Darwinism, education, materialism's fatal flaw

Hey Paul,I must confess and apologize; I read this message in a hurry and cut almost immediately to the summary, took that to be the gist and began my reply.You have been a gentlemen and have produced well thought out arguments and deserve better. Please accept my apology. Now you say:

quote:

---

It has been suggested that if we make an assumption or set of assumptions that entails the conclusion that human reason is reliable then that is better than my suggestion that we shoudd start with th pragmatic assumption that our thinkign is (adequately) reliable.

---

I must call you on misrepresenting my position here, slightly. Let me just grant you this whole post except, what I have been saying, is once man reasons his way to the ontological reality "Ultimate reason exists, and I am made in it's image", then from that point we are relieved of the burden of making the assumption "reason is reasonable" as the first premise to epistemology. Now our first premise would become "Ultimate reason exists, we are made in it's image, and through epistemology we can find what is ultimatly reasonable." We have reasoned our way to a better support for conducting epistemology. If the ontological reality called "Ultimate Reason" doesn't exist, we are stuck making the assumption "reason is reasonable" and can never do better.

quote:

---

Yet to do so is simply going back to the pragmatic assumption that we are supposedly replacing. And if we assume the validity of any human reasoning at all then - by definition - it must include at least the minimal subset I spoke of earlier. Yet it is not possible to show that the entailment holds without, at a minimum, assuming deductive logic. Worse, deductive logic is not adequate to show that the assumptions are likely true. Deductive logic has the major limitation that it can only draw out what is implicit in the premises. Actual justification of the premises must go beyond deductive logic.

​

Thus it is inescapable that some form of human reasoning must be pregmatically assumed to be valid. Any attempt to evade that inevitably relies on making the very assumption that it is intended to avoid.

---

Perhaps you are right, but let me try a scenario on you. You mentioned earlier a possibility of man travelling to another universe someday. Now it is thought, as I understand it in my limited way, that there are dormant dimensions in our universe. And let us say that in this universe we are traversing to that some of these dormant dimensions are active. Now we find that our assumption "reason is reasonable" doesn't hold up any longer, it was merely a pragmatic approach that only holds in this universe. The ontological reality "Ultimate reason" if true here, would be true there, and if we had been busy reasoning our way towards it we would find ourselves better "equipped" in that new universe.The premise "reason is reasonable" doesn't get us beyond the point where men disagree. The ontological reality "Ultimate Reason" opens up vistas naturalism can never pierce.Thanks for the dialogue,Dennis

Hey Paul,If I may, I would like to add that if Ultimate Reason exists prior to the universe, any premises emanating from it or revealed by it take precedence over any premises that man creates. So, if Ultimate Reason reveals to us that "we are made in the image of Ultimate Reason", this replaces our first premise, "man's reason can be trusted."The lack of absolutes and reason that pre-exists man assumed by naturalism doesn't seem to have much consequence in empirical science, but really comes to the forefront when we begin to speak of values and morality. Scenario:A prominent biologist who has been working on, and seems to be close to finding, a cure for cancer jumps in front of a speeding truck to save the life of a small boy who is the son of a common laborer. The biologist is killed. Naturalistic philosophy would seem to say "what a waste. We could be delayed years now in finding the cure for cancer." Christian philosophy implies this man is a hero and should be honored. "There is no greater love than laying down one's life for another."It gets worse, because what is the basis for a volunteer army or militia under a naturalistic philosophy? It begins to look stupid for one to put oneself in harm's way intentionally. Societally we need such individuals and honor them, but on an individual basis we look at them and wonder "why would you waste your life in a low paying profession where you can be killed."And this moral dilemma plays out in the future at the point population control becomes a life threatening issue. How will it be determined who is to be eliminated? Under a naturalistic philosophy the elite or powerful will determine who lives. Christian philosophy would say Christians are to line up and volunteer to die to save others if that is what it comes down to.ThanksDennis

PLEASE READ THE WHOLE THING!!!! Flew told Habermas in January 2004 that he had indeed become a theist. On top of that he approved the title. Further, at one point Habermas asks Flew "Given your theism, what about mind-body issues?" To which Flew replies with the difficulty of conceptualizing an incorporeal person.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------...once man reasons his way to the ontological reality "Ultimate reason exists, and I am made in it's image", then from that point we are relieved of the burden of making the assumption "reason is reasonable" as the first premise to epistemology--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

I'm afriad that is wrong. Having reached that conclusion we could build furhter upon it but we cannot forget how we got to it. It is built on a foundation and we cannot throw that out or pretend it does not exist. Not least because the reliability of that conclusion depends on the reliability of the methods used to reach it. So even if you could reach that conclusion with a high degree of certainty (which would be an amazing philosophical breakthrough) you still would have to keep the old foundations of epistemology.

---

But, if Ultimate Reason pre-exists natural reason, it gets priority. Further, it seems Ultimate Reason (or the premises emanating from)would extend to areas of reason not penetrable by natural reason. So, on these two notions alone, if Ultimate Reason exists and has revealed certain first premises to us, these premises should replace any assumptions or premises of a natural variety, even the one/ones which were utilized to reason our way to this revelation.

quote:

---

Well, no we don't. There's no reason to suppose that a 4th spatial dimension would have that effect at all (not that we would be likely to survive long enough to find out). Mathematics handles 4 - and more - dimensions as well as it handles 3.

---

What about 10 or 11? I am not enough of a mathematician to know, but where does math break down? and physics? So suddenly, let's say, we are transported to this universe where math and physics break down. What are we left with? Are these the only ways of "knowing" anything? Why bother with philosophical arguments then? We must be open to the possibilty of special revelation.Dennis

quote:

---

But how can we be sure that it is true ? And unless we can be at least as certain of it as we are of "man's reason can be trusted" we would be very foolish to replace the latter with the former, since we would be making our epistemology less reliable.

---

Yes, I agree. But if Jesus rose from the dead, special revelation has occured in space and time pointing to Ultimate Reason and the premises emanating from it. Which again leads me to pursue this resurrection debate.

quote:

---

Well it is far from clear that Christianity WOULD say that the biologist made the right decision - unless it also dictates that the suffering and deaths of the many cancer victims is of no consequence.

​

On the other hand from an evolutionary perspective we certainly can't be sure that our instincts would place an intellectual idea of what might happen ahead of the immediate emotional responses.

---

Yes, it is a bit of a messy scenario, and not clear really for either side. But I think the emphasis on a naturalistic side would be the loss to society (after all we are in a race with time to achieve Nirvana or long-term significance, such as your alternate universe theory) while I believe the Christian philosophy would emphasis the heroism of such an act.

quote:

---

At this point I must repeat that there IS no entirely satisfactory basis for morality.

​

And I must certainly ask why Christianity shoudl be seen as automatically supporting the formation of any sort of military force - certainly there are arguments within Christianity. So far as I can see the problem is greater within Christianity since I can't see a naturalistic objection to forming a volunteer army.

---

But given the Ultimate Truth "there is no greater expression of love than to die for another" Christians should be lining up to serve. Naturalism doesn't object to a volunteer army, but on an individual basis would ask "what are you thinking."And I agree that Christians fighting amongst themselves is one of the most ridiculous sights I can imagine, but can't and shouldn't be used to in any way impugn the worldview itself. The worldview is either true or it isn't, no matter how the practitioners of it choose to employ it.Likewise your population argument is also unlikely to actually play out in reality. I don't think that many Christians will line up to be killed if it were to become necessary (and I do not expect that it will). Indeed if Christians were really concerned about it they should be dedicating themselve to celibacy as St. Paul suggested or even going to the extreme advocated by Origen. Yet in fact we see none of this and the largest Christian grouping (representing roughly half of all Christians) is actively against contraception.Well for a start it's all very well to say

quote:

---

Ultimate Reason reveals to us that "we are made in the image of Ultimate Reason"

---

But how can we be sure that it is true ? And unless we can be at least as certain of it as we are of "man's reason can be trusted" we would be very foolish to replace the latter with the former, since we would be making our epistemology less reliable.
As for your ideas about morality I can't emphasise enough tha tnaturalism says very little about morality and it certainly does not dictate utilitarianism as you would have it.

quote:

---

A prominent biologist who has been working on, and seems to be close to finding, a cure for cancer jumps in front of a speeding truck to save the life of a small boy who is the son of a common laborer. The biologist is killed. Naturalistic philosophy would seem to say "what a waste. We could be delayed years now in finding the cure for cancer." Christian philosophy implies this man is a hero and should be honored. "There is no greater love than laying down one's life for another

---

Well it is far from clear that Christianity WOULD say that the biologist made the right decision - unless it also dictates that the suffering and deaths of the many cancer victims is of no consequence.
On the other hand from an evolutionary perspective we certainly can't be sure that our instincts would place an intellectual idea of what might happen ahead of the immediate emotional responses.

quote:

---

what is the basis for a volunteer army or militia under a naturalistic philosophy

---

At this point I must repeat that there IS no entirely satisfactory basis for morality.And I must certainly ask why Christianity shoudl be seen as automatically supporting the formation of any sort of military force - certainly there are arguments within Christianity. So far as I can see the problem is greater within Christianity since I can't see a naturalistic objection to forming a volunteer army.

quote:

---

Likewise your population argument is also unlikely to actually play out in reality. I don't think that many Christians will line up to be killed if it were to become necessary (and I do not expect that it will). Indeed if Christians were really concerned about it they should be dedicating themselve to celibacy as St. Paul suggested or even going to the extreme advocated by Origen. Yet in fact we see none of this and the largest Christian grouping (representing roughly half of all Christians) is actively against contraception.

---

I agree, but remember we are talking about the theory of the existence of an Ultimate Reason which informs our reason through the revelation of first premises, not man's inability to adhere to any of the logical conclusions that follow from them.So again I will say that the ontological entity I have been calling Ultimate Reason does give us a firmer basis to carry on epistemological efforts, particularly in the philosophical arena pertaining to morality. And much as you have said, under a purely naturalistic philosophy, morality is very problematic.Dennis

I don't want to make more out of this than is relevant (probably very little) and sure don't have an interest in a new thread pertaining to it, but the excitement stems mainly from the fact that he was commissioned as a representative for the atheist side on at least two occasions to debate the best and the brightest from the creos side. He also personally knew CS Lewis, Bertrand Russel and some other big name philosophers early part of the century era. He may be getting old, but he still sounds pretty sharp to me.

I will concede it's not.

I have been re-reading this thread and mulling all of this over some more. Surely PaulK, you can see that if an Ultimate Reason is pre-existent to the universe, and a premise for man’s ability to reason is present in or emanates from this Ultimate Reason, it would become the first premise of all reason, explaining not just some lower level of reasoning, but also explaining the fact that the universe yields to reason in the first place, and providing a goal or end result to reason (ie, man can hope to reason his way to the ultimate reasonable state). Now the naturalistic worldview, in contrast, according to PaulK, is more of an evolutionary idea of man finding what is reasonable starting with the assumption, that I agree has to be made to begin any reasoning process, that man’s reason can be trusted, at least to some degree.The problem comes in in that this premise doesn’t get us much, if any, beyond empirical science, because, past what is knowable by repeatable testing, we find ourselves in disputed gray areas to an increasing degree. So empirical science gets put upon the throne as the sole dispenser of what is true leaving not much for the rest of us to do except wait for the next nugget of truth to come our way. And without an Ultimate Reason which pre-exists man’s reason, how are we to trust any of the conclusions which are drawn from these findings? Perhaps science is reasoning its way into an ultimately unreasonable corner. And what is the goal of all of these attempts to be reasonable if there is no Ultimate Reason to attain?Morality, under the naturalistic worldview, is another evolutionary process in which man has found what works, morally speaking, ie what best suits the society. PaulK provided:

quote:

---

1) Humans are a social species. We have evolved capabilities that help us get along and work together. We have also evolved abilities that let us detect when others are taking advantage and not putting in their fair share of the effort in cooperative ventures - and motivates us to take sanctions against such individuals. This is the fundamental basis of our moral instincts. (Work in the area of mathematics known as "Game Theory" is relevant here - the so-called "Prisoner's Dilemma" being a well-known example).

​

2) On top of that, because of our intelligence and ability to learn we have developed all sorts of additional rules - some necessary to the working of society and some not. The common rules are generally the necessary ones - for instance all societies have rules restricting the killing of other members of that society even though the exact rules have varied.

---

But this seems to deny that there are Moral Absolutes, or as I called it an Ultimate Morality. And without an Ultimate Morality to reason our way back to, without the guidelines provided by an Ultimate Morality, I still don’t see how a scenario such as my Christians being killed and eaten to provide food and stave off overpopulation is not a real possibility. Many have argued that Christians are a poor example of this Ultimate Morality and you get no argument from me. I will throw myself in there as a very poor example. But I don’t think that detracts from the argument that we all (or at least the reasonable ones) would agree that some things are just wrong. Would anyone argue with me that if the allegations are true, and certain relief workers have been molesting children in the areas struck by tsunamis, that this is one of the most despicable acts imaginable? I would use the word evil. But a naturalistic worldview would say, nothing right or wrong here, even though I might personally feel appalled.So while I am sure there are many examples of fine atheist or naturalistic individuals, and many examples of deplorable acts committed by Christians, the theistic worldview better supports both the notion that man is a creature capable of reasoning, and the notion that some things are just wrong. Ultimate Reason and Ultimate Morality are the only dams which prevent a postmodern world from crumbling into nihilism.Dennis

Hey PaulK,I really appreciate your exchange, and I think you have convinced me that your first premise is the correct one; ie, that to start an epistemology the assumption "man's reason can be trusted to some degree at least" has to be made. So I concede you are right, and apologize for my stubborness, that it becomes the necessary 1st assumption or premise. But then you say:

quote:

---

Now I agree that we cannot trust our conclusions in other areas to the same degree as well-founded science. However we cn't get around that problem just by making convenient assumptions - for the simple reason that assumptions are themselves untrustworthy and we cannot trust conclusions that rely on them any more than we can trust the aggregate of the assumptions we need to make. Moreover there's no need to invoke an "Ultimate Reason".

---

Indeed, I think I can make the case, or perhaps already have, that given a naturalistic philosophy, any conclusions become questionable. And this "Ultimate Reason" is not a convenient assumption, or something we invoke. This is an Ultimate Reason, that given the minimal "man's reason can be trusted at least to some degree", reveals itself quite easily and then becomes the "grounding" premise of epistemology in that "man is a capable of reason because he is made in the image of Ultimate Reason and the universe will yield to reason."

quote:

---

Our problem in dealing with areas is not a lack of reasoning ability - it is a shortage of data to reason FROM.

---

But this would be dealing with the empirical sciences. When it comes to other areas of reason, I would say we are lacking a "grounding" premise. We are right back to our problem of allowing empirical science into the driver's seat.

quote:

---

And you really can't appeal to widely shared values as any refutation. Of course we all want to protect children. That's an inevitable part of our biology - we produce relatively few offspring and they are born far less able to fend for themselves and with a longer growth to maturity than most other species.

---

I think that widely held values are a very good indication that man is more that just a biological construct. Why would evolution, by itself, create a creature that feels and wants to act on much more than just what survival or procreation would seem to dictate? I don't think any lions or apes would be upset by the tsunami news. And yet some of us feel a nearly physical pain when we think of the devastation to fellow humans.This gets even trickier when you reconsider my Red Hummer scenario. You may be right in that it may have been refuted (somewhat, I'm still pretty stubborn) as evidence FOR a True Self (I think it is a package deal and has to be considered along with other evidences), but in the refutation of it the opposite became abundantly clear; that under a naturalistic philosophy; there is no True Self. So any call to a personal morality vanishes when a neurosurgeon decides to "change your mind." Quite feasibly, given some of the refutation, a neurosurgeon (or team of neurosurgeons) could change man's moral construct into anything imaginable, if natural philosophy is true. We could find ourselves in much worse predicaments than even I have hypothosized if this power gets into the wrong hands.But under a theistic philosophy, the True Self crys out for respect as an individual, and then morality becomes grounded in the premise "love your neighbor as you love yourself." (not that some pretty terrible things couldn't happen, please don't misread)

quote:

---

Please understand that I do recognise the convenience of assuming Ultimate Reason and Ultimte Morality. But unlike you I do not see that as an indication that they are true. In fact the convenience makes me trust them less - which I consider the only wise course when dealing with an issue where emotional attraction is all too likely to bias a rational assessment.

---

The flower needs water and finds a drink. The bird needs to fly and finds he has wings. This is much more that a convenience; man needs to be valued, to see an end to the suffering that makes sense of his life. There is a provision for every need, and man needs to know that his reason and morality are grounded and his life is meaningful. I came to faith through a rational assessment, and the only bias I carried into that assessment was a bias against Christianity. I don't claim to be a very good assessor, but I will continue to search for truth and hopefully live my life according to it.Thanks againDennis

Hey Paul,Sorry to take so long to reply. My spring is lining up to be quite a busy time. You said:

quote:

---

Can you explain HOW this is "revealed" ? It hasn't been revealed to me, and I can't see how it can be anything other than an assumption.

---

I feel I am in danger of pushing us OT, but even Aristotle and Plato were able to discern that there must be a superior intelligence from the evidence of nature. The likelyhood that the universe has a beginning, the origin of life and man; all of these point strongly to a First Cause, an Ultimate Reason.

quote:

---

And, BTW I don't see how you can avoid a situation where everything is potentially open to question. Descartes didn't really get past personal existence and from my own reading I understand that even that has to be qualified. Absolute certainty is very hard to obtain (it's really the domain of pure deductive logic - and then only when the premsis themselves are certain).

---

Even personal existence becomes questionable, though, under a naturalistic philosophy, at least in terms of any of it being "personal". And we have discussed, of course, the dangers of relying on deductive logic as our only means of "knowing" anything.

quote:

---

Well if you limit the reliable data available to that of empirical science (and I would agree that it is more reliable than other data sources) then yes, you do have that problem. But there really is no way around the need for data.

---

But where do you anticipate this additional data will lead us? Or more specifically, what are we missing and what conclusions will be shored up or broken down?

quote:

---

Well if we can come up with some genuinely universal values that are hard to explain in an evolutionary framework, that would be interesting. But I don't think that this particular one is a big problem. Humans are a social species - our incredible success as a species is due to cooperation and mutual assistance. Once we see other people as "us" (as oppsoed to "them") then we want to help them if they are in trouble. All that is required in evolutionary terms is that the overall benefit to "us" is greater if we help each other than if we do not.

---

But very quickly the more enlightened of us get the idea that all of this morality (again from a purely naturalistic philosophy) is pointless. The universe is doomed, mankind is doomed, so why not party? Why be concerned with helping anybody out? This seems to me to be a very logical outcome of naturalistic thinking. So I would contend that any inherent bent to help people must come from outside the human experience or a purely evolutionary morality. Of course no values are universal since we can find individuals that disagree with even the most basic of moral imperatives like "serial killing is wrong," but certainly we could make a list of moral precepts that a very large majority of people would feel very strongly are "right". And self-sacrifice, giving, empathy (among other "moral" concepts) are hard to explain under a strictly evolutionary morality.

quote:

---

Well so far as I can see the obvious fact is that the concept of a "red hummer" is no more an actual "red hummer" than the phrase "red hummer" is. But I don't see that naturalism reutes the idea of a "True Self".

---

What I was trying to establish with the "red hummer analogy" is that there is a mind that is seperate from the brain which constitutes a True Self. Naturalistic philosophy would deny this "dualism" and therefore deny that there is a mind which initiates thoughts, actions, unifies experiences, reasons, dreams, and sets each of us apart as a truely unique individual. I don't see any easy way around this one; if the brain, as a purely physical entity, is the basis for these things, then "take a pill, or have brain surgery and become someone else" becomes a real possiblity. This is the basis for my statement that under a naturalistic philosophy, there is no True Self.In the case of Phineas Gage, I am not sure what if anything is evidenced here. Can you imagine what that guy must have looked like after his accident? The fact that he may have joined the circus at some point might be a good indication that he was a walking freak. Can you imagine the change in people's reaction to him? That might have serious impact on the most steadfast of us. I can see a change in my son when he has a zit; how would Phineas Gage have been treated just walking down the street in those days? What is amazing to me is that he still functioned at some level.

quote:

---

THe other problem is that if you assume supernatural beings then they could "quite feasibly" do the same thing. If the mere possibility of such a change negates the possiiblity of a "True Self" then it is clearly doubtful that such a thing does exist.

---

But this would clearly undercut my notion of an Ultimate Reason which made man in it's own image. To be Ultimately Reasonable would not allow for the changing of natural laws willy nilly or causing one person to become another over night. If Ultimate Reason exists and man is made in the image of Ultimate Reason, this is the only way I can see a True Self is possible.

quote:

---

But this is not always true - a flower needs water to live and most birds need flight to escape predators. But that does not mean that the flower will find water. And extinction tells us that species do not automatically evolve capabilities they would need to survive. The existence need does not mean that it will be met.

---

I was fearful you would pick some nits with me on this one when I wrote it. Surely you see I meant "in general." We still have flowers and birds today, so by and large the need for drink and wings is being met.

quote:

---

When it comes to absolute reason or morality there is not even the same sort of need. Nor is it clear that what we really desire is the actuality rather than the belief that it is so.

---

Man needs to be valued. I would say, if you get past purely physical needs, this is the Numero Uno need of mankind, both personally and societally. If man has no value, morality is baseless and reason is pointless.ThanksDennis

Hey Paul,Thanks for the reply; I do hope you are not losing patience with me, I many times write these posts with people coming and going from my office, the phone ringing and several thoughts rattling around begging to be written down, but perhaps not as complete as I would like them to be. At any rate, I had just about given up on this thread but you have enticed me to remain with some very good philosophical counters, and I find it all very intriguing. I hope you do as well. In your latest you say:

quote:

---

Aristotle and Plato may have believed that there was a superior intelligence but if you think that they had solid arguments then you're just kidding yourself. THere are reasonable arguments for some sort of first cause - but none to assume that it is itself a complex ordered entity. As I believe I have said once you assume that then you are begging the real questions.

---

But given Aristole's arguments properly shored up with the good arguments against any of the current proposals for an origin to the universe, life and man, what are we left with? Either a faith that science will supply these answers someday or the simple beautiful explanation of a Creator. Please, what are these "real questions" I am begging at this point?

quote:

---

And I have to keep hammering at this point. Naturalistic philsophy is NOT involved in Cartesian doubt. We are dealing with basic problems of epistemology that apply to ALL philosophies.

---

You make a good point. But I thought we were beyond this to the premise "man's reason can be trusted at least to some degree". And then it is my contention that it takes the Ultimate Reason premise "man is made in the image of Ultimate Reason" to shore up epistemology against the circular logic of the first premise. How else do we prevent the slide into nihilism?

quote:

---

Likewise the problem of moral values if a problem for ALL philosophies. None have a truly acceptable answer.

---

Do you mean the problem of hashing out the details? Perhaps, but the theistic model would at least be considered more complete, if you will. But what I have been contending is that if naturalistic philosophy is taken to it’s logical conclusion, mankind has no ultimate value and therefore morality of any kind is meaningless.Did you see the paper the other day about the lady in Parliament who actually proposes euthanasia as a government instituted solution to some societal problems?

quote:

---

The "Red Hummer" analogy fails because ultimately it is a strawman. Nobody expects a literal physical red hummer to be in the brain - justt a representation, like the words "red hummer".

---

The point of the illustration was that there seems to be an Inner Self or True Self that is separate from the physical brain. I was proposing that it is the True Self that initiates the thought of the red hummer. It doesn’t seem likely that a neurosurgeon could change the image at the moment you are imagining it. And where exactly is this image? Is it contained in the neurons that the mind is utilizing? I understand that the analysis of brain activity is a young science. And I understand that it could be shown that certain areas or a certain area of the brain was active during the imagining process. But it seems to me that this could be shown to be an effect instead of a cause.Implicit in the refutation is that there is not a True Self; an enduring soul separate from the physical body that initiates thoughts, unifies experiences, and survives death. And if there is not a True Self, again we quickly crumble into nihilism.

quote:

---

The case of Phineas Gage establisheds that physical brain damage may change personality.

---

I read the whole article and I didn’t come away with that impression. But let’s say you are correct, and brain damage can change the personality of an individual. I would ask you is the personality the same thing as the True Self. I think not. My personality has changed dramatically over the course of my life, and my wife might even tell you it changes day to day or moment to moment. Personality would seem to be just the outward projections of inner emotions. And I am sure that Phineas Gage did project a dramatically different personality post-accident. But he still recognized his mom as his mom and he still recognized himself as himself (not to overly emphasize memory either) so I am not sure what exactly you were trying to show with this example.

quote:

---

And I wasn't picking nits with the birds and flowers - I was pointing out that if a need is SOMETIMES met it does not mean that it is ALWAYS met - and your argument requires the latter. And if all we need is to be valued then we have each other. Or is love entirely absent from your life?

---

That felt like a bit of a jab and seems out of character for you. I will assume it wasn’t, though and respond straight up. You are right, needs are not met in all circumstances. But it sure leaves a monumental gaping hole of an unmet need if our lives have no value. And as I have pointed out several times it takes more than other people to give our lives Ultimate Meaning and Value. You and I and all of our loved ones are doomed. Our entire posterity is doomed. Man will not survive the end of the universe. What ultimately is the value of a life that does not survive? If there is not a True Self that endures beyond death, as I have said and I must keep hammering this point, life has no Ultimate Value, reason is pointless and morality has no base.ThanksDennis

Hey Paul,

quote:

---

The hypothesis of a creator may be "simple" and you may find it beautiful but that does not make it true. In fact since it requires the assumption of a highly complex ordered entity - with no explanation at all for how THAT exists - all it does is swap a possibly solvable problem for a worse one. And it is rather vague about the hows and whys, to say the least. Quite frankly I find it an ugly bodge which doesn't even deserve to be called a real answer to the question of the origin of the universe. I have no problems with assuming some sort of first cause but to attribute intelligence and personality to it, let alone an interest in one little planet. is just too much to assume.

---

This part of our discussion may very easily veer off topic, so I will stay brief. It is a simple and beautiful explanation from the standpoint that it is one answer to the big three; the origin of the universe, life and man (or the consciousness of man). Calling the hypothesis of a Creator an ugly bodge and undeserving to be called a real answer to the question of the origin of the universe does not make it untrue. And when you say there is no explanation for how a Creator exists, I am sure you mean of the scientific variety, and if so, how could you expect a scientific natural explanation for something that by it’s very definition is outside of the natural. Will we ever explain what lies beyond the boundaries of the universe, beyond space and linear time and the speed of light in natural terms? And if you mean to ask the question what caused the Creator, remember, whatever begins to exist requires a cause. If the Creator is timeless and therefore has no beginning, a cause of the Creator is not necessary. And of course the hypothesis of a Creator is vague about the hows (again, how could it not be) but the whys are very clear; He is not interested in one little planet or any planet; He is interested in you.

quote:

---

And I am afrid that Cartesian doubt is all about the foundations of epistemology. But it was really odd for you to suggest that it was a flaw in naturalism when it is well knwon that Descartes was a theist and in fact his solution was to attempt to prove the existence of God by pure reason (needless to say, he failed).

---

Yes, you are right, because he (as I understand it) gets balled up in this notion that we cannot even tell reality from a dream state, and never gets out of his dilemma by pure reason. But again, I thought we had already gotten out of this dilemma by assuming the first premise, man’s reason can be trusted, at least to some degree. Perhaps we need to amend this premise or add a second one (man can distinguish the awake state from the dream state?). I was not suggesting Cartesian doubt is a flaw in naturalism, just that naturalism provides no way out ultimately.

quote:

---

However the problem I refer to is not working out details - it is the issue of the foundations of morality. The observations I have made earlier explain a lot but they do not address the issue of ultimate moral values. And I ahve to add that the only theistic explanation I know of is Divine Command Theory which is one of the worst foundatiosn for morality I know of. Even if it has consequences which I do not agree with at least Utilitarianism has a better claim to be a valid basis.

---

I think what you are suggesting, though, is just another way of saying we have not properly worked out the details of morality. Divine Command Theory is another construct of man meant to establish a practical morality. It is not, nor was it intended to be the Ultimate Morality. It may be flawed, but it is not the only theistic theory of ethics and morality. But for our discussion, I see all of that as a side issue. If we are waiting for man to fully work out morality before we declare that there is an ontological reality called Ultimate Morality or Ultimate Good, we are peeing in the wind. Either Ultimate Morality exists now and it is left to us to work our way towards it or it doesn’t and we are left with no basis for morality other than the evolutionary model you propose or one very much like it. And then nothing is ultimately right or wrong and here come my scenarios or even worse.

quote:

---

I am really not certain of how your "Red Hummer" analogy is supposed to work. Yes there will be soem sort of internal representaion and it will not be a real "red hummer" or even look like one to an outside observer. But that applies regardless of whether the mind is rooted in the physical brain or not. I would suggest that the image is encoded in the internal connections within the brain - that it is the activation of a pattern of connections that elicits the image by producing more-or-less the same internal state as stimulating the retina with an visual image of a red hummer.

---

Here is the entire scenario:

quote:

---

Try an experiment. Imagine a red Hummer. Close your eyes and see if you still see a red Hummer. Now if a neurosurgeon were to poke around in your brain would he find anything which is your red Hummer? So the mind has properties that the brain does not possess.

​

Imagine yourself in your favorite vacation spot; really put your self there, the sights, the sounds, the feeling of actually being there. Similarly, where are you actually? Would a brain surgeon find your brain has transported itself to your favorite getaway?
These secondary qualities to our experience seem to indicate something beyond the physical.

​

Also, mental states possess intentionality, physical states do not. Thus, mental states are not physical states.

​

Furthermore, you are the owner of your experiences. You are also an enduring self who exists as the same possessor of all of your experiences through time. You are not identical to your experiences. You are the entity having them, thus PaulK is a mental substance. Only a single, enduring self could relate and unify experiences.

---

It is a package deal in other words. A neurosurgeon could find an area which is active during the imagining process, but I don’t think, as I said, he could change the image like we can change the image on the TV or computer.Further the image of the red hummer is being intentionally imagined, thus possessing intentionality, which physical states do not possess. And you are the owner of that image of the red hummer just as you are the owner of your other experiences through time. Therefore the conclusion that you, PaulK, are a mental entity.

quote:

---

Your comments on personality suggest to me that your idea of a "true self" is close the the philosphical question of identity (e.g. if a boat is damaged and repaired, piece by piece, over the years until eventually none of the original parts remain, is it still the same boat ?)

---

No, think mental entity or soul. And finally:

quote:

---

My final comment may seem to be a jab but if you feel that you aren't valued and that you value nobody then I think that you needed a jab to wake you up. We may not have any "Ultimate Value" but why care about that ? I don't need it and I don't beleive that anyone else does either. People may feel small and insignificant in the face of the universe but that is because we are - but why worry about that ?

​

And I certainly don't agree that a finite life renders reason pointless or removes any basis for morality. In fact I cannot see any way you could conclude either.

---

My personal life is in fine shape, but thank you for being concerned. The point is a purely philosophical one; origins beget values. Purely naturalistic origins of the universe, life and man implies strongly that mankind is adrift in the cosmos without a rudder and nothing or no one will care how or even if an individual has lived his life. It may feel better to live a good life, and be more convenient for the individual and society, but there is no ultimate answer to the question why should we? Mankind is doomed, why not party?And reason seems equally useless; what are we reasoning our way towards? A more enlightened state at the moment the universe goes permanently cold?And of course then we must settle this question of the basis of reason to begin with, which still seems to me to require an Ultimate Reason for reason to move past the circular and towards a goal.ThanksDennis

Hey Paul,I would like to start in the middle of your response and work from there. You said:

quote:

---

YOur argument then boils down to begginf the question. You assume that the mind cannot be physical and therefore conclude that the mind cannot be physical. If minds can be physical then physical objects CAN posess intentionality. And so your arguments can never get beyond the assumptions. I suggest that before you assume otherwise that you consider some of the evidence that the mind IS physical. For instance the effects of the so-called "split brain" operation severing the corpus callosum. If the mind is not physical how can severing a connection in the physical brain also split the mind ?

---

But where else in a physical object do we find intentionality? It seems you are just rejecting the notion of mental entities separate from the physical a priori.The split brain experiments don’t show that the mind is a strictly physical object. Check out:http://www.macalester.edu/...P/Split_Brain/Consiousness.htmlThis brings us to an interesting question, are the right and left hemispheres of a split brain patient of different consciousness? Sperry (Roger Sperry, one of the discoverers of this phenomenon) rejected this notion, and most scientists agreed with him. While split-brain patients could be manipulated into displaying two independent cognitive styles, the underlying opinions, memories, and emotions were the same.Now it would seem that only a mental entity can have the same opinions, memories (including memories of the True Self as the same True Self having the experience of the memory) and emotions through time and brain surgery. The brain is in constant flux, cells are being repaired and even replaced moment by moment. And yet through these changes, there is an enduring self, what I called a True Self, that unifies experiences, holds memories, and outlives the body. Implicit in you’re a priori denial of a True Self comes the notion that YOU, PaulK are not the same person you were last year, last month, or last week. In fact, in seven years, you will be an entirely new person since most if not all of your cells will have been replaced.And so we find that morality becomes a difficulty, in that, how can we hold anyone responsible for their actions since in the next moment after committing a crime, they became a different entity, a physically similar, but changed body.And why should we fear or look forward to future events since we will be entirely different persons in the future?And then another difficulty for the purely naturalistic position on the mind/brain conundrum is the reality of Near Death Experiences. Check out:http://www.datadiwan.de/...ry/articlesN75+/N76Parnia_nde.htmAs this article states, Dr. Sam Parnia is the UK’s leading researcher on NDE’s and has some serious reservations concerning the naturalistic view of the brain. One of the most troubling aspects for the naturalist, is that so many of these NDE’s happen well after flat-line and involve an out-of —body experience in which the patient is able to see their bodies being worked on, describe medical procedures being done on their bodies accurately from a perspective of hovering over themselves and even in some cases describe objects or events some distance away from their bodies with accuracy. Please just don’t blow this off; there is a very good and growing body of evidence that seems to indicate we are more than just the physical.Then, at the top of your response you say:

quote:

---

Well the assumption of a creator is convenient in that it offers some reason why these things might be but that is all it is. In itself that is not enough reasn to assume it. But it has a plausibility problem - even most Christians agree that complex ordered entities need an explanation (that, after all, is why we are looking for answers to those questions in the first place). And special pleading is not a "beautiful" form of argument. And it leaves the big questions unanswered - even declares them unanswerable which is itself a big ugly stain on it in my view.

​

You may say that calling it an "ugly bodge" doe not make it any less likely to be true - but the calling it "beautiful" does not make it any more likely to be true.

​

You say that the Creator is timeless - yet that is just another ad hoc assumption and one that makes little sense. How could a truly timeless being act ? How could it think ? These are things that happen in time. And it doesn't even deal with the problem I raised. What you need to produce is a reaon why this complex ordered entity should exist - an explanation need not be a cause. So again we see a strategy of trying to assume your way out of problems. Which really isn't a good way to find the truth since it relies heavily on assuming that you already have the truth.

---

But what other plausible explanation do we have for the big three? If we suppose them to be caused by physical means, we must explain that cause, and there are only a finite number of causes to draw upon in a finite universe. And how would we ever account for a purely mental entity in a purely physical world? The explanation, ultimately for the big three must lie outside of the universe, ie outside of space, time, matter and energy.Because we think and act in linear time is no reason to assume these things cannot happen outside of linear time. Perhaps the potential for thought and action is increased once a mental entity is freed of the constraints of linear time.What you call assuming I would call being willing to see the best explanation after examining the viable candidates. If you are willing to admit that the universe has a beginning and contains a number of highly fortuitous circumstances which allow for life to exist, DNA appears to be a code which requires a sender, and man is more than just a walking, talking brain, then a Creator becomes the most likely explanation for these things.

quote:

---

With regard to Descartes he is famous for raising the posibility of a deceiving demon which deliberately misleads us . However there is no absolutely sound way out. Which is what I have been saying for most of this thread. Not only is it not an issue for naturalism alone - naturalism does not even accept the existence of demons so if we were to assume naturalism we could ignore that problem all together. THe problem is - as I have been pointing out - without an epistemology we have no business trying to settle on an ontology because we have no remotely sound basis for doing so.

​

Now I agree that we have an answer to the basic problem of epistemology - although not one Descartes would have found entirely satisfactory (I wish we had a better one !) - but so long as you keep suggesting that this repesents some sort of special problem for naturalism I will have to go on refuitng that claim.

---

Ah ha, the Grand Deceiver, if you will. I guess I didn’t know what you were referring to until now. So we could phrase this another way, I guess. The competing worldviews are Grand Creator, Grand Deceiver, and naturalism. I will have to think on this one and reply later. What would be your thoughts?

quote:

---

Likewise there could in principle be an Ultimate Morality without a God. But again as I say here is no satiosfactory basis - nor, if there is an Ulitmate morality, any objective way to determine what it says.

---

How could there, in principle, be an Ultimate Morality sans God? What form would it take? And then, objectively working our way to Ultimate Morality may be difficult, but shouldn’t hinder us from trying if the ontological reality or probability is established.

quote:

---

As to yur final paragraphj you are still making the same error. Naturalism does NOT say that I cannot love or be loved. On the human scale your claims are so obviously false that I cannot see how you could make them - unless love is so absent from your life that you cannot believe in it.

​

As I siad it is only on the cosmic scale that humans are insignificant. But I am not going to be upset about that. That would be egotism and even hubris.

---

I understand that for the here and now your life, my life is very meaningful, to us and our loved ones. I am speaking philosophically and looking far into the future. There is no ultimate meaning to a life that ends in the grave. If these near-death experiences I reference above do not point to a life after death, what possible ultimate meaning has anyone’s life? This is what naturalism says is the ultimate fate of mankind; a lasting death sentence for our entire race. What is left to conclude when faced with this dilemma except that millions of years from now, when the universe is cold and lifeless, there was no ultimate meaning to man’s existence; no ultimate value to any of us?I don’t see how this is egotism. It is just reality. Are you suggesting it would be egotism to assume we are significant? Yes, if we are not ultimately valuable or significant, I suppose you are right. But it sounds to me like you are assuming the truth of naturalism, once again.ThanksDennis

Hey Paul,You said:

quote:

---

Well I will just answer your question by posing another. Are there any known examples of a non-physical object displaying intentionality ? Or of non-physical objects full stop ?

---

Do you mean is there any physical evidence for a non-physical object? Or entity? Well, what is a thought? Brain cells produce protein and chemicals, so what exactly makes up a thought? A thought seems to me to be a non-physical mental entity. I guess this really cuts to the core of our discussion. How does one show evidence of a non-physical entity in a physical world? Wouldn’t it have to reside in the effects said entity had caused? You also say:

quote:

---

It leaves no doubt that the brain is very deeply involved in the mind. And of course the material you quote goes on to explain that physical anatomy adequately explains the similarities. Yet you reject that completely out of hand to claim that instead it is evidence for some non-material "mental entity".

​

And in case you didn't know brain cells are NOT replaced on a routine basis.

---

Oh really? Check out:http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/99/q4/1014-brain.htmScientists Discover Addition of New Brain Cells in Highest Brain Area
Finding reverses long-held beliefs and has implications for designing therapies
PRINCETON, N.J. -- In a finding that eventually could lead to new methods for treating brain diseases and injuries, Princeton scientists have shown that new neurons are continually added to the cerebral cortex of adult monkeys. The discovery reverses a dogma nearly a century old and suggests entirely new ways of explaining how the mind accomplishes its basic functions, from problem solving to learning and memory.
Elizabeth Gould and Charles Gross report in the Oct. 15 issue of Science that the formation of new neurons or nerve cells -- neurogenesis -- takes place in several regions of the cerebral cortex that are crucial for cognitive and perceptual functions. The cerebral cortex is the most complex region of the brain and is responsible for highest-level decision making and for recognizing and learning about the world. The results strongly imply that the same process occurs in humans, because monkeys and humans have fundamentally similar brain structures.If the mind is a non-physical entity that requires a brain to operate in the physical world, wouldn’t that explain the split brain phenomenon, mental retardation, brain damaged patients with limited abilities, etc just fine? And then:

quote:

---

Near death experiences - are less of a problem. For a start they are mainly anecdotal The page you quote talks of a need for studies so it is quite clear that it offers nothing on the same levell as the split-brain experiments which are well understood and inexplicable without acknowledging that the mind is dependant on the brain in ways which make mental operation without a functional brain highly implausible.

---

Please, please, please don’t just brush off the NDE evidence so quickly. There is a lot here to discuss. Why have there been so many corroborating testimonies? Why have these patients been able to accurately describe objects and events that would have been impossible for them to see and know from their death beds? And you completely ignore the fact that there have been numerous studies, including 2 studies cited in the article, that continue to build the evidence that something lives on past the physical.

quote:

---

On to the subject of a creator. I don't know what "big three" you have in mind but one of the biggest questions I would have is why are there complex ordered entities - and appealing to a creator not only doesn't aanswer that it declares that it cannot be answered. Well I am not about to jump to that conclusion. In fact the assumption of a creator really offers ad hoc arguments - "why is X the case" - " the creator wanted it that way" is not a useful answer. Maybe it is true but again it isn't something that should just be assumed.
So no, a creator is not the best explanation. It's worse that "it just is" since at least the latter assumes less to get to the same useless position.

---

I am a bit confused by this. Could you clarify for me? What, for instance, do you mean by why are there complex ordered entities? And are you suggesting, as many have done, that appealing to a Creator would shut down science? And maybe it is not appealing to you, but what I am suggesting is that of the viable options to explain the origins of the universe, life and man, a Creator is the only one I see that is even adequate.

quote:

---

And DNA as a message ? Well in the sense of hereditry it is - but in no uther sense. There's no need to propose an intelligence there. It lacks semantic meaning which is the whole point of intelligent communication. The best you can manage there is an argument from ignorance.

---

But even the argument from ignorance states, In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of it’s occurrence as proof of it’s non-occurrence. And vice versa.Perhaps there is no semantic meaning in DNA, but I am sure I don’t have to dig up the hundreds of references to DNA as language, a code, the blueprint of life, etc. I think it could be called analogous to a computer code at the least, and a lot more complex. A good indication that communication has taken place is in the action it produces, and the DNA code is producing a lot of action on the part of the microbiological machinery it instructs. Once again, I think something is indicated beyond the purely physical. And don’t you find it interesting that these intersections of what I would call the supernatural with the natural occur just where you would expect them to; in the origin of the universe, the DNA of life, and the brain of man.

quote:

---

Descarte's deceiving demon ? My thoughts are that it cannot be refuted but there is no reason to assume it. A modern equivalent is the "brain in a vat" scenario (which may well have been replaced by The Matrix, now). Equally a creator cannot be proven not to exist but there is a distinct shortage of seriosu arguments for it.

---

And now you tell me you are not even taking me seriously? What would constitute a serious argument in your estimation?It seems that the Grand Deceiver would be capable of deceiving as many of us as he chose. I concur it can’t be refuted, but I couldn’t see a reason to assume it either. It also has the weakness of not fitting any of the historical depictions of a Creator. And then you say:

quote:

---

How could there be an Ultimate Morality without God ? The same way that there could be an Ultimate morality WITH God. The Euthyphro dilemma deals with that issue quite adequately.

---

Do you now mean to say that you don’t believe an Ultimate Morality can exist either way? I am confused by this one as well. Could you clarify? You stated earlier that an Ultimate Morality could exist in principle. How does the Euthyphro dilemma settle this?

quote:

---

On to meaning. If our life is meaningful on the human scale, where we exist then surely that is all we need. Your argument amounts to "Naturalism is false because it says that *I* am not a god". How can I describe that as anything less than egotism ?

---

That is not remotely what I have been saying. Let me clarify: I think origins and ultimate outcomes are important considerations when evaluating any worldview. Granted, the one true worldview may not be wholly satisfactory, but if a worldview explains origins and is more satisfactory in it’s logical outcome, where others do not and are not, those would seem to be pluses in it’s column, yes?thanks again,Dennis

Hey Paul,

quote:

---

As to the replacement of brain cells I note that it does not actually state that replacemnet is going on.

---

Quote from the article: The traditional view among neuroscientists has been that the primate brain is different from other organs in that it is not capable of repairing itself or growing new cells, that no new neurons are added to the brain in maturity. This dogma has gradually eroded in the last decade as evidence accumulated for neurogenesis in several evolutionarily older parts of the brain such as the olfactory system and the hippocampus, which is believed to play role in memory formation. In the last year, Gould and her colleagues helped this erosion by proving neurogenesis in the hippocampus of several types of monkeys.The new finding in the cerebral cortex is much more dramatic, the Princeton team believes, because the cortex is the largest and most advanced part of the brain.

quote:

---

And of course even if you could establish regular replacement of brain cells that would simply remove the simplest and most obvious objection to your argument.

---

What would your other objections be?

quote:

---

No, it would not. The split-brain in particular shows that the internal communication within the mind is disrupted. Thus it cannot be the case that the mind is simply unable to operate in hte physical world. Likewise loss of memory is an impairment of the mind - and that too can be inflicted by brain damage.

---

What other world does any of this prove the mind is not capable of operating in? How then would you explain blind people who are able to see during a Near Death Experience?

quote:

---

As to NDEs I can only repeat that the article you quoted stated that further study is needed. At present I have seen nothing to indicate that NDE claims are anywhere near as solid as the contrary evidence I have cited.

---

Page not found – IONSThe Institute for Afterlife Research - Dutch StudyFurther research is needed on most anything you can name; it doesn’t mean the reality of NDE’s is diminished. The first link above, I hope, is of particular interest. He talks about why science and religion are reluctant to acknowledge NDE’s.

quote:

---

I cannot epress the question "why are there complex ordered entities" any more clearly. It is generally accepted that the existence of such entities requires an explanation - and the question I ask is simply a generalisation of that. And the generalised form cannot be answered by assuming a creator - since it is an example of the class of enitites that the question is to explain.

​

Evolution is a far better explanation of human origins, the origin of life is something of a puzzle but there is active research still making progress. The same can be said for the origins of our universe. I can't see how an ad hoc assumption could be considered adequate at all - let alone comparable to the scientific work that has already been done.

---

You claim evolution is a better explanation and then admit it is no explanation at all. The origin of life is more than a puzzle; there are no good naturalistic theories out there and it is the event that requires an explanation before you can say evolution explains complex ordered entities. And to explain the origin of man, evolution must explain this tricky little item we are discussing known as consciousness. A Creator may seem like an ad hoc assumption to you, but it is still, thousands of years after Plato and Aristotle, the only one that is adequate.

quote:

---

Semantic communication is the hallmark of intelligent communication. Unless you are prepared to argue that the exchange of gravitons between masses are evidence of intelligence (and I don't see how you could establish that at all) then I don't see how you can argue that interaction requires intelligent input. And I do think that it is interesting that the CLAIMS of supernatural appear precisely in complex and poorly understood areas. The used to be far more common but as our understanding grew we found that it wasn't so at all. It's exactly the sort of thing I would expect if the supernatural was mere superstition.

---

At the risk of arguing semantics, if you mean nuanced and flavored then no, DNA is not semantic. But if semantic can be defined as there are differences in the meaning of certain symbols and patterns, then you will have to agree that DNA meets this criteria. Clearly DNA provides much more than just an attraction between masses. Your reductionist view doesn’t explain the difference in the action taken inside of a cell when one symbol is used vs. another. Different codons do provide different meanings.And these complex and poorly understood areas that you speak of (the big three; the universe, life and man) have always been the big three (the first philosophical questions: why are we here, how did we get here) and will always be the big three. I don’t see any evidence that a naturalistic explanation is forthcoming, do you?

quote:

---

Moving on, a serious argument for the creator would have to be far better than asserting that it was a convenient ad hoc assumption. Which appears to be the main thread of your argument - you use it twice in the message I'm replying to. I had understood that your main argument was going to be based on arguing for the Resurrection of Jesus - but you've not presented that and the arguments I've seen for it in the past have been far from strong enough to overcoem the inherent implausibility of a resurrection.

---

All in good time Paul. Brian is very busy, as am I, and we are working on the preliminaries. But it seems to me a serious argument for the Creator would cover all of these areas we are discussing as well, wouldn’t you agree?

quote:

---

Th Euthyphro Dilemma in it's modern form is "is it good because God commands it or does Go command it because it is good ?". The former implies no ultimate morality (since all we have is comands which themselves have no moral basis) and the latter implies that there is an Ultimate Morality which God follows (and therefore it exists independantly of God). Thus I argue that the existence of an Ultimate Morality is independant of the existence of God. If you really want to get into this point then can you explain what woudl make an action moral in an Ultimate sense - without appealing to empty statements like "it is in accord with the Ultimate morality" ?

---

All I have argued in previous posts is that morality is baseless if there is indeed no ontological reality of an Ultimate Morality to draw from. Naturalism does not lead to absolute objective morality, as we have seen. In order for absolute, objective morals to exist in the here and now, there must be an Ultimate Morality (maybe we should just call it Good). You seem intent upon finding how we reach this ultimate state of Good, and I agree that this is a tricky endeavor. The Christian side of this dilemma is how do we know the will of God. But it doesn’t change my basic argument.Now later, you stated an Ultimate Morality can exist in principle without appealing to God. I ask for some explanation of this, and as yet haven’t seen it. What did you have in mind when you stated that an Ultimate Morality can exist in principle outside of God?I will go a step further with you, however, and say that God is the only entity who could possibly be called Ultimate Good. Therefore anything emanating from Him would be inherently good, such as a command. (And so another can of worms is opened).

quote:

---

I still do not know why you are insistent that the human scale is not enough for you and that you have to be important on a cosmic scale if it is not ego. Simply denying it does not offer any explanation of why you feel that way.

---

If mankind has no ultimate value, what is the basis for morality? Killing something that has no ultimate value is not ultimately immoral. And don’t think that, as naturalism becomes more dominant, this tidbit can be concealed by some sort of Grand Deception. More and more, as the residual of theistic values is eroded from our institutions, my scenarios from previous posts and worse will become not only possible, but likely. It has nothing to do with the way I feel. It is a logical progression.

quote:

---

Finally I think your comments on judging worldviews fail to distinguish between judging the TRUTH of a worldview - which is the real point - and judging it on other reasons. So far as the truth is concerned the reliance on ad hoc assumptions to "explain" origins is something of a negative - better to take no stand at all than to insist on something so unreliable. And implications have no bearing at all - and even less bearing when the "implications" are not implied at all.

---

You are right, and if I didn’t say it I meant to. Ultimate Implications do not mean that one worldview is true and another is not. But it seems to me implications should be considered, and all things being equal otherwise, might be the scale tipper. Certainly though, you will agree, that there can only be one TRUTH. And if neither side can be argued to certainty, we are simply placing our faith in our side; you have faith science will provide the answers; I have faith in the Creator. So it does seem to me that, since mankind, out of all the creatures, can ask the question about Ultimate Destiny, why would it not play a part in where we place our faith?Thanks for the dialogue,DennisThis message has been edited by dshortt, 01-24-2005 07:05 AMThis message has been edited by dshortt, 01-24-2005 07:07 AM