposeful activity is that which is premeditated for the achievement of certain goals, and we only retain this purpose if we are committed to those goals. If we have a divinely preordained purpose - in other words, if our existence is preordained for the achievement of certain goals - does not this also negate the concept of free will?

You are using “subject” in two different senses! You seem to suggest that values are subjective in the sense that we as subjects determine what those values are but also that values are subject to (i.e. determined by) our needs as social beings.

These are not necessarily different contexts - we discern our needs and desires, both physical and psychological, and infer what is required to fulfil those needs; therefore we determine value based upon experience of need. Either way, value is a subjective concept, not a metaphysically objective component of beings or things. If anything, our subjective desires often make us more willing to ascribe value than our objective, physical needs, unless our physical needs become pressing.

Which has priority? Surely our objective needs - which we don’t invent! Since we cannot be sure that we know what all our needs are (given different philosophical and psychological theories about the nature of the mind) they may well be waiting to be discovered. The need to love and be loved - in a fuller sense than your sexual interpretation of love - is a good example…

Even most Christians acknowledge the primacy of physical needs - that no-one is open to conversion if they are starving! However, our needs are discerned by experience, and often accompanied by desire. The need for love - which, if you noticed a post I made on a previous thread, means complete acceptance of others and the knowledge that we are accepted in turn (and not only sexually, which is but one - admittedly significant - aspect of love) - is a social need, a need that implies everything we can possibly hope to achieve through the society of our own kind. It is explicable in terms of social and biochemical bonding processes, but that does not lessen its importance to we who experience it.

We have established that responsibility is an intangible, objective reality that cannot be observed empirically. For you the question remains as to whether we choose to care - or do so as the result of the way we have been formed by events. If choice is only an illusion so too is responsibility… We have also established that values have an objective basis in the needs we have in common and that we discover them rather than invent them.

I’m not sure we’re on the same page with this. Caring is generally a combination of emotions - which are often beyond rational influence - and rational assessment of a situation. Even the law courts recognise cases of diminished responsibility, and crimes of passion rather than premeditation. Furthermore, I’m not certain that the intangibles to which you refer can be claimed to have a metaphysically objective existence. If we discover values based upon objective physical needs, how do you explain the difference between someone who shovels in fast food whenever they feel hungry, and an epicurean gourmet?

 

[tonyrey]

You believe that given enough time** anything**

is possible? Do you believe there are any limits to what chance can achieve? If so what are they? The limits are provided by what we understand as physical laws - the way matter and energy characteristically behave. I am referring to the limits of what fortuitous combinations of atomic particles can achieve over an immense period of time. You are assuming they can produce conscious minds with which they have nothing in common - apart from the fact that in our experience a mind is **related **to a body. What leads you to believe a mind cannot exist without a body given that a mind is intangible - like consciousness, reasoning and purpose? There is plenty of evidence, moreover, that the mind is more powerful than the body. In Hume’s words, the cause is not proportioned to the effect…

Most

of the known universe and the majority of known planets seem inhospitable to life as we know it. What conclusion can be drawn from that? Does the (in)frequency of a phenomenon cast any light on the nature of its origin? Only that it is statistically improbable.Do you mean that the infrequency of a phenomenon means that it is less likely to exist? How do you reach that conclusion?

We are only aware of this universe and this form of reality but does that make the existence of others improbable?

Not necessarily improbable - just unverified.

To think so reveals a parochial mentality and overweening confidence in our understanding of reality. Any specialist, whether in science or philosophy, realises that the inestimable complexity of existence, e.g. one “simple” living cell, tells us that we are merely scratching the surface…

Considering that we are yet to acquire a complete understanding of the reality we are part of, I think it’s a bit much to expect us to understand every possible reality… and in any case, I think most scientists, and perhaps most philosophers too, are quite prepared to acknowledge the incompleteness of our understanding of the complexities of life and of the universe - however, many are content to live with the gaps and keep looking, rather than inserting supernatural agency by way of explanation wherever they can.You seem to imply that science can in principle explain everything… Is that correct? How would you justify that assumption? BTW Supernatural agency is not inserted but recognised as the most adequate explanation of the highest and most valuable aspects of reality - such as the existence of persons, creativity, freedom and love.

Do biologists and archaeologists find it so difficult? Is SETI based on fantasy or fact? Do biologists exclude purpose from their research on principle?

Don’t know enough about SETI research yet to comment, but I was merely pointing out the difficulty of discerning purpose through empirical evidence.You have not explained whether you regard your personal experience as empirical evidence. After all you cannot infer conscious planning, the formulation and implementation of goals from the observation of sense data, can you? Purpose happens to be an intangible reality - way beyond the scope of materialism…

Sure, you can infer purpose, but how can you prove it without recourse to a consciousness that imparts purpose? Until we can empirically verify said consciousness, there’s no way we can verify purpose, at least in terms of the emergence and evolution of life as we know it.

How anyone else verify that you are conscious? We have to take your word for it…

Since survival value is clearly an inadequate explanation of the evolution of living organisms, and human beings, in particular Design is a more reasonable view.

Blatant opinion.
Blatant disagreement!

The flaw in your argument is that purpose is not undetectable. "A purpose, an intention, a design, strikes everywhere even the careless, the most stupid thinker… " - the words of an archsceptic, David Hume.

Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges the illusion of design. The trouble is, one can infer purpose, but there are other explanations for the complexity of life which don’t require the existence of an unverified creative consciousness. Other explanations which never get to the heart of the matter and fail to give a detailed description of how rational, purposeful activity originated - which is surely the most important phenomenon of all, considering that you are using it to try to explain how it originated! Do you believe you have** creative **consciousness?

Generally speaking, the less complicated explanation is the more probable one.

Precisely! One Supreme Being is far simpler than the convolutions of NeoDarwinism which do not satisfy many specialists in biological evolution…

 

[R_Daneel]

It’s about time you presented some evidence! How about proving that** you exist for a start… Can you see, hear, touch, taste or smell yourself**?

So you have no evidence that you would be willing to present for scrutiny. I have yet to see you present any argument. Every post of yours is composed of irrelevant questions. And for your “question” the answer is: “yes”. By the way, I did not ask for proof. I asked for evidence. Do you understand the difference? Get out, and present some. Something that you consider as worthy to be contemplated. Where is the beef?