Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

I don’t disagree with you, except to add that this may be a necessary component of moral origins but not sufficient to explain the powerful “ought” imperative that at least some humans feel is inherent to the nature of morality. How does your “nerve endings” theory of moral origins actually entail a moral “ought” rather than merely generating pragmatic sensibilities among humans? Yep, we need nerve endings to make sense of morality, but why did humans, unnecessarily, it would seem, develop moral imperatives rather than just conditional or pragmatic ones which would suffice for the protection of nerve endings?

The protection of nerve endings is a strictly amoral affair!

 

[tonyrey]

This might explain a kind of “conditional” nature to an ethical “rule of thumb,” such as “If you want to live in a peaceful society it is pragmatic not to do harm to others.” However, it does not explain the universal and imperative nature of many moral prohibitions.

I don’t share a sense that the imperative or “binding” nature of a moral “ought” is a conditional one based upon some implicit agreement to a social contract of some kind. If it were, there could very well be times that I could strongly feel just as pragmatically or conditionally right not to agree, not to act morally.

Your notion presumes that a person’s moral sensibility would have a kind of conditional feature to it. That deep down an individual would feel a kind of superior sense that they would have an essential right to withdraw their personal assent to this moral sense and “go their own way.”

I am not convinced that a truly moral sensibility does allow that. A moral “ought” carries with it a kind of “regardless of how I feel about it at any time” potency.

Imperative moral principles are not fundamentally emotively based. They derive from reason and justice, and are essentially transcendent to mere emotional pragmatism or rational self-interest. There are times when moral principles lead a moral agent to make a choice “for the greater good,” in which case the inherent value of “other as other,” irrespective of my feelings or self-interest, could be called for.

Imperatives such as:Love your neighbour as your very self.
Value the lives of others as equal to the value of your life. do not have conditionals such as, “if you want to,” “if you deem it good policy,” or “if you find it agreeable,” attached to them.

Ethical imperatives have an unconditional flavor to them that mere pragmatic prerogatives can ever have. The idea that you “can never derive an ought from an is” seems to capture the sense that a true ethical system is not of an optional “buy in” sort.

I am, likewise, not convinced that this is a “fine- tuning” feature that came about after the fact.

Kant hit the nail on the head with his “categorical imperative” and “kingdom of ends”!

 

[tonyrey]

Tony, if you make an argument I will either agree with it or make a case against it if I think it’s worthy of a reply.

Brad, you need to give at least one reason why you disagree if there is to be a rational discussion. An unjustified opinion is not enough.

But the majority of the time you are just making stand-alone statements. It wouldn’t kill you to expound a little would it and give the reasons why you’re making the statements?

A solitary statement is sufficient to sum up a philosophical position. It has the merit of putting the cards on the table without concealing a hidden hand. It is infinitely superior to a host of sentences which confuse the issues. In this thread I have presented lists of reasons for my conclusions. If that isn’t enough I don’t know what is!

You have not explained how you worked it out… What are your initial assumptions?

If I spent some time on this I could do no better than Portofino’s post above. I completely agree with what he’s written, so if you read that you’ll have an idea of where I’m coming from as well. Not only that, you’ll get an idea of how an understanding of philosophy relates to modern cinematic classics.

I’m not sure which post you are referring to and baffled by your reference to the cinema…

 

[prodigalson2011]

I think that you’re setting up a straw man. Not intentionally, but you appear to have forgotten the point of my original post. Which was to show that nothing we do has an ultimate reason other than that which we subscribe to it ourselves.

No, not at all. That point is exactly what I’m addressing. It is utilitarian and reductionist in that one necessarily UTILIZES people for the ends of his own emotional fulfillment rather than seeing them as ends in themselves and it REDUCES people to his arbitrarily ascribed value. The results won’t necessarily be disagreeable, depending on the subject’s temperament and social proclivities, but nevertheless, this philosophy is both utilitarian and reductionist and, when honestly assessed, dehumanizing.

That nothing that happened to anyone in the past, if sufficiently separated from us, temporally and geographically has any effect on us emotionally. We don’t lie awake worrying about everyone who has ever suffered. That is not to say, and I said it in an earlier post, that any decent person would consider murder and rape, even committed many years ago, to be immoral.

I think this conversation is becoming a bit muddled. Using emotions as the basis of estimating a person’s value is exactly what I’m arguing against. I don’t dispute that people, on an individual level, may value others differently. This is manifestly true. My argument is that doing so is ultimately destructive to human dignity.

So to recap, the fact that people may ascribe their own values to other people or actions and treat them accordingly does not prove that there is not an objective and binding set of values that overrides individual opinions.

Indeed, by that philosophy, which obviously I am personally not espousing, people can become worthless and disposable. We all have to be aware that we don’t individually head down that path.

But promoting such a philosophy opens the door wide to that path.

Your ‘no true Scotsman’ pleading in regard to Nazi Germany is neither here nor there. The horror of the 40’s is a good example of how decent people, whether they are Christian or not, can find themselves heading down that path. As can Nanking, Darfur, South Africa, Russia, China, Rwanda – there are almost too many to list. Not including countless individual incidents of which we will never be aware.

It is not neither here nor there. It is most definitely here. Every one of those you listed, you will note, either occured after the spread of “enlightenment” thinking or in a place that was largely un-Christian to begin with.

Considering especially the cases of Germany, Russia, and China, the pervasive assimilation of materialistic philosophy into the public consciousness indisputably paved the road to those atrocities.

The sad fact is that the majority of decent people who consider themselves Christian nowadays lack a solid foundation in Christian morality. Consider the multitudes of professing Catholics who embrace birth control, abortion, etc., etc. issues upon which the Church places the highest moral import.

 

[prodigalson2011]

This is how the world works some of the time. And you don’t have to be a Christian or any other religion for that matter to condemn it.

Indeed it is, but that does not change the fact that there are certain mentalities that give rise to such workings. And, of course, you don’t have to be a Christian to condemn it. Anyone–religious or not–can live a fine moral and compassionate life. But the theist is the only one who has a solid logical argument undergirding his position. I, personally, think alot of atheists are closer to God than a lot of pew sitters. There’s just some obstacle they haven’t cleared yet. Just my opinion.

I also think that we should value human life above everything else. My point is that the precise value that each of us subscribes to an individual is relative. There is no doubt about this. You value your child’s life greater than a stranger’s. But…that doesn’t mean, and I haven’t meant to imply, that human life has no value in itself.

I have not taken any contention with that basic point. Clearly, a murderer does not value the lives of others. And, yes, I may place more emotional and personal value on my child than a stranger, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think that that stranger has an inherent dignity and worth every bit as great as my child’s.

But what I have been taking issue with in our discussion are the first and last sentences of this paragraph.

On materialism, “I think we should value human life above all,” carries no more weight than, “I think human life is a disease and should be wiped out.” When you say, “I haven’t meant to imply that human life has no value in itself,” I think you are failing to see that that is the inevitable conclusion of materialistic philosophy. If there is nothing outside of the human individual to ascribe it value, then from whence does that inherent value come?

Not in an ideal world, no.

In the theist’s view, not in any world.

Whether you believe in a higher power is irrelevant to the fact, and it is a fact, that people that you don’t know do not have as much worth to you as those you love. That is not to say they have no worth. But it is undeniable that value is relative to each of us.
Throw in a little bias and some half truths about those we don’t consider as worthy as those whom we value and yes, you might have the start of a problem.

Whether you believe in a higher power is totally relevant to the fact, because that higher power demands that you love and value everyone equally. That belief, sincerely held, demands one to forego one’s self-interests. It’s a tough mountain to climb, and sure many of us will never fully climb it in this life, but that belief gives one the impetus and reason to pursue it. The lives of the saints and martyrs are testimony to that fact.

So it seems that a solid belief in God doesn’t prevent people from having that problem. There but for the grace of God…

I think you’re abusing the term “solid.” Belief in some generic concept of God, devoid of solid theology and moral principles, doesn’t prevent people from doing much of anything. And, in the centuries since the “enlightenment,” that’s exactly the kind of Christianity we’ve seen dominating the landscape. The “Church on Sunday, Heaven for Eternity” philosophy. Or even worse, the “God who doesn’t judge and doesn’t condemn.” That is not solid belief in God. The folks with solid belief in God were in concentration camps. Don’t forget, Hitler persecuted Catholics, too.

 

[Portofino]

Yep, we need nerve endings to make sense of morality, but why did humans, unnecessarily, it would seem, develop moral imperatives rather than just conditional or pragmatic ones which would suffice for the protection of nerve endings?

Those are indeed real questions. Guilt is a real human experience, as is remorse. I find a “moral response” something that is very difficult to put into words – it is part intellectual, part emotional (and strong emotion, at that). There is a definite “moral sense” and it can be passionate, as indignation can be passionate. When it is directed towards others, it can have a passionate sense of blame and chastisement, or even the desire to punish (righteous indignation).

Freud tried to explain its origin, not necessarily convincingly. He did believe in the “superego” (conscience). He believed that the superego was internalized authority (we can “hear” sounds in our mind – a favorite song, for example-- and “see” images in our mind – “our mind’s eye”-- so internalizing a sense of authority is not so far-fetched). He also seemed to believe that shame – which is related, on a cruder level, to moral responses – was organic. I may be mistaken in my recollection, but I believe Freud posited that it “all started” when humans began to walk upright. For the first time, the sense of smell fell into disuse and atrophied, as it were (scent, for example, plays a much smaller role in sexual arousal than it once did, and as it still does in dogs). Freud’s theory was that, once humans began walking upright and relying less on their sense of smell, they suddenly become alienated from the odors emanating from own bodies (dogs, with a much keener sense of smell than humans, don’t seem to have that experience). We felt disgust and shame at the odors of our own unwashed bodies. They disgusted us. To a certain extent, sex disgusted us (or, at least, aroused an ambivalent response in us)-- as did all our bodily functions, period.

As for something like murder, it was chastised so severely that it would be like a Pavlovian reaction. A person who was beaten severely, if they were discovered engaging in some sexual misconduct as a child, might have a similar internalized reaction. I’ve never been a dog-owner, but I’ve often thought I can see the appearances of “guilt” or even “remorse” in the faces of dogs. Part of that look is the fear – and anticipation – of punishment, and part of it is shame. The dog looks as if it knows it has done something wrong, and gives – indeed – a kind of penitent “hang-dog” look.

The relationship between disgust and morality is another interesting question. We are constantly saying that certain actions “make us sick.” This appeal to disgust has been used – or misused – by those who express a visceral distaste towards homosexuality, as if their distaste proved its immorality.

But this remain a valid question. When the majority of people think in terms of right and wrong, they experience something like a white heat in which intellectual and emotion are fused. It is, elusively, somehow neither one, nor the other. And they feel guilt, and shame, when they themselves transgress that morality; disgust, or indignation, or contempt, when it is transgressed by others.

Morality also has a downside, in this same respect. It can stir up fear and negative emotions – as it did, to use a relatively uncontroversial example, in Martin Luther. I get the sense that, when a Buddhist understands Hitler, they don’t understand his behavior in terms of evil, but “ignorance” (“forgive them, for they know not what they do”). There is a calmness there, whereas moral reactions are often emotionally “knee-jerk.” An outraged sense of morality can take great offense and see red. At worst, it can even cause one to kill. When there is an outraged sense of morality, ad hominem attacks – and words of strong censure, almost with fear and loathing – can also follow.

I’m not maintaining that I have the answers to these questions, just acknowledging that – if morality did originate as a survival tool for our species – that it was never purely rational or pragmatic in tone (if there was a “reason” behind it, it was largely a reason in “nature” – i.e., not entirely conscious, just as the development of language–and its grammar–is not entirely conscious). It was also, for want of a better word (though this doesn’t fully do justice to it), emotional or even instinctive in character.

And, finally, perceptual in character. Moral conviction does, indeed, seem to believe in its moral values as in an objective reality, but this can be a double-edged sword; for example, the indignation of the Jew when he saw a fellow Jew fraternizing with a Samaritan, would have been perceived by him as moral indignation pointing to an objective reality.

 

[tonyrey]

After more than a thousand posts it seems time to recapitulate:

1. Design implies that neither reason nor the universe is an accident.
2. An accidental universe is not a credible basis for order, value, purpose, meaning or a rational existence.
3. We would expect an accidental universe to be chaotic, valueless, purposeless, meaningless, unpredictable, unintelligible and - above all - irrational…
4. Facts and logic presuppose the power of reason which requires explanation.
5. Science cannot explain the power of reason because science is a product of the power of reason.
6. Science is an inadequate explanation of reality because facts and logic are intangible.
7. The remarkable success of science is overwhelming evidence for Design.
8. Design implies that reason is a fundamental reality.
9. Materialism claims that reason is a product of unreasoning processes.
10. The materialist is determined (in both senses of the term!) to externalise all internal experience.
11. According to materialism the mind is an illusion.
12. The firing of neurons is regarded as **the sole cause **of “mental activity”.
13. “mental activity” becomes a **superfluous **term because it is equated with physical activity.
14. According to materialism David Hume was on the right track when he described the mind as “a bundle of perceptions”.
15. Yet he failed to go to the logical conclusion that perceptions are simply subatomic events…
16. According to materialism truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are simply permutations of subatomic events.
17. Materialism is self-contradictory because it presupposes **insight **of which subatomic events are incapable.

 

[tonyrey]

Moral conviction does, indeed, seem to believe in its moral values as in an objective reality, but this can be a double-edged sword; for example, the indignation of the Jew when he saw a fellow Jew fraternizing with a Samaritan, would have been perceived by him as moral indignation pointing to an objective reality.

At least views about objective reality are true or false - which is more than can be said of sentimental opinions.

 

[Sair]

After more than a thousand posts it seems time to recapitulate:

1. Design implies that neither reason nor the universe is an accident.

That seems quite an unproblematic statement.

1. An accidental universe is not a credible basis for order, value, purpose, meaning or a rational existence.

This has not been demonstrated - merely asserted.

1. We would expect an accidental universe to be chaotic, valueless, purposeless, meaningless, unpredictable, unintelligible and - above all - irrational…

Why would we necessarily expect this? It may be less likely for order to result from accidental occurrences, but it is hardly impossible. And not all natural, unintended events are, strictly speaking, accidental - there’s a difference between cause-and-effect and pure chance.

1. Facts and logic presuppose the power of reason which requires explanation.

Why does perception of fact presuppose reason? Surely it only presupposes some degree of sensory accuracy and ability to cross-reference between experiences.

1. Science cannot explain the power of reason because science is a product of the power of reason.

This assumes that the only possibility is a foundational construction of knowledge. In reality, most people do not work as Descartes assumed, and build knowledge in a bottom-up fashion from one or two unassailable axioms - rather, it is constructed as a broad-ranging web of mutually-supportive scaffolding. And maybe there is no ‘ultimate’ explanation for the ‘power’ of reason - maybe it’s just an ongoing process of construction.

1. Science is an inadequate explanation of reality because facts and logic are intangible.

Facts are direct representations of existing circumstances; logic is based upon the observable operations of reality. Neither would exist without mind-external bases.

1. The remarkable success of science is overwhelming evidence for Design.

Yet ironically, it is science that has done the most to refute the possibility of supernatural design.

1. Design implies that reason is a fundamental reality.

Again, an unproblematic statement in itself, but there is no evidence that reason is fundamental to the universe - at least, not the definition of reason you have previously elucidated.

1. Materialism claims that reason is a product of unreasoning processes.

Yes. And?

1. The materialist is determined (in both senses of the term!) to externalise all internal experience.

As Daniel Dennett said, if you make yourself small enough, you can externalise anything. If you assume that “you” consist of something separate from your interactive physical components, of course you must believe that if mental processes can be explained in physical terms, then they take place outside your “self” or your “soul” or whatever you ultimately believe to be the seat of your existence and identity.

1. According to materialism the mind is an illusion.

No. According to materialism, the mind is an emergent phenomenon, the cumulative effect of the electrochemical processes that take place in the physical brain and nervous system as they receive and respond to signals from both within and outside the body.

1. The firing of neurons is regarded as **the sole cause **of “mental activity”.

But these neurons don’t operate in isolation.

1. “mental activity” becomes a **superfluous **term because it is equated with physical activity.

Of course. But unless you can demonstrate that mental phenomena are substantially different from all possible physical phenomena, then your argument is hamstrung. Not all physical phenomena are identical in character - and there is no way of actually examining nonphysical phenomena. When we know everything there is to know about physical reality, if there is still no explanation of what we consider to be mental states (and already neuroscience is building precisely these kinds of explanations) then the “nonphysical mind” concept might regain some credibility.

1. According to materialism David Hume was on the right track when he described the mind as “a bundle of perceptions”.

1. Yet he failed to go to the logical conclusion that perceptions are simply subatomic events…

What do you mean by “simply” subatomic events?

1. According to materialism truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are simply permutations of subatomic events.

Yes. And? Unless you are a supernaturalist who believes that there exists an immaterial soul which authentically experiences these concepts as objective things, then the supposition that they are the result of electrochemical processes is certainly not the same as claiming that they don’t exist or are unimportant in the context of our physical existence.

1. Materialism is self-contradictory because it presupposes **insight **of which subatomic events are incapable.

This is but another undemonstrated assertion. You are completely discounting the possibility that the interaction of multiple subatomic events can produce the experience of insight for the organism in which those events take place. What is insight, after all, but sophisticated processing of information?

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you for your swift, thorough reply.

1. Design implies that neither reason nor the universe is an accident.
   That seems quite an unproblematic statement.

This has not been demonstrated - merely asserted.
There is no evidence that accidents have ever provided such a basis nor does any reasonable person rely on accidents to make important decisions.

1. We would expect an accidental universe to be chaotic, valueless, purposeless, meaningless, unpredictable, unintelligible and - above all - irrational…

Why would we necessarily expect this? It may be less likely for order to result from accidental occurrences, but it is hardly impossible. And not all natural, unintended events are, strictly speaking, accidental - there’s a difference between cause-and-effect and pure chance.All natural, unintended events occur within a fundamentally orderly system. An accidental universe has no such framework.

1. Facts and logic presuppose the power of reason which requires explanation.

Why does perception of fact presuppose reason? Surely it only presupposes some degree of sensory accuracy and ability to cross-reference between experiences.
The perception of physical objects is different from the “perception” of abstract, intangible facts. Cross-references by animals are not the result of abstract insight but conditioned responses.

1. Science cannot explain the power of reason because science is a product of the power of reason.

This assumes that the only possibility is a foundational construction of knowledge. In reality, most people do not work as Descartes assumed, and build knowledge in a bottom-up fashion from one or two unassailable axioms - rather, it is constructed as a broad-ranging web of mutually-supportive scaffolding. And maybe there is no ‘ultimate’ explanation for the ‘power’ of reason - maybe it’s just an ongoing process of construction.Intellectual constructions cannot be achieved without insight or understanding.

1. Science is an inadequate explanation of reality because facts and logic are intangible.

Facts are direct representations of existing circumstances; logic is based upon the observable operations of reality. Neither would exist without mind-external bases.Facts refer not only to existing circumstances but also to past, present and future events, situations and relations, logical truths and mathematical values . Logic is based on the abstract principles of identity, non-contradiction and the excluded middle.

Without the mind there would be no knowledge of facts or logical truths - and the mind itself is the source of all interpreted information.

1. The remarkable success of science is overwhelming evidence for Design.

Yet ironically, it is science that has done the most to refute the possibility of supernatural design.
Science has done nothing to refute Design because it is restricted to physical entities, events and situations.

1. Design implies that reason is a fundamental reality.

Again, an unproblematic statement in itself, but there is no evidence that reason is fundamental to the universe - at least, not the definition of reason you have previously elucidated.Order, value, purpose, meaning, logical truths and mathematical values all presuppose a rational foundation.

1. Materialism claims that reason is a product of unreasoning processes.

Yes. And?A clearly inadequate explanation which has led many people - including the atheist Professor Thomas Nagel - to doubt the truth of materialism.
:

1. The materialist is determined

(in both senses of the term!) to externalise all internal experience. As Daniel Dennett said, if you make yourself small enough, you can externalise anything.If you externalise everything you are not only undermining your own conclusion but annihilating yourself! Where do you stop on the slippery slope to nihilism?

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

If you assume that “you” consist of something separate from your interactive physical components, of course you must believe that if mental processes can be explained in physical terms, then they take place outside your “self” or your “soul” or whatever you ultimately believe to be the seat of your existence and identity.

No. According to materialism, the mind is an emergent phenomenon, the cumulative effect of the electrochemical processes that take place in the physical brain and nervous system as they receive and respond to signals from both within and outside the body.No one has ever provided the slightest indication of the mechanism by which electrochemical processes can produce consciousness, insight and purposeful activity.

13. The firing of neurons is regarded as **the sole cause **

of “mental activity”. But these neurons don’t operate in isolation.
Combinations of fireworks don’t produce more than a meaningless spectacle!

14. “mental activity” becomes a **superfluous **

term because it is equated with physical activity. Of course. But unless you can demonstrate that mental phenomena are substantially different from all possible physical phenomena, then your argument is hamstrung. The reverse is the case. If mental phenomena are physical phenomena there is no reason to endow them with powers universally attributed to conscious, rational minds.

Not all physical phenomena are identical in character - and there is no way of actually examining nonphysical phenomena.

Without a mind there is no way of rationally examining anything!

When we know everything there is to know about physical reality, if there is still no explanation of what we consider to be mental states (and already neuroscience is building precisely these kinds of explanations) then the “nonphysical mind” concept might regain some credibility.

That is a sheer act of faith based on a mental decision to explain everything in physical terms. If mental decisions and conclusions are caused by physical events they are unreliable.

15. According to materialism David Hume was on the right track when he described the mind as "a bundle

of perceptions".

1. Yet he failed to go to the logical conclusion that perceptions are simply subatomic events… What do you mean by “simply” subatomic events?Perceptions - like everything else - are considered to be sets of events at the subatomic level.

17. According to materialism truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are simply permutations of subatomic events

.Yes. And? Unless you are a supernaturalist who believes that there exists an immaterial soul which authentically experiences these concepts as objective things, then the supposition that they are the result of electrochemical processes is certainly not the same as claiming that they don’t exist or are unimportant in the context of our physical existence.The question of the soul doesn’t even arise when considering the adequacy and intelligibility of materialism. Logical positivism was abandoned because its proponents realised their verification principle cannot be verified by sense data. Materialism (of which it was an offshoot) is in the same predicament.

The materialist needs to perform the formidable task of explaining how truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are derived from permutations of subatomic events.

18. Materialism is self-contradictory because it presupposes **insight **

of which subatomic events are incapable. This is but another undemonstrated assertion. You are completely discounting the possibility that the interaction of multiple subatomic events can produce the experience of insight for the organism in which those events take place. What is insight, after all, but sophisticated processing of information? Computers exceed our power to process information but they do so only because they have been programmed by rational beings - and even then they still don’t have the foggiest idea of what they are doing…

[/QUOTE]

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Over 1000 posts, that’s all folks!

Feel free to continue this discussion in a new thread.