Print
The Transcendental Argument for God
by RichardDawkins.net
Atheism is self-refuting because it asserts that everything in the universe, including the atheist's own reasoning, came about as a result of non-rational forces. If that is indeed the case, every argument employed by the atheist is, according to his own assertions, incoherent and meaningless. Only the theist is able to claim coherence and true logic in his arguments because those arguments are founded on the notion of an all-knowing being.
Richard Carrier's response to this argument is here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier
Use the comment space below to present your rebuttal. Let's try and be clear and concise, as if this were to be used in a debate.
Thanks to Paul Creber for the suggestion.
Be sure to login and use our new "Rank this comment" feature (right under each comment while logged in) to help score your favorite responses. Comments can now be sorted by highest rank.
Richard Carrier's response to this argument is here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier
Use the comment space below to present your rebuttal. Let's try and be clear and concise, as if this were to be used in a debate.
Thanks to Paul Creber for the suggestion.
Be sure to login and use our new "Rank this comment" feature (right under each comment while logged in) to help score your favorite responses. Comments can now be sorted by highest rank.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 | PermalinkComments 51 - 100 of 594 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers52. Comment #85459 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 6, 2007 at 12:51 am
Steve99 (post 42, or #85137):Sure: I find absurd the idea that I do not possess libertarian free will, or that it's not objectively better to help somebody in need rather than to torture them, to mention just two implications of scientific naturalism. Indeed scientific naturalism's absurd implications is one of the reasons why I find it untenable. I think that if people really understood what scientific naturalism implies and also realized that one can accept all of science (both its method and its results) without accepting scientific naturalism then very few would believe in it.It seems to me that the evidence against metaphysical naturalism at least is overwhelming.No, it isn't. You only claim this because you personally have difficulty with the consequences of a naturalist view of the world.
Scientific naturalism is an ontological theory. Now most scientists do not care about ontological issues one way or the other, but those who do manage to produce some useful work, if only to show how little objectivity there is in scientific naturalism, and also to falsify many of naturalists' most strongly felt intuitions. But those scientists and scientifically minded philosophers who tried to show how concepts such as justification and knowledge, intentionality (in the philosophical sense), consciousness, free will, and moral responsibility are to be reduced to naturalism (or be "naturalized") – all of them met with failure. As Putnam dryly put it in 2004: "none of these ontological reductions gets believed by anyone except the proponent of the account and one or two of his friends and/or students." Scientific naturalism is as close to a failure as any philosophical idea can reasonably be expected to come, so modern philosophers are now suggesting the need to go beyond scientific naturalism and just "accept as true everything we find we have to accept in order to make sense of everything that we think is part of the world" (Barry Stroud in his American Philosophical Association presidential address of 1996 "The Charm of Naturalism"; you can read more about these issues here:
http://www.rescogitans.it/main.php?articleid=132 ).
Actually it's the other way around: To claim that no objective morality exists, against what appears to be absolutely obvious to virtually everybody, is the huge claim. So what backing do you offer for it, except that to believe in it is necessary in order to maintain the viability of scientific naturalism?But at least equally reasonably one can affirm the existence of these and therefore deny the viability of scientific realism.No, you can't reasonably affirm the existence of objective morality. It is a HUGE claim, and needs a lot of backing.
I find that the distance between popular understanding and the forefronts of philosophy are impressively large. For example we have all heard about Karl Popper's theory of falsificationism, and how it is the golden standard in the scientific method. Well, it seems that even though it sounds very good in theory it does not work in the practice of real world science, because in many cases whether a particular objective observation does or does not falsify a particular theory depends on a series of assumptions which themselves are not experimentally verifiable. Also, valid scientific statements such as "black holes exist" or "all metals melt at some temperature" cannot be falsified. So, as John Dupre writes in his "The Miracle of Monism" for some 30 years now "among philosophers of science Popper's view of science has been largely rejected". The issue is not whether demonstrating a contradiction is not epistemically significant: of course it is, and "reduction ad absurdum" is one of the oldest tools of reason. The issue is that scientific methodology as it in fact takes place cannot really be neatly nailed down. As Popper's student Paul Feyerabend (whose 1975 "Against Method" went a long way showing how shaky Popper's ideas really are) said, the only universal method that characterizes scientific progress is that anything goes.
Nick Herbert is a physicist. Now I don't know about physicists "in general", but some of the greatest physicists who actually thought about the ontological implications of modern physics are on record on this issue and what they say does not square with scientific naturalism (see some of their quotes here). It seems to me then that scientific naturalism is inspired by a certain naivete about, as well as infatuation with, science.Or for the insight that the hard sciences have lost sight of objective reality (or as Nick Herbert says: "One of the best-kept secrets of science is that physicists have lost their grip on reality").The best people to judge that are the physicists themselves, who, in general, just don't believe that at all.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
53. Comment #85461 by Goldy on November 6, 2007 at 1:01 am
Ooooh, wait, don't tell us - observational facts! AND you're bringing this morality shit back into a thread. PROVE you theists are more moral than athiests - really prove it - then give us the data.Also, valid scientific statements such as "black holes exist" or "all metals melt at some temperature" cannot be falsified
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Other Comments by Goldy
54. Comment #85462 by steve99 on November 6, 2007 at 1:04 am
Sure: I find absurd the idea that I do not possess libertarian free will, or that it's not objectively better to help somebody in need rather than to torture them, to mention just two implications of scientific naturalism. Indeed scientific naturalism's absurd implications is one of the reasons why I find it untenable.
This is why your views can't be taken seriously. We have millenia of experience that what people consider to be absurd is a very poor guide to what is false. The fact that you persist in this just makes you look silly. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is true. It ranks you alongside the scientist who claimed that we could not travel faster than 30mph, or we would suffocate.
To claim that no objective morality exists, against what appears to be absolutely obvious to virtually everybody, is the huge claim.
To claim that the earth is round, against what appears to be absolutely obvious to virtually everybody is the huge claim. See the parallel?
So what backing do you offer for it, except that to believe in it is necessary in order to maintain the viability of scientific naturalism?
I don't need to claim backing. You need to claim backing for the absurd opinion that what people believe about this is true, because so many people believe it. That, to be honest, is just nuts. Since when has what the majority consider to be true any measure of what is true? It is pretty certain that the majority of people in the world believe some kind of creationism.
Also, valid scientific statements such as "black holes exist" or "all metals melt at some temperature" cannot be falsified.
Yes, they can. I am responding to this as one of these statements is particularly interesting to me. Telescopes are soon to be constructed which should actually allow observations of the accretion disks of large (or close) black holes. That will allow us to begin to distingish between different models of condensed stars (such as classical black holes, black suns and gravastars). So that one should start to be sorted out soon. Personally, I favour Lawrence Krauss' model in which event horizons never form.
Nick Herbert is a physicist. Now I don't know about physicists "in general",
I do. It is an interest of mine.
but some of the greatest physicists who actually thought about the ontological implications of modern physics are on record on this issue and what they say does not square with scientific naturalism (see some of their quotes here).
No. You have pressed the 'reset' button here. We have gone over this. Einstein certainly believed in an objective world, and so do most modern physicists. And to claim that Wigner is anywhere close to Einstein is just making things up. Also, many of those do indeed believe in physical reality, even if they assume a rather strange relationship with our minds.
Ok. My job here is done. I'll leave it to others to respond to you on this thread.
Other Comments by steve99
55. Comment #85466 by Bonzai on November 6, 2007 at 1:16 am
Did dinosaurs have absolute morality? How about amoebas?It is quite arrogant to think that we are specially created. If it wasn't because of some meteorites wiping out the dinos we probably wouldn't be around to philosophize about "ontology".
Were the meteorites a part of the divine plan to set the stage for us? Was it another instance of "fine tuning" to have billard balls falling from the sky so our oh so special species could emerge and dominate the planet? Too bad the knob of "fine tuning" was set to "kill" for the dinosaurs as well as all other species that had extincted before us so we ended up at the top of the food chain.
From the perspective of "naturalism", human civilization and religion exist as a result of a cosmic accident, we happened to benefit by it in some decisive yet convoluted way.
The stupidity of DG's arguments is incredible. Never mind how many times it had been pointed out to him he would just come back saying the same inanities over and over, again and again. He "wins" simply by wearing everyone out like the frigging energizer bunny.
Other Comments by Bonzai
56. Comment #85469 by epeeist on November 6, 2007 at 1:22 am
Comment #85153 by Dr Benway
Do narcissists require hitting upside the head, or do I merely feel the need to hit them? In other words, does God instantiate "please hit me" as an objective ethical fact concerning the narcissist, or does God instatiate "go slap him" as an objective fact about me?
I thought your mantra was a good idea, sadly mine ("The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.") didn't seem to work as well, possibly because it was too long.
One bit on the forum is apposite - http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=28004, it is specifically meant for dealing with YEC. I particularly liked the entry on "quote mining". Perhaps we can get them to add entries for "ontology" and "objective morality"
Other Comments by epeeist
57. Comment #85474 by epeeist on November 6, 2007 at 1:37 am
Comment #85459 by Dianelos Georgoudis
Well, it seems that even though it sounds very good in theory it does not work in the practice of real world science, because in many cases whether a particular objective observation does or does not falsify a particular theory depends on a series of assumptions which themselves are not experimentally verifiable.
Can you not see the glaring hole in this?
Also, valid scientific statements such as "black holes exist" or "all metals melt at some temperature" cannot be falsified.
These are two different types of statement. Back to logic 101
The issue is that scientific methodology as it in fact takes place cannot really be neatly nailed down.
I don't think anyone actually working in science would have any problems with this, the sequence that Popper put together (problem, hypothesis, critical experiment) is too limited. When it comes to predicition, parsimony, testability and falsifiability though you will find a general acceptance of these.
Finally - on objective morality. Given the changing ethos of individual societies (we no longer consider slavery or ritual murder and cannibalism acceptable) and the differences between societies (in the UK women are accepted as the equals of men, in other societies they are only worth half a man) then we are justified in contingently assuming that there is no such thing as objective morality.
The burden of proof is therefore upon you to show that such a thing exists, and how an objective moral imperative would be recognised.
OK, like steve99 I am done, I leave it to anyone else who wants to carry on.
Other Comments by epeeist
58. Comment #85762 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 7, 2007 at 3:08 am
Steve99 (post 54 or #85462):We have millenia of experience that what people consider to be absurd is a very poor guide to what is false.Right.
The fact that you persist in this just makes you look silly.I persist in what? Give me good reasons and I am prepared to abandon any previously held belief, including those that appear obvious to me. Actually, give me just one reason for abandoning the belief that some moral precepts are objective, except that scientific naturalism cannot account for objective ethics. Scientific naturalism is so full of paradoxes and holes that even atheist philosophers are deserting it; so why exactly should I care to renounce beliefs I find completely obvious just in order to maintain the viability of an ontology that even knowledgeable atheists think is wrong?
Yes, I see the parallel. Those who first realized that the Earth, contrary to what appeared obvious, is not flat had to show the evidence why the Earth is round. So in our parallel case it's you who are claiming the non-obvious, so it's you who have to give evidence why morality is not objective. But you haven't given any such evidence. Nobody has, beyond pointing out that that's what is required if you believe in scientific naturalism.To claim that no objective morality exists, against what appears to be absolutely obvious to virtually everybody, is the huge claim.To claim that the earth is round, against what appears to be absolutely obvious to virtually everybody is the huge claim. See the parallel?
You need to claim backing for the absurd opinion that what people believe about this is true, because so many people believe it.I never claimed that something is true because so many people believe in it, and I defy you to find one quote of mine which says that, or can be construed as saying that.
What I have said is this: 1) I personally find the implications of scientific naturalism absurd, and this is one of the reasons I think that scientific naturalism is a false description of objective reality. 2) That if people understood what scientific naturalism implies and also realized that one can accept all of science (both its method and its results) without accepting scientific naturalism then very few would believe in it.
Once again you are not actually reading what the other person is writing. I did not say that the statement "black holes do not exist" cannot be falsified, of course it can: suffice to find a black hole. I claimed that the statement "black holes exist" cannot be falsified, as should be obvious if you take a few seconds to think about it. After all, even should we fail to find any black holes where we would expect to find them, and even if we should discover grave errors in general relativity and the rest of physics that predicts their existence, we wouldn't falsify that statement. Why not? Because maybe there is some physics we haven't yet discovered and which would explain why we haven't found black holes where we expected to find them.Also, valid scientific statements such as "black holes exist" or "all metals melt at some temperature" cannot be falsified.Yes, they can. I am responding to this as one of these statements is particularly interesting to me. Telescopes are soon to be constructed which should actually allow observations of the accretion disks of large (or close) black holes. That will allow us to begin to distingish between different models of condensed stars (such as classical black holes, black suns and gravastars). So that one should start to be sorted out soon. Personally, I favour Lawrence Krauss' model in which event horizons never form.
Einstein certainly believed in an objective world, and so do most modern physicists.I too believe in an objective world, and I am surprised you write that only "most" modern physicists believe in it. Can you tell me of one modern physicist who does not believe in an objective reality?
As for Einstein, some of his most deeply felt beliefs about how the objective reality is have been proven wrong by experiment. Physicists have been so often and so radically wrong in their ontological beliefs, that the remnant of a physical objective reality that is still viable is like that thing that was found not to look like a duck, not to walk like a duck, and not to quack like a duck, but which "scientific duckists" insist is nevertheless a duck.
Also, many of those do indeed believe in physical reality, even if they assume a rather strange relationship with our minds.A physical reality that is created by our consciousness can hardly be called objective it seems to me.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
59. Comment #85766 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 7, 2007 at 3:18 am
Bonzai (post 55, or #85466):Did dinosaurs have absolute morality? How about amoebas?Neither amoebas have, nor almost certainly dinosaurs have had, the cognitive capacity for moral thought. But surely you knew that.
As for the rest of your post, you once again commit the typical atheist error which is to first imagine objective reality according to scientific naturalism and then to consider whether it makes sense to add God to it. It doesn't. And it's irrelevant anyway. Theists posit an alternative understanding of reality, not reality as atheists understand it plus a supernatural being.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
60. Comment #85768 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 3:38 am
I persist in what?
Claiming that what you personally consider absurd or obvious are any kind of measure of what is false and true. It is damn stupid. Sorry to be blunt, but it really is.
Scientific naturalism is so full of paradoxes and holes that even atheist philosophers are deserting it
No, let's get this right. You personally want and believe that it is full of holes, so you can (using crazy logic) automatically justify that a cosy supernatural world you are desperate to believe.
so why exactly should I care to renounce beliefs I find completely obvious just in order to maintain the viability of an ontology that even knowledgeable atheists think is wrong?
Firstly, "atheists philosophers" aren't deserting it. Such a general statement is clearly rubbish. Daniel Dennett is an atheist philosopher, and he is not deserting scientific naturalism. David Chalmers is an atheistic philosopher and he is not deserting scientific naturalism. Just because you can find some who are, does not mean this is general.
Yes, I see the parallel. Those who first realized that the Earth, contrary to what appeared obvious, is not flat had to show the evidence why the Earth is round. So in our parallel case it's you who are claiming the non-obvious, so it's you who have to give evidence why morality is not objective. But you haven't given any such evidence. Nobody has, beyond pointing out that that's what is required if you believe in scientific naturalism.
No, you are missing the point. It is that obviousness is no guide to what is true. Having seen the example that obviousness was wrong in the past (flat earth), a rational person would then see that it is no guide to anything, and give up using 'obviousness' as any justification, realising it was silly. You don't give up, do you?
Let's imagine someone, call them Danny, who starts off with the idea that what is obvious is a guide to what is true:
Danny: "The Earth is flat - obvious"
Geographer: "Sorry round - here is the evidence"
Danny: "Oops, I was wrong! It was obvious but false."
Danny: "Time and space are absolute - obvious"
Physicist: "Sorry, they aren't - here is the evidence"
Danny: "Oops, I was wrong! It was obvious but false."
Danny: "Subatomic particles must be found in one place, and act like billiard balls - obvious"
Physicist: "Sorry, they aren't - here is the evidence"
Danny: "Oops, I was wrong! It was obvious but false."
Danny: "Life must have been created, it is so complex - obvious"
Biologist: "Sorry, it evolved - here is the evidence"
Danny: "Oops, I was wrong! It was obvious but false."
I mean, this Danny guy just won't learn will he? If one bumped into him and he said "There can't be a multiverse - it is obvious", then surely any reasonable person would point out to him that the track record of "It is obvious" is pretty poor. If he persisted, he would be guilty of the "don't be silly" fallacy, surely.
I never claimed that something is true because so many people believe in it, and I defy you to find one quote of mine which says that, or can be construed as saying that.
Here you go:
"To claim that no objective morality exists, against what appears to be absolutely obvious to virtually everybody, is the huge claim."
That is an appeal to numbers.
I too believe in an objective world, and I am surprised you write that only "most" modern physicists believe in it. Can you tell me of one modern physicist who does not believe in an objective reality?
I can't. But unlike you, I try not to generalise. I mean, it would be poor to say "All" modern physicists believe something, wouldn't it?
But hold on a minute. Didn't you mention someone? Ah yes - Nick Herbert.
As for Einstein, some of his most deeply felt beliefs about how the objective reality is have been proven wrong by experiment.
Actually no - almost all of them have been proven right, and to a high precision. It is only in the quantum area he was wrong.
Physicists have been so often and so radically wrong in their ontological beliefs, that the remnant of a physical objective reality that is still viable is like that thing that was found not to look like a duck, not to walk like a duck, and not to quack like a duck, but which "scientific duckists" insist is nevertheless a duck.
Gosh, you are getting desperate here. All those deluded physicists, but Dianelos knows better!
A physical reality that is created by our consciousness can hardly be called objective it seems to me.
Of course it can, providing it is the same reality for all of us. This is an idea often expressed by John Wheeler.
Give it a rest Dianelos. We have been through all of this before. I am only replying here as there is no 'previous responses' facility on the website.
You keep trying to turn wishful thinking into reasoned argument, and it just won't work - it is too obvious a ploy for one thing.
I have had enough of this (again!) for now. Enjoy pressing your reset button :)
Other Comments by steve99
61. Comment #86041 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 8, 2007 at 12:22 am
Epeeist (post 57, or #85474):No, I can't, my cryptic friend.Well, it seems that even though it sounds very good in theory it does not work in the practice of real world science, because in many cases whether a particular objective observation does or does not falsify a particular theory depends on a series of assumptions which themselves are not experimentally verifiable.Can you not see the glaring hole in this?
Sure, so? Do you object to either of them being scientific? Do you see any way that either of them can be falsified?Also, valid scientific statements such as "black holes exist" or "all metals melt at some temperature" cannot be falsified.These are two different types of statement.
Back to logic 101Speaking in riddles again. I don't mind you pointing out some logical mistake I committed (God knows I am not infallible :-) but to just claim I committed a logical mistake is worthless.
Finally - on objective morality. Given the changing ethos of individual societies (we no longer consider slavery or ritual murder and cannibalism acceptable) and the differences between societies (in the UK women are accepted as the equals of men, in other societies they are only worth half a man) then we are justified in contingently assuming that there is no such thing as objective morality.First of all, we not only observe a changing of the moral Zeitgeist, but an overall changing towards a better state. I assume you are saying that the UK is morally better now than other countries as far as the rights of women go, and that you agree that the UK is morally better now than it was 100 years ago before the emancipation of British women. The moral Zeitgeist is clearly improving; Dawkins in his TGD makes a big deal of that. Now consider a case where you and I agree that objectivity exists: physics. We agree that physical laws are there whether we have discovered them or not, so they are objective. And the state of our knowledge of physics shows a constant improvement towards a (perhaps unreachable) state of perfection. So the fact that the moral Zeitgeist is clearly improving too, far from evidencing that morality is not objective, evidences that it is.
But that's not my point really. What I am saying is that it is overwhelmingly obvious to me that to help somebody in need is better than to instead torture them for fun, and that this is true not because of personal opinion or social convention (and hence is objectively true). Now, as Steve insists, no matter how obvious something may seem, we must always be prepared to change a belief if sufficient contrary evidence is found. Further we all agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and to claim that to help somebody in need is not necessarily better than to torture them but is just a matter of opinion - this is certainly a very extraordinary claim. So, where's the extraordinary evidence that would move me to change my belief that this ethical precept is objective? But if not sufficient contrary evidence is forthcoming - indeed if no evidence at all is forthcoming (except that this is entailed in an ontology I anyway think is false) - then reason requires me to believe in what seems to me to be overwhelmingly obvious, don't you agree?
Here is an analogy: You, Steve, and I find it overwhelmingly obvious that there is an objective reality out there (we only disagree about how that reality actually is). Now suppose a solipsist would join our discussion and argue that we shouldn't believe there is an objective reality out there just because it seems to be obviously true, and point out the many cases where obvious beliefs were proven wrong. So, we would ask the solipsist to give us one good reason why we should desert our belief that objective reality exists, to which the solipsist would point out that his or her ontology (an ontology we anyway think is false) entails the non-existence of objective reality. Would that make any sense? It wouldn't. So, similarly, unless a scientific naturalist can come up with a valid reason (i.e. one which does not presuppose the truth of scientific naturalism) why no objective morality exists then it's perfectly reasonable for all non-naturalists to believe that at least some ethical precepts are objective, as is indeed overwhelmingly obvious to any non-psychopath. And if that's bad news for scientific naturalism so much the worse for it. As some naturalist philosophers are already finding out scientific naturalism cannot be a viable description of objective reality, and not just for the reason I explained above. Which I think will slowly become common knowledge and will move people to distance themselves from scientific naturalism. And why not? To try to apply science beyond its natural field of studying physical phenomena has proven to be an unreasonable enterprise in more ways than one.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
62. Comment #86043 by Shuggy on November 8, 2007 at 12:43 am
...the typical atheist error which is to first imagine objective reality according to scientific naturalism and then to consider whether it makes sense to add God to it. It doesn't. And it's irrelevant anyway. Theists posit an alternative understanding of reality, not reality as atheists understand it plus a supernatural being.I think I almost understand this. You posit a universe in which some theical being (an expression I just made up, for the sake of all the transcendental theists who aren't christian and won't call it "God"), some theical being is intrinsic, part of the structure, and therefore doesn't require proving. Einsteinians/deists do much the same but they don't call it theism. The problem is that such a being can't do anything or it becomes part of the naturalistic universe and its existence may be called into question.
You may posit such a universe, and such a being, if you like, but that doesn't make it so.
Other Comments by Shuggy
63. Comment #86068 by Dr Benway on November 8, 2007 at 3:55 am
Dianelos: The moral Zeitgeist is clearly improving.Those who agree with you would agree with you.
A well roasted Columbian coffee is better than any flavored coffee.
Antony Hegarty is a better singer than Britney Spears.
The statements above, including yours, are objective facts about the speakers. They are not objective facts concerning the moral zeitgeist, coffee, Antony and the Johnsons, or Britney Spears.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
64. Comment #86086 by steve99 on November 8, 2007 at 5:16 am
So, similarly, unless a scientific naturalist can come up with a valid reason (i.e. one which does not presuppose the truth of scientific naturalism) why no objective morality exists then it's perfectly reasonable for all non-naturalists to believe that at least some ethical precepts are objective, as is indeed overwhelmingly obvious to any non-psychopath.
No, it is not obvious. What non-psychopaths have is inner feelings that guide their actions. The fact that different people (such as psychopaths) don't have such feelings is clear evidence that these things are not objective and universal.
So, where's the extraordinary evidence that would move me to change my belief that this ethical precept is objective?
The existence of psychopaths.
What you are saying here is equivalent to: "People in love know what love feels like, so the existence of objective love is overwhelmingly obvious". Morality is a mental process, like emotion. There is no 'absolute objective morality' any more than there is 'absolute objective love'.
Other Comments by steve99
65. Comment #86093 by Peacebeuponme on November 8, 2007 at 5:46 am
What I am saying is that it is overwhelmingly obvious to me that to help somebody in need is better than to instead torture them for fun, and that this is true not because of personal opinion or social convention (and hence is objectively true).Better how? Against what criteria?
Better for them because they don't get tortured.
Better for you because of the warm feelings you get from helping them.
That's it.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
66. Comment #86118 by apaeter on November 8, 2007 at 7:33 am
I am having real trouble following your arguments here, Dianelos Georgoudis.It seems to me like you are saying (1) that because things like logic, morality, maths, science, etc. are human constructs, they can give no valid contributions to the question of what "reality" (really) is? That they have no ontological value. Furthermore, (2) as they clearly do lead to some sort of improvement (in the moral zeitgeist, in our (the human race's) body of knowledge), this implies ... what? A metaphysical connection of the human mind and "reality".
Sincerely (and I'm not being sarcastic here): Can you clear that up for me? What is it you're saying? (1) seems like a non sequitur to me, but that might be down to confusion...
Other Comments by apaeter
67. Comment #86125 by Bonzai on November 8, 2007 at 7:54 am
Universal human sentiments are only universal among humans(excluding sociopaths). It is not "objective" as in existing "out there". Universals can be explained in terms of nature and/or nurture. No supernaturalism is required. DG's tagged on theism is completely useless for ethics as it is for the laws of physics. It is like "ether" in 19th century physics.Moreover it creates other problems that it cannot answer.
If there is "objective morality" in the sense of DG, there must also be "objective greed", "objective lust", "objective aggressiveness" and "objective selfishness" as these are just as universal as empathy and compassion. So how does a "theistic ontology" explain "objective nastiness"?
Other Comments by Bonzai
68. Comment #86138 by Bonzai on November 8, 2007 at 8:25 am
DG wrote,
As for the rest of your post, you once again commit the typical atheist error which is to first imagine objective reality according to scientific naturalism and then to consider whether it makes sense to add God to it. It doesn't. And it's irrelevant anyway. Theists posit an alternative understanding of reality, not reality as atheists understand it plus a supernatural being.
You are just evading the question.
I didn't assume anything, just stating the fact that humans and human civilization emerged as a result of a long chain of apparently accidental events. This is indisputable even if according to your "added on" theistic view point that life itself might be the result of design
If it weren't for the meteorites that killed the dinosaurs and the various geological and climate changes and accompanied mass extinctions that permitted the evolution of homo-sapients and their rise through the food chain there wouldn't be any human civilization. This is fact.
So what is a "theistic ontology's alternative account" for that if we are somehow "special"? Was it a kind of "fine tuning" that killed the dinosaurs with billiard balls from the sky to clear the stage for us?
Why?
Other Comments by Bonzai
69. Comment #86140 by Dr Benway on November 8, 2007 at 8:46 am
Theists posit an alternative understanding of reality, not reality as atheists understand it plus a supernatural being.Some theists believe in god(s) that exist in the material world - e.g., Jesus, Elvis, Cesaer, Kim Jong il. Some theists are materialists.
I think you mean to say that idealists have a different understanding of reality as compared to materialists. However, you make too much of this. Idealistic poop smells just as bad as materialistic poop.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
70. Comment #86146 by Bonzai on November 8, 2007 at 9:01 am
It would be an interesting psychological study to find out what motivates DG. His long winded, verbose posts are just hot air, fancy philosophical jargons (I'll scream if I see "Ontology" one more time) and new agey pseudo- science buttressed by nothing but his subjective preference and wishful thinking. All his "arguments" have been addressed and refuted before, yet he keeps coming back, now spamming even more than one thread.The only thing "supernatural" is his volume of output. I think he seriously needs to get a life.
Other Comments by Bonzai
71. Comment #86147 by steve99 on November 8, 2007 at 9:18 am
DG's tagged on theism is completely useless for ethics as it is for the laws of physics. It is like "ether" in 19th century physics.
Neat analogy.
Other Comments by steve99
72. Comment #86157 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 8, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Steve99 (post 60, or #85768):No, scientific naturalism is full of holes as a matter of fact: it cannot account for the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental constants, it cannot account for free will, it cannot account for consciousness, it cannot account for objective ethics, it cannot account for intentionality (in the philosophical sense), and, what's amazing, it cannot even produce a converging description of how objective reality is (scientific naturalists cannot even agree whether there is one or many physical universes, whether physical reality is deterministic or not, whether the wavefunction is real or not, whether an electron moving from point A to B in between passes through all points in the universe or not, and so and so forth; arguably it cannot even produce a logically coherent description of reality). These are facts. And what's worse it's also a fact that both the number and the size of the holes is growing; at the beginning of the 20th century when science was still classical the situation was much better than now, but since then scientific discoveries have pushed scientific naturalism into an ever shaky place - which is a problem for scientific naturalism but not for science of course which is doing just splendidly. So scientific naturalism does not look good at all right now. But of course a scientific naturalist may hope that somehow some day all these holes will be closed. To me this looks like wishful thinking. But we have time, we shall see.Scientific naturalism is so full of paradoxes and holes that even atheist philosophers are deserting itNo, let's get this right. You personally want and believe that it is full of holes,
I did not say that all atheist philosophers now think that scientific naturalism is wrong, so you are rejecting something I did not claim. As for David Chalmers he has already walked away from scientific naturalism as we know it; he now argues that we must transform science to accept subjective evidence as scientific evidence too. I agree with his project, but think that this new epistemology should not be called science, for it seems to me that the concept of science entails objectivity.so why exactly should I care to renounce beliefs I find completely obvious just in order to maintain the viability of an ontology that even knowledgeable atheists think is wrong?Firstly, "atheists philosophers" aren't deserting it. Such a general statement is clearly rubbish. Daniel Dennett is an atheist philosopher, and he is not deserting scientific naturalism. David Chalmers is an atheistic philosopher and he is not deserting scientific naturalism. Just because you can find some who are, does not mean this is general.
Let's imagine someone, call them Danny, who starts off with the idea that what is obvious is a guide to what is true:As I said, that's perfectly fine. But what happens in our discussion is significantly different, for it goes like this:
Danny: "The Earth is flat - obvious"
Geographer: "Sorry round - here is the evidence"
Dianelos: "Some ethical precepts at least are objective – it's obvious".
Steve: "Sorry, no ethical precepts are objective".
Dianelos: "So, where's the evidence for that?" (see my post #85462 above)
Steve: "--"
It's an appeal to numbers for justifying that a belief is "huge" not that a belief is "true". Perhaps you wish retract your claim that I believe that something is true because many people believe in it.I never claimed that something is true because so many people believe in it, and I defy you to find one quote of mine which says that, or can be construed as saying that.Here you go:
"To claim that no objective morality exists, against what appears to be absolutely obvious to virtually everybody, is the huge claim."
That is an appeal to numbers.
What I actually wrote is this: "as Nick Herbert says: 'One of the best-kept secrets of science is that physicists have lost their grip on reality'". I have no idea how you could construe this as saying that Nick Herbert does not believe in objective reality.I too believe in an objective world, and I am surprised you write that only "most" modern physicists believe in it. Can you tell me of one modern physicist who does not believe in an objective reality?But hold on a minute. Didn't you mention someone? Ah yes - Nick Herbert.
Steve it's very difficult to have a meaningful discussion with somebody who consistently misreads what one writes: "true" is different from "huge"; "to lose grip of X" is different from "to believe X does not exist"; "even atheist philosophers" is different from "all atheist philosophers", "you can't falsify that black holes exist" is different from "you can't falsify that black holes do not exist".
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
73. Comment #86164 by BaronOchs on November 8, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I've been reading some of the posts here to get the idea of this argument. Does it basically boil down to we have to accept theism (actually it would be deism) or epistemological relativism, if we failed to refute the transcendental argument? Of course epistemological relativism may be the correct way to go in this case, it would avoid several problems we would still face in accepting deism.
Other Comments by BaronOchs
74. Comment #86166 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 8, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Shuggy (post62, or #86043):You posit a universe in which some theical being (an expression I just made up, for the sake of all the transcendental theists who aren't christian and won't call it "God"), some theical being is intrinsic, part of the structure, and therefore doesn't require proving.Two comments: First of all feel free to call God "God" when writing in English. Monotheists may disagree about some of the properties of God, but what name one uses is entirely immaterial. Actually "Allah" is the name of God in Arabic, the same way that "Gott" is God's name in German, "Theos" in Greek, "Yahweh" in Hebrew, and so on. Secondly, that God is the deepest structure of objective reality does not imply that God does not require proving; quite the contrary in fact. If it's true that God is the deepest structure of objective reality then all sentient beings of sufficient intelligence (whose experience is by definition produced by that reality) should be able to discover this deepest structure of reality in their experience. Being the deepest structure God is not as obvious as most superficial structures present in our experience, e.g. apples or physical laws, but if God is there then His/er presence should be reachable by thinking about the whole of our experience.
Einsteinians/deists do much the same but they don't call it theism. The problem is that such a being can't do anything or it becomes part of the naturalistic universe and its existence may be called into question.You have no idea how strange that sounds in my ears. God is supposed to have created us and the whole of our experiential environment, including our observation of the physical universe and all its orderly behavior, and to sustain all of that every single instance of our lives – and you call that God not "doing" anything :-)
Perhaps you mean that God does not interfere with the physical order (which is true; at the very least it's clear that God does not interfere with the natural order in any regular way that we can objectively detect). But then why exactly should God regularly interfere with the order God Him/Herself has created and continuously sustains? Isn't it reasonable to think that God has created and sustains that order for some good reason? But if there is a good reason for that order, why exactly should God be breaking that order all the time?
So am I saying that God does not interact with us in any way at all? That God is an absentee landlord (as deism has it)? Not at all. You see our objective observations of the physical universe around us represent only part of our experience of life. Another part, indeed the specifically human part, is our subjective experience of life: how it is like to be a human being. It is in that part of our experience of life where our discourse with God takes place.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
75. Comment #86169 by steve99 on November 8, 2007 at 1:49 pm
No, scientific naturalism is full of holes as a matter of fact: it cannot account for the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental constants, it cannot account for free will, it cannot account for consciousness, it cannot account for objective ethics, it cannot account for intentionality (in the philosophical sense), and, what's amazing, it cannot even produce a converging description of how objective reality is (scientific naturalists cannot even agree whether there is one or many physical universes, whether physical reality is deterministic or not, whether the wavefunction is real or not, whether an electron moving from point A to B in between passes through all points in the universe or not, and so and so forth; arguably it cannot even produce a logically coherent description of reality). These are facts. And what's worse it's also a fact that both the number and the size of the holes is growing; at the beginning of the 20th century when science was still classical the situation was much better than now, but since then scientific discoveries have pushed scientific naturalism into an ever shaky place - which is a problem for scientific naturalism but not for science of course which is doing just splendidly. So scientific naturalism does not look good at all right now.
Nonsense. The reason why there is more unexplained (like fine tuning) is that the area that science is studying has vastly increased. There was no study of quantum mechanics centuries ago, so there were no gaps in our knowledge of it. Your argument is like suggesting we abandon the use of maps because we don't have any knowledge of the geography of newly discovered planet Gliese 581.
I am afraid science isn't going to stand still, and restrict its areas of study until you are happy that there are no gaps left in our understanding! What is happening is simply splendid for scientific naturalism - it has opened up whole new vistas of areas for exploration. No other process has managed to expand our knowledge in the same way.
I agree with his project, but think that this new epistemology should not be called science, for it seems to me that the concept of science entails objectivity.
It isn't called science. It is called philosophy.
As I said, that's perfectly fine. But what happens in our discussion is significantly different, for it goes like this:
Dianelos: "Some ethical precepts at least are objective – it's obvious".
Steve: "Sorry, no ethical precepts are objective".
Dianelos: "So, where's the evidence for that?" (see my post #85462 above)
Steve: "--"
Tsk. Epeeist has told you off about this before. You are the one claiming something positively exists, not me. I want evidence for your positive assertion that ethical precepts are objective. You are asserting the existence of something. Prove it. Lots of people believed in the past that it was obvious that fairies existed.
It's an appeal to numbers for justifying that a belief is "huge" not that a belief is "true". Perhaps you wish retract your claim that I believe that something is true because many people believe in it.
Nope, sorry.
Steve it's very difficult to have a meaningful discussion with somebody who consistently misreads what one writes
I know the feeling.
"true" is different from "huge"
You were attempting to back up a claim by stating that it was 'obvious' to a large number of people. That was supposed to be some kind of evidence.
Other Comments by steve99
76. Comment #86174 by Bonzai on November 8, 2007 at 2:07 pm
More gibberish from DGNo, scientific naturalism is full of holes as a matter of fact: it cannot account for the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental constants, it cannot account for free will, it cannot account for consciousness ..it cannot even produce a converging description of how objective reality is (scientific naturalists cannot even agree whether there is one or many physical universes, whether physical reality is deterministic or not, whether the wavefunction is real or not, whether an electron moving from point A to B in between passes through all points in the universe or not, and so and so forth; arguably it cannot even produce a logically coherent description of reality).
These are all just gaps in our current knowledge to insert your God into.
How doesn't theism "explain" these puzzels?
Please answer the question instead of keep saying science doesn't explain this or that. It is easy to be an armchair critic.
Science may have explanations in the future or it may not. But in any case theism doesn't explain anythig, it is just an excuse to stop searching and give a name to ignorance as an answer.
The theistic view appears to answer all these questions and many more simply because it doesn't have to prove that its answers are correct Theists like you can just make things up as they go along. You can lope your cheap shots at "scientific naturalism" because it actually has to provide answers that stand the test of evidence and logical coherence and so it is not easy to get things right that way.
The theist way of "knowing" is cheap. You just sit on your ass and find holes in current science and smugly proclaim that since we don't know the answer now we will never know the answer and God is the answer. Science is about what we don't know, not what we already knew so what the hell possesses you to think that science should give you all the answer now???!! If you have a better way to find the answers with the same commitment the standard of rigor of science let us know.
it cannot account for objective ethics,
There is no "objective" ethics to explain. Human universals, on the other hand, can be explained through biology, psychology and anthropology.
Now how does theism explain "objective nastiness"? Don't doge the question.
For others who may be reading this, I apologize for the bolds, I was just so angry reading this guy's smug, endless drivels that I almost lost it.
Other Comments by Bonzai
77. Comment #86182 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 8, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Dr Benway (post 63, or #86068):Well, Harris and Dawkins agree with me. Do you really think that the moral Zeitgeist is not improving?Dianelos: The moral Zeitgeist is clearly improving.Those who agree with you would agree with you.
The statements above, including yours, are objective facts about the speakers. They are not objective facts concerning the moral zeitgeist,I understand what you are saying. But at least I believe that the moral Zeitgeist is objectively improving, i.e. that there is an improvement there whatever I may think about it. For me it's not a matter of personal taste like saying I like this type of coffee more than another. This is not a trivial difference: Should you answer my question above saying that you think the moral Zeitgeist is not improving I would seriously worry about your cognitive faculties. But should you claim that flavored coffee tastes better to you than a well roasted Columbian coffee I would only think that we have very different taste in coffee.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
78. Comment #86187 by Goldy on November 8, 2007 at 3:32 pm
But at least I believe that the moral Zeitgeist is objectively improving, i.e. that there is an improvement there whatever I may think about it
It only appears to be improving according to your observations - that does not necessarily mean it is. It may be improving where you are but not in other places - the average improvement could be none or less.
Read a few letters in the Islamic press - Arabnews.com has some good'uns. To the contributers there is no improvement and indeed in the West the moral Zeitgeist is far from improving - it is degenerating!
To use your coffee analogy, you got a good cup of finest Columbian. Others have a cup of cheap catering freeze-dried. Does that mean the coffee is improving?
Other Comments by Goldy
79. Comment #86194 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 8, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Peacebeuponme (post 65, or #86093):I don't think so. You see the criterion you suggest is utilitarianism (i.e. to increase the overall happiness), but utilitarianism does not work: To kill a terminally ill patient in order to harvest her organs and save the life of five people does clearly increase overall happiness but is clearly not better than not killing her.What I am saying is that it is overwhelmingly obvious to me that to help somebody in need is better than to instead torture them for fun, and that this is true not because of personal opinion or social convention (and hence is objectively true).Better how? Against what criteria? Better for them because they don't get tortured. Better for you because of the warm feelings you get from helping them. That's it.
So, better how? Against what criterion? My answer will not make much sense to a non-theist I am afraid, but here it is anyway: Actions change the person who makes them: good actions make them better and bad actions make them worse. So the criterion of moral act is how it changes the person who makes it. But against what criterion does a person become a better person? The criterion here is how that change brings a person's character closer to God's character.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
80. Comment #86197 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 8, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Apaeter (post 66, or #86118):It seems to me like you are saying (1) that because things like logic, morality, maths, science, etc. are human constructs, they can give no valid contributions to the question of what "reality" (really) is?No, that's definitely not what I am saying. I believe that logic, math, science, and indeed morality too, are all objective, and hence are not human constructs. We discover true logical, mathematical, scientific, and moral propositions; sometimes it's difficult, there is some disagreement, it's a work in progress, but there is something objective out there that these true propositions refer to.
That they have no ontological value.On the contrary, I think they do have ontological value; when true they represent facts about objective reality.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
81. Comment #86198 by Goldy on November 8, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Re-reading my post, the coffee analogy I used is wrong. Bugger. Never mind. Put again, you have Columbian, Dr B has Jamaican and you aren't too fond of the other's coffee. You say the difference is merely in the taste. Agreed, but then what if your morality is like your coffee. What you see as moral others see as degenerate, hence the zeitgeist does not improve.The criterion here is how that change brings a person's character closer to God's character.
EDIT ooops, pressed the submit button too soon.
The criterion here is how that change brings a person's character closer to God's character.
That would be great and I agree with you except for one wee tiny point - who's god? What god? I notice you say "God" with a capital, but what interpretation? Remember the phrase "Ah yes, but that is not MY God..."?
Other Comments by Goldy
82. Comment #86200 by Dr Benway on November 8, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Dianelos: Should you answer my question above saying that you think the moral Zeitgeist is not improving I would seriously worry about your cognitive faculties.It took a step backward on 9-11-2001. I'm here to speed things along.
For me it's not a matter of personal taste like saying I like this type of coffee more than another. This is not a trivial difference...Don't knock matters of preference. They provide us with opportunities to behave virtuously.
I can measure the mass of a rock without asking the rock any questions. My relationship with a rock demands little from me.
In contrast, I can't measure what you'd like for dinner without asking your opinion. You stand sovereign over your own experience. I can guess at your feelings, but you remain the expert and final judge.
By treating you as a person rather than a rock, I demonstrate my respect and consideration for your experience, which I hold as equal to my own in value, so long as you extend to me the same consideration.
Your hunt for "objective morality" is akin to treating me like a rock. "Objective morality" is your effort to moot my subjectivity.
Jesus left a note for you which I have here. It says: "Please don't moot Benway's subjectivity. It makes me cry."
Actions change the person who makes them: good actions make them better and bad actions make them worse.Agreed.
So, better how? Against what criterion?How do lovers determine that their lovemaking was good?
Other Comments by Dr Benway
83. Comment #86205 by BAEOZ on November 8, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Dr. B. great post. Love the way you cut to the heart of the matter. Other Comments by BAEOZ
84. Comment #86214 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 8, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Bonzai (post 68, or #86138):I didn't assume anything, just stating the fact that humans and human civilization emerged as a result of a long chain of apparently accidental events.And that's exactly the assumption you are making. For theism humans and human civilization have emerged as a result of personal will – there is nothing accidental, apparent or not, in that process. The physical universe is at best the substrate in which such personal will has acted, and physical events are at best the objectively observable results of such personal will.
I know that the theistic worldview is not easy to understand; I am fully aware of how deep and intuitive the roots of a mechanical understanding of reality are, especially in our time and age and especially among educated people.
If it weren't for the meteorites that killed the dinosaurs and the various geological and climate changes and accompanied mass extinctions that permitted the evolution of homo-sapients and their rise through the food chain there wouldn't be any human civilization. This is fact.This is a corollary of scientific naturalism, but this does not make it a fact you know. Hmm, I think I see the problem, so let me try to clarify what I mean:
Strictly speaking science only models physical phenomena. But up to the beginning of the 20th century and while physics was classical it was reasonable to believe that science also models reality, in other words it was reasonable to conflate the modeling of phenomena with the modeling of reality. So, for example, when Newton developed his mechanics, gravitational force fields were understood both as a model that describes gravitational phenomena and as a model that describes reality: people believed that gravitational force fields form part of objective reality. All that changed with non-classical physics which has forced us to realize that modeling phenomena and modeling reality are two very different projects, the former being scientific and the latter ontological. So today we have one scientific model of quantum phenomena, namely quantum mechanics, but a whole series of mutually contradictory models of a physical reality that could produce these phenomena, namely the various so-called interpretations of quantum mechanics. Still, what is by now rather obvious to a physicist, namely that models of phenomena and models of reality are two completely different things, is not a realization that has reached the typical evolutionary biologists. So the evolutionary biologist still conflates scientific models with ontological models, and believes that the models which we have constructed for describing the order that is objectively there in the physical phenomena we observe (in this case the organized complexity of the species), also model objective reality. So the typical evolutionary biologist believes that natural evolution not only successfully models the evolution of the organized complexity of the species, but also describes how the organized complexity of the species actually came to be in objective reality.
So what is scientific naturalism? It is the idea that we actually should conflate scientific models with ontological models. In other words, scientific naturalism is the hypothesis that objective reality is such that science's models of physical phenomena also model the objective reality that produces these phenomena. When confronted with the fact that there is an actually growing number of deeply contradictory models of quantum reality the scientific naturalist simply responds that one of them will in the end be shown to be the correct one. But neither scientific naturalism is a fact, nor its implications are facts, as it seems you believe. Indeed scientific naturalism, which until a few decades ago enjoyed complete dominance among atheist philosophers, is now seen as rather shaky and some are already distancing themselves from it.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
85. Comment #86216 by Diacanu on November 8, 2007 at 6:23 pm
DG-Strictly speaking science only models physical phenomena.
Supply evidence that there are other forms of phenomena.
If it interacts with this world, it is physical.
If it doesn't, it's imaginary and/or superstitious.
Nothing unreal exists.
the former being scientific and the latter ontological.
Bullshit.
models of phenomena and models of reality are two completely different things,
Wrong.
Flat out wrong.
Either you're lying or stupid.
I can't decide which.
Given you've steeped yourself in ontology, I suspect you can't tell anymore either.
Other Comments by Diacanu
86. Comment #86217 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 8, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Dr Benway (post 69, or #86140):Some theists believe in god(s) that exist in the material world - e.g., Jesus, Elvis, Cesaer, Kim Jong il.Leaving the nonsense cases out I would like to comment that some Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the incarnation of God, which is of course quite different than saying that God exists in the material world.
Some theists are materialists.Hardly. Materialism postulates that only material things exist and no theist would say that God is a material thing. I suppose the vast majority of theists are dualists, believing in the objective existence of both matter and spirit. A small sprinkling are idealists ;-)
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
87. Comment #86220 by Diacanu on November 8, 2007 at 6:31 pm
some Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the incarnation of God, which is of course quite different than saying that God exists in the material world.
How so?
Materialism postulates that only material things exist and no theist would say that God is a material thing.
Nothing unreal exists.
If God isn't material, he's energy.
If he's neither, then he can exert no force in this dimensional realm, and for all the good he can do, he may as well not exist.
If he's made of some mystery stuff that has no mass or energy, to interact with this universe, he has to summon up some energy and/or mass to make his will known, much less to exert it.
And this mystery stuff must have the equivalent of energy and mass within his dimensional realm, or else he doesn't exist there either.
Therefore he has mass and energy anyway, and he may as well exist in this universe.
And yet, there's no evidence for him.
Other Comments by Diacanu
88. Comment #86221 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 8, 2007 at 6:41 pm
BaronOchs (post 73, or #86164):Does it basically boil down to we have to accept theism (actually it would be deism) or epistemological relativism, if we failed to refute the transcendental argument? Of course epistemological relativism may be the correct way to go in this case, it would avoid several problems we would still face in accepting deism.I am not sure about epistemological relativism; it seems to me that it only says that - very strictly speaking - all beliefs are subjective. On the other hand let's be pragmatical: clearly some ideas work and some don't. To answer your question I think that if scientific naturalism fails to refute the transcendental argument then reason will require a shift of paradigm, a shift not necessarily to theism but certainly to a less closed ontology. Which I think is a good thing: Scientific naturalism is just too limited and works as a mental straightjacket. Whether theism is true or not, I think by now is quite clear that reality is more interesting than how scientific naturalism paints it. I think the movement away from scientific naturalism would be faster if it weren't for the general infatuation with science and the fear of saying something that could be construed as being unscientific. But in fact scientific realism is not scientific – on the contrary I think it's a misapplication of science.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
89. Comment #86223 by Diacanu on November 8, 2007 at 6:43 pm
DG-Scientific naturalism is just too limited and works as a mental straightjacket.
Back that up with something besides your feelings.
Other Comments by Diacanu
90. Comment #86224 by Diacanu on November 8, 2007 at 6:45 pm
DG-there is an actually growing number of deeply contradictory models of quantum reality
Back that up.
How much have you read on quantum theory?
Tell us what you know of it.
Do you even grasp it at all?
Other Comments by Diacanu
91. Comment #86225 by Diacanu on November 8, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Alright, I'm really getting fed up with this fruity-ass "quantum theory is fuzzy, so I can hide God there", stuff.No, you can't, sorry.
Try to hide God behind the particles, and that makes him a particle, and therefore a physical force, and not God.
Try to hide him in the point where your mind can no longer grasp it, and you're essentially saying "well, it falls apart in MY head, so imagination and reality are equal and up for grabs".
Sorry, they're not.
If any old delusion that pleases us is in rightful competition with objective reality, than I can just go bash myself in the head with a hammer until I enter a coma, and dream myself into a gumdrop village full of singing pixies, and there'd be no moral horror for my family whatever if I chose to stay there.
Other Comments by Diacanu
92. Comment #86227 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 8, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Bonzai (post 76, or #86174):[You] keep saying science doesn't explain this or that.I have never said that. Actually just after the bit you quoted I wrote: "but since then scientific discoveries have pushed scientific naturalism into an ever shaky place - which is a problem for scientific naturalism but not for science of course which is doing just splendidly." I am getting used to being misread :-( But you know, I think it makes little sense responding to posts that are the result of not actually trying to understand what the other person is thinking.
For others who may be reading this, I apologize for the bolds, I was just so angry reading this guy's smug, endless drivels that I almost lost it.Well, if you feel that way that's one more reason it probably makes little sense responding to your posts.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
93. Comment #86228 by Diacanu on November 8, 2007 at 7:09 pm
DG-scientific discoveries have pushed scientific naturalism into an ever shaky place
Back it up.
Other Comments by Diacanu
94. Comment #86231 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 8, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Dr Benway (post 82, or #86200):Your hunt for "objective morality" is akin to treating me like a rock. "Objective morality" is your effort to moot my subjectivity.Now that I know you are a gal I understand your sentiment there very well. I have read "Man are from Mars, Women are from Venus" and I know that a typical male mistake is to question a woman's feelings. And, being an idealist, I have absolutely no problem with that: feelings, after all, lie for me at the very foundation of objective reality :-)
But to answer your argument: People are clearly part of reality [1]. To consider that morality is objective does not imply to overlook other peoples' feelings or wishes or well-being by blindly following some absolute ethical rule. Quite the contrary: Objective ethics implies that there is an objective relation between what is (e.g. people) and what I should do (that can affect other people, myself included), an objective relation that I must try to discover and which is not just a matter of personal taste or else of social conditioning I might decide is not to my taste also. So, my belief in objective ethics forces me to be much more respectful of other persons and careful about ethics. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here: The premise that ethics is objective does not in any way imply that there are absolute ethical rules. It implies that what is ethical is not ultimately only a matter of personal opinion, but is contingent on something that is objectively real out there and which one must then take into account. It implies that there is after all a way to go from is to ought.
[1] In fact for a theist all persons are the very crown of creation, they are intrinsic and foundational parts of objective reality (and I am not saying this just as an idealist).
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
95. Comment #86233 by Goldy on November 8, 2007 at 7:27 pm
DG, do you not answer some questions because they are too hard for you or do you just ignore persistent people who ask awkward questions?Other Comments by Goldy
96. Comment #86234 by Diacanu on November 8, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Of course, I think Transcendentalism itself is a shoddy piece of crap.Okay, so God is revealed in a type of knowledge not from empiricism, but in our sensations and feelings?
Sorry, poppycock.
Our senses and feelings are physical, if God tinkers with our senses at a photonic/sonic level, or a neurological level, that's physical.
Poems, songs, and transcendent wonder at celestial hugeness aren't made of pixie dust.
That doesn't diminish their beauty whatever.
Just stating simple facts.
And if God did tinker with a tingly part at the back of our brain, that would make him pretty weak.
He goes from able to split the red sea, to being a tingly feeling in our heads as transcendentalists suppose, to being "the great mutator", as intelligent design advocates suppose.
Geez, the God of theism must really be sick.
He's wasting away, poor fella.
Other Comments by Diacanu
97. Comment #86235 by Goldy on November 8, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Now that I know you are a gal I understand your sentiment there very well. I have read "Man are from Mars, Women are from Venus" and I know that a typical male mistake is to question a woman's feelings.
People say "gal" still? Do you call a black waiter "boy!"? This appears just a pat on the head and and exortation to run along and play.
And I never caught your expression of concern when told of the surgery - maybe I missed it. It did strike me strange that someone would not wish a worthy opponent well...
Other Comments by Goldy
98. Comment #86238 by Diacanu on November 8, 2007 at 7:40 pm
DG-In fact for a theist all persons are the very crown of creation, they are intrinsic and foundational parts of objective reality
And yet, you tried to say "scientific naturalism", falls apart because you can't fathom quantum mechanics, so objective reality fuzzies away, and you can shoehorn in whatever makes you happy, namely theism.
Do you even pay attention to what's in your shovel before you sling it?
Other Comments by Diacanu
99. Comment #86240 by Diacanu on November 8, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Oh, and "scientific naturalism", is just a label the transcendentalists have slapped on the scientific view of reality.It is not a separable thing from science, so the statement "scientific naturalism is on shaky ground, not science itself", is another patent falsehood.
Other Comments by Diacanu
100. Comment #86241 by Dr Benway on November 8, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Dianelos:I have read "Man are from Mars, Women are from Venus" and I know that a typical male mistake is to question a woman's feelings.Perhaps you are female, then, as you make the opposite mistake: you do not ask questions of the party across the table from you. You prefer monologue to dialog.
BTW, the guy that wrote the Mars-Venus book: an exposed charlatan.
Sex, sexual identity, gender identity - none of these are binaries among humans.
My sex is irrelevant to our conversation, as should be evident in the many months it was presumed one thing before it became another.
Shall I declare my skin color?
Other Comments by Dr Benway
51. Comment #85153 by Dr Benway on November 5, 2007 at 6:29 am
Other Comments by Dr Benway