Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinism, education, materialism's fatal flaw
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 241 of 278 (179269)
01-21-2005 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by dshortt
01-21-2005 7:33 AM


Re: Morality and reason
Well it is no good saying that it is too difficult to produce examples. How would we show intentionality in a physical object that you would accept as being purely physical ? Since the only examples available to either of us beg the question it is pointless to demand more.
As to the replacement of brain cells I note that it does not actually state that replacemnet is going on - and it also states:
there was no sign of neurogenesis in a fourth area, the striate cortex
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.
quote:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As to the argument against a Grand Deceiver I have to say that "ot fitting any of the historical depictions of a creator" is hardly a weakness. After all if the Grand Deciever existed we would expect such accounts to be the product of deception and therefore false.
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" ?
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by dshortt, posted 01-21-2005 7:33 AM dshortt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by dshortt, posted 01-24-2005 7:04 AM PaulK has replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 278 (180132)
01-24-2005 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by PaulK
01-21-2005 8:52 AM


Re: Morality and reason
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 – IONS
The Institute for Afterlife Research - Dutch Study
Further 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,
Dennis
This message has been edited by dshortt, 01-24-2005 07:05 AM
This message has been edited by dshortt, 01-24-2005 07:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by PaulK, posted 01-21-2005 8:52 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by contracycle, posted 01-24-2005 9:31 AM dshortt has replied
 Message 248 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2005 6:38 PM dshortt has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 278 (180152)
01-24-2005 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by dshortt
01-24-2005 7:04 AM


Re: Morality and reason
quote:
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?
that ones easy - many of the neural structures will still be there, even if damaged, and may fire or be fired by electrival impulses.
[quote] Further 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.[/qupte]
The first is farily decent conspiraqcy theory type stuff. Note the classic point levelled aganist materialism early on in the article; what the author fails to do is demonstrate any basis in fact for their argument. The second link is very dubious - did you cctually look at it? This Merkwah organisations looks really dodgy; it even has a disclaimer that:
quote:
Disclaimer
De informatie op deze website is met zorg samengesteld. Betwijfelt u de waarheid of correctheid van de weergegeven informatie, neemt u dan contact met ons op
Which I translate loosely as "the information presented on this website is assembled with care. If you wish to question the truth of correctness of the offered information, please enter correspondance with us". IOW, there is no claim to actual truth, or peer review, or anything, and yet this is claimed as a methodical study.
quote:
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.
Life is like a flame that passes from fuel to fuel. It occurs to maximise and precipitate the heat-death of the universe. Thats my theory, and I find it perfectly adequate.
quote:
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.
Information theory is elemental to biology, as I argued just the other day. Nothing surprising here. Semantic is still a bad term; you are referring to information and data.
quote:
If mankind has no ultimate value, what is the basis for morality?
Selfishness
quote:
Killing something that has no ultimate value is not ultimately immoral.
So religious people keep telling me. I wish they would stop making excuses for their killings.
quote:
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
All other things being equal, choose the option that implies the most fruitfulness in finding answers to other questions. God is not this option.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-24-2005 09:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by dshortt, posted 01-24-2005 7:04 AM dshortt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Wounded King, posted 01-24-2005 10:06 AM contracycle has not replied
 Message 245 by dshortt, posted 01-24-2005 4:10 PM contracycle has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 244 of 278 (180157)
01-24-2005 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by contracycle
01-24-2005 9:31 AM


Re: Morality and reason
Selfishness
Can't we call it 'enlightened self-interest'?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by contracycle, posted 01-24-2005 9:31 AM contracycle has not replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 278 (180274)
01-24-2005 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by contracycle
01-24-2005 9:31 AM


Re: Morality and reason
Hey CC,
quote:
that ones easy - many of the neural structures will still be there, even if damaged, and may fire or be fired by electrival impulses.
How would that account for the perspective of being outside of one’s body? How would you explain this vision happening when there is no brain activity?
quote:
The first is farily decent conspiraqcy theory type stuff. Note the classic point levelled aganist materialism early on in the article; what the author fails to do is demonstrate any basis in fact for their argument. The second link is very dubious
Dr. Grossman is drawing from several studies. Try this guy:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts06.html
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/vanLommel.htm
And also from a previous post:
http://www.datadiwan.de/...ry/articlesN75+/N76Parnia_nde.htm
quote:
Life is like a flame that passes from fuel to fuel. It occurs to maximise and precipitate the heat-death of the universe. Thats my theory, and I find it perfectly adequate.
Adequate to produce a morality that holds for all people? Adequate to even produce a reasonable argument for a basis for epistemology? Adequate to pass on to the next generation as an answer to the big philosophical questions?
quote:
Information theory is elemental to biology, as I argued just the other day. Nothing surprising here. Semantic is still a bad term; you are referring to information and data.
So DNA would compare to a computer-like code? Why is semantic a bad term?
If mankind has no ultimate value, what is the basis for morality?
quote:
Selfishness
Leaving room for some pretty nasty stuff; ie my scenarios from previous posts in this thread. And also not answering the problem of objective absolute morality.
quote:
So religious people keep telling me. I wish they would stop making excuses for their killings.
The practitioners of any worldview may or may not be good examples of the worldview at work, and certainly adds little to the discussion of whether the worldview is true. But let me resurrect a comment I made early in this thread. The Mother Teresa Ideal is the best example of theism at work, the Osama Bin Laden ideal is ultimate Muslimism, and Woody Allen or Madeline Murray O’Hare ideals are the ultimate atheism.
quote:
All other things being equal, choose the option that implies the most fruitfulness in finding answers to other questions. God is not this option.
When we are talking about empirical science, I agree. I have been contending in this thread, however, that morality is baseless and reason is pointless if life ends in the grave.
Thanks for the reply,
Dennis
This message has been edited by dshortt, 01-24-2005 17:01 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by contracycle, posted 01-24-2005 9:31 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Percy, posted 01-24-2005 5:02 PM dshortt has not replied
 Message 247 by crashfrog, posted 01-24-2005 5:24 PM dshortt has replied
 Message 249 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2005 6:44 PM dshortt has not replied
 Message 250 by contracycle, posted 01-25-2005 5:17 AM dshortt has replied
 Message 252 by sidelined, posted 01-25-2005 7:23 AM dshortt has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 246 of 278 (180283)
01-24-2005 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by dshortt
01-24-2005 4:10 PM


Re: Morality and reason
dshortt writes:
quote:
Information theory is elemental to biology, as I argued just the other day. Nothing surprising here. Semantic is still a bad term; you are referring to information and data.
So DNA would compare to a computer-like code? Why is semantic a bad term?
He's saying this for strictly technical reasons. If the context is information theory then you want to avoid concepts like meaning and semantics, which are human interpretations attached to information. This is from Shannon's Original Paper on Information Theory:
"Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by dshortt, posted 01-24-2005 4:10 PM dshortt has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 247 of 278 (180290)
01-24-2005 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by dshortt
01-24-2005 4:10 PM


I have been contending in this thread, however, that morality is baseless and reason is pointless if life ends in the grave.
So, fine, live that way. If morally is baseless than it doesn't matter what others choose to do; so I trust you won't mind if I live in a moral way, even though my morality is baseless.
Moreover if you choose to harm me and mine, or take from me, then I trust you won't mind when I choose to oppose you by any means necessary, including developing systems of government with big burly armed men to enforce the baseless laws we all agree with. I mean, you do get to choose, and I do too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by dshortt, posted 01-24-2005 4:10 PM dshortt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by dshortt, posted 01-25-2005 6:45 AM crashfrog has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 248 of 278 (180302)
01-24-2005 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by dshortt
01-24-2005 7:04 AM


Re: Morality and reason
Well the first version of my reply was lost.
That some new brain cells are produced does not mean that they are replacing existing cells. But even if they are it simply goes back to the same question of identity I spoke of earlier. And although these addiitonal cells may partially explain the mental changes you have already acknowledged I see no reason to think that they are any more of a threat to my concept of identity.
Blind people "see" during NDEs the same way as everyone else having an NDE "sees". What's the problem ? I certainly don't need a special explanation for blind people any more than you do. Of course since you apparently believe that they actually DO see you have a problem to explain how that is possible.
Moroever the split-brain experiments and the effects on memory provide VERY strong evidence that these aspects of mental function is dependent on the physical brain. And since your view o NDEs denies that then you need equally strong evidence.
And talking of evidence neither of the links you qualify as offering strong evidence. Although Grossman accuses those who disagree with him of "Intellectual Arrogance" he does so in such a nasty and insulting way it is clear that the arrognce is his.
Grossmann does offer what he THINKS is a "killer argument" but contrary to his opinion it is easily answered.
Perhaps the "smoking gun" case is the one described by Michael Sabom in his book Light and Death. In this case, the patient had her NDE while her body temperature was lowered to 60 degrees, and all the blood was drained from her body. "Her electroencephalogram was silent, her brain-stem response was absent, and no blood flowed through her brain." A brain in this state cannot create any kind of experience. Yet the patient reported a profound NDE. Those materialists who believe that consciousness is secreted by the brain, or that the brain is necessary for conscious experience to exist, cannot possibly explain, in their own terms, cases such as this. An impartial observer would have to conclude that not all experience is produced by the brain, and that therefore the falsity of materialism has been empirically demonstrated.
The possibility that Grossman neglects is that the experience did NOT happen while the brain was inactive. Grossmann presents absolutely no evidence to suggest that it did but simply assumes it. Why should the experience not draw from what happened as she was going under and/or the time when she was being revived ?
As to the other link I looked for the Lancet report - and it is available on the web. One interesting fact is that it concluded that many features of an NDE can be explained by physiological factors.
On to your "three big questions". Firstly I do not admit that evolution is "no answer at all". On the contrary evolutuion has alredy explained a great deal about human origins. THh other subjects may be harder to deal with but even there there is a lot of productive work that has been done. And in all three areas we have not reached the limits of what we can know. And it's not true that we have no explanations - the fact is that science demands a lot more of an explanation than you do.
From science we have learnt that humans share a common ancestor with the African apes - and discovered a good number of fossils of other from our side of that divide (and continue to discover more - a major find was announced last week).
From science we have developed outr understanding of the age of the Earth, identified the remains of ancient cyanobacteria and discovered that early life could have operated with RNA alone - without DNA or proteins. On the way we have generated and discareded a number of explanations for the origins of life. If all we wanted was an explanation - instead of one that we could make a strong case for form knowledge we could have stopped with any of them - Cairns-Smith's proposal of life poriginating from clays. for instance.
For the origin of the unvierse we have got as far as the Big Bang - with a good estimate of the age of the Universe too. The study of cosmology is heavily wrapped up with the quest to unify Physics and discover a "Theory of Everything" since cosmology involves the extreme conditions where current physical theory break down (just as Newtonian Gravity broke down under less extreme conditions).
I don't see evidence that supernaturalism has contributed anything of equivalent worth to ANY of the three questions - do you ?
As for arguments for God, it doesn't matter WHY you haven't produced your argument. But surely you must acknowledge that if you had a strong direct argument for ANY of your "big 3" that there would be no need to try an indirect argument. It MIGHT be possible to produce a serious argument for the existence of a Creator around one of the three - but an argument from ignorance (for instance your argument over consciousness) is not a serious argument. I'm sorry but I see no reason to accept a belief because you happen to like it. If I don't think that MY likes and dislikes matter to the truth why should I think yours are any better ?
On DNA you badly misnderstand my point. My point is that DNA can be entirely "understood" by non=intelligent chemical mechanisms - and indeed that is all that matters to DNA. There is no "meaning" beyond what it does in the correct environment. There is no element of abstract thought - just chemistry - even if it is very complicated chemistry. And other than a few small human efforts in genetic engineering so far we have found no sign of intelligent intervention in DNA - so far as we can tell mindless evoluionary processes have shaped a very large part of it.
On morality you again misunderstand my point. I am not interested in how we KNOW it - but how it could exist and I see no useful contribution a God could make which would not undermine the very claim to HAVE an Ultimate Morality. For instance how could you meaningfully call God "good" without a standard of "good" to judge God by ? And I have to add how can we judge commands to commit genocide as "good" ? Or do we put the assumption that God is good ahead of the Bible or ahead of morality itself ?
So far as "Ultimate Value" goes - unless you wish to deny that huamns have a value to each other on the human scale of things - we simply come back to my question of why that is not enough. Do you really not care about other humans for what they are ?
As to your final point, if our Ultimate Destiny relies on wisful thinking or making a lucky guess I have just to ask what sort of creator would set things up that way ? I'd rather try to stick to the truth and admit the limits of my knowledge than pretend to "know" something that I truly don't. And I can't see that as a fault.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by dshortt, posted 01-24-2005 7:04 AM dshortt has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 249 of 278 (180307)
01-24-2005 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by dshortt
01-24-2005 4:10 PM


Re: Morality and reason
quote:
The Mother Teresa Ideal is the best example of theism at work, the Osama Bin Laden ideal is ultimate Muslimism, and Woody Allen or Madeline Murray O’Hare ideals are the ultimate atheism.
I'd say that you were wrong on all three.
There are enough less-than-complimentary reports about Mother Theresa to doubt that the actual woman was an ideal role-model.
Osama bin Laden's activities have a lot more to do with anti-Western sentiment than Islam (propping up the House of Saud is a good part of that - supporting Israel is another part).
And I certainly don't regard Woody Allan or Madalyn Murray O'Hare as any sort of ideal nor see any reason why I should.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by dshortt, posted 01-24-2005 4:10 PM dshortt has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 278 (180390)
01-25-2005 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by dshortt
01-24-2005 4:10 PM


Re: Morality and reason
quote:
How would that account for the perspective of being outside of one’s body? How would you explain this vision happening when there is no brain activity?
Actually such out of body experiences appear to be reliably reproducible with certain chemicals. I have to say I have not experienced it myself, but I have heard a handful of accounts from people who have. Just last night I was watching a prog called "Tribe" in whicb this guy goes out and lives with a pre-civilised tribe, undergoing their initiations and the whole deal.. He took the Aboga root as part of the inititiation, and reported exactly that sort of out-of-body experience after the fact.
I think its going to come down to the mechanisms the btrain uses for visualisation. Although most of our experience is with the world before our eyes, we have the capacity to visualise things in 3D, as if in a computer model. I think the drugs, or strange brain activity, are triggering this sort of view of what would normally have been perceived by the optic systems.
quote:
Adequate to produce a morality that holds for all people?
Why SHOULD there be such a thing? Why I want there to be such a thing? Why would it be good if there were such a thing? In other words, why even ask the question?
quote:
Adequate to even produce a reasonable argument for a basis for epistemology? Adequate to pass on to the next generation as an answer to the big philosophical questions?
Yes
quote:
So DNA would compare to a computer-like code? Why is semantic a bad term?
Because semantic implies it is like a language, with grammar and tenses. But it is not; computer codes only apoproach anything vaguely languag-like after 3 generations of mediation. But it would be valid to say that it is a data structure, with features such as noise, the distinction between data and information, etc.
quote:
And also not answering the problem of objective absolute morality.
There is no "porblem" of absolute morality, becuase there is no indication there could or would be such or thing, or why we would want it even if it was feasible.
quote:
The practitioners of any worldview may or may not be good examples of the worldview at work, and certainly adds little to the discussion of whether the worldview is true.
But in terms of MORALITY, you have not other basis from which to draw evidence other than the behaviour of your members.
quote:
But let me resurrect a comment I made early in this thread. The Mother Teresa Ideal is the best example of theism at work, the Osama Bin Laden ideal is ultimate Muslimism, and Woody Allen or Madeline Murray O’Hare ideals are the ultimate atheism.
Bin Laden is the ultimate Muslim? So can you tell me why this is not simple racist prejudice on your part, Dshortt? There is no huge Islamic threat to the west; Islam is not a homicidal ideology, certainly less so than Chistianity. This is cheap gibberish.
quote:
When we are talking about empirical science, I agree. I have been contending in this thread, however, that morality is baseless and reason is pointless if life ends in the grave.
"Slumber"
So, you're feeling unimportant,
'Cuz you've got nothing to say.
And your live is just a ramble
No one understands you anyway
Well, I got a piece of news son,
That might make you change your mind
Your life is historically meaningfull
And spans a significant time
Slumber will come soon
And you are helping put it to sleep
Side by side we do our share
Faithfully ensuring that
Slumber will come soon.
Well, now do you feel a little better
Lift up your head and walk away
Knowing we're all in this together
For such a short time anyway
There is just no time to parade around sulking
I would rather laugh than cry
The rich, the poor, the strong, the weak
We share this place together
And we pitch into help it die
I'm not too good at giving morals
And I don't fear the consequence
If life makes you scared and bitter
At least it's not for very long
Slumber will come soon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by dshortt, posted 01-24-2005 4:10 PM dshortt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by dshortt, posted 01-26-2005 3:12 PM contracycle has replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 278 (180394)
01-25-2005 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by crashfrog
01-24-2005 5:24 PM


Crash, have you read any of this thread? You are practically making my point for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by crashfrog, posted 01-24-2005 5:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2005 10:30 AM dshortt has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 252 of 278 (180399)
01-25-2005 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by dshortt
01-24-2005 4:10 PM


Re: Morality and reason
dshortt
How would that account for the perspective of being outside of one’s body? How would you explain this vision happening when there is no brain activity?
How do you account for a memory of an event happening when memory
can only be encoded in the brain by physical means? If there is no brain activity then the memory cannot have been stored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by dshortt, posted 01-24-2005 4:10 PM dshortt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by dshortt, posted 01-26-2005 3:14 PM sidelined has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 253 of 278 (180421)
01-25-2005 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by dshortt
01-25-2005 6:45 AM


Crash, have you read any of this thread? You are practically making my point for me.
If your point is that societies develop the morals they need to develop, then I'm happy to make your point for you.
The fact that morals are baseless means we need to act more moral, not less. We have an even greater responsibility to our fellow man because there's no deity ensuring universal justice. There's just us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by dshortt, posted 01-25-2005 6:45 AM dshortt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by dshortt, posted 01-26-2005 3:18 PM crashfrog has replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 278 (180851)
01-26-2005 3:10 PM


Hey Paul,
Sorry to hear you lost a reply, that is the most maddening thing. I have taken to using Word to write these replies to prevent that very thing from happening.
quote:
That some new brain cells are produced does not mean that they are replacing existing cells. But even if they are it simply goes back to the same question of identity I spoke of earlier. And although these addiitonal cells may partially explain the mental changes you have already acknowledged I see no reason to think that they are any more of a threat to my concept of identity.
From an earlier post I said:
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?
quote:
Blind people "see" during NDEs the same way as everyone else having an NDE "sees". What's the problem ? I certainly don't need a special explanation for blind people any more than you do. Of course since you apparently believe that they actually DO see you have a problem to explain how that is possible. Moroever the split-brain experiments and the effects on memory provide VERY strong evidence that these aspects of mental function is dependent on the physical brain. And since your view o NDEs denies that then you need equally strong evidence. Why should the experience not draw from what happened as she was going under and/or the time when she was being revived?
If the NDE is strictly a physical event inside of a brain, there is no explaining a blind person being able to actually see the doctors working on them, the room their body is in as well as other objects. You seem to be missing the verified parts in all of this; the medical instruments an procedures in process (eliminating the first second before succumbing or last second before reviving hypothesis) are sometimes described in great detail, objects from adjacent rooms or even further away are described (one guy saw a shoe on the hospital roof, which was later found). These verified events of an out-of-body entity actually seeing, hearing and experiencing during absolute flat-line are not explainable by physical means that I can see (drugs, hallucination, residual brain activity, etc).
From Dr. Pin Van Lommel, the doctor who performed the Dutch study reported in the Lancet:
From these studies we know that in our prospective study of patients that have been clinically dead (VF on the ECG) no electric activity of the cortex of the brain (flat EEG) must have been possible, but also the abolition of brain stem activity like the loss of the corneareflex, fixed dilated pupils and the loss of the gag reflex is a clinical finding in those patients. However, patients with an NDE can report a clear consciousness, in which cognitive functioning, emotion, sense of identity, and memory from early childhood was possible, as well as perception from a position out and above their dead body. Because of the sometimes reported and verifiable out-of -body experiences, like the case of the dentures reported in our study, we know that the NDE must happen during the period of unconsciousness, and not in the first or last second of this period.
So we need a functioning brain to receive our consciousness into our waking consciousness. And as soon as the function of brain has been lost, like in clinical death or in brain death, with iso-electricity on the EEG, memories and consciousness do still exist, but the reception ability is lost. People can experience their consciousness outside their body, with the possibility of perception out and above their body, with identity, and with heightened awareness, attention, well-structured thought processes, memories and emotions. And they also can experience their consciousness in a dimension where past, present and future exist at the same moment, without time and space, and can be experienced as soon as attention has been directed to it (life review and preview), and even sometimes they come in contact with the fields of consciousness of deceased relatives. And later they can experience their conscious return into their body.
As to the Big Three, I am not in the least suggesting science has not made progress by studying these questions, but only from the purely physical side of things will these things ever be accessible. You are much like the reductionist who looks at a Shakespearean sonnet and deduces that a dye with drying agents was applied to a fibrous material which absorbed the dye in interesting shapes and patterns and claims to have explained the work.
Take the Big Bang; particles flying apart, tremendous heat, gravitational intensity off the chart, all of these things may be true, but where is the explanation for why? A logical conclusion is that if time, energy, matter and space came into being at the moment of the Big Bang, wouldn’t something operating outside of these things be required as the cause? And a further complication for a naturalistic explanation is the large number of fortuitous circumstances which enable life to exist. To say that pure natural forces worked together so exquisitely stretches the limits of plausibility.
Life is explained in purely physical terms as chemicals bonding to create motion, energy consumption, and replication, but again where is the why? That first little critter that took on the characteristics of life came from something that the moment before was not alive. How? Self assembly seems like a dead option; even the RNA hypothesis is full of problems. Wouldn’t it be logical to look for the infuser of life, something operating outside of that first little critter to bring it alive?
So certainly let’s continue explorations of all areas, but not miss what lies beyond the forest for studying the trees so intently.
You say there is good evidence for the ape to man ascendancy; let’s give you that one for the sake of discussion. There still needs to be an explanation for the profound difference in reasoning powers and more specifically the consciousness of man, particularly if it can be shown that this consciousness exists outside of the physical body. Doesn’t it just make sense that consciousness is not an accident? I know you will say it has been selected for, but that first big brute to exhibit it had to have been, in your view, a profoundly unusual beast to say the least. How would the non-conscious beget the conscious?
quote:
On morality you again misunderstand my point. I am not interested in how we KNOW it - but how it could exist and I see no useful contribution a God could make which would not undermine the very claim to HAVE an Ultimate Morality. For instance how could you meaningfully call God "good" without a standard of "good" to judge God by ? And I have to add how can we judge commands to commit genocide as "good" ? Or do we put the assumption that God is good ahead of the Bible or ahead of morality itself ?
Perhaps I have, but you said several times in earlier posts that an Ultimate Morality could exist in principle outside of God, and I have just been asking you to clarify that point.
If God is the Creator of the universe, and God is the Ultimate Morality, God would be the Ontological Good as well. Commands to commit genocide from the OT are hard to understand; perhaps those societies were so evil that destruction was the best option, how can we say?
quote:
So far as "Ultimate Value" goes - unless you wish to deny that huamns have a value to each other on the human scale of things - we simply come back to my question of why that is not enough. Do you really not care about other humans for what they are?
I just really suspect you have no answer for me philosophically, so you continue to try to make it personal. Let me try once more: worldviews dictate the way people live, even those who have not thought much about it (most nowadays it would seem) are driven in their daily decisions by a worldview. If the worldview is universe ends, we all die, end of story how can anyone claim an Ultimate Value for mankind? And then the question, since mankind has no Ultimate Value, what do we make of this life? A self-sacrificial life would certainly look stupid at this point. And how do we say to someone you should, or you shouldn’t? Yes, you can point to consequences in the here and now, but ultimately, none of it matters. If this were my worldview, I would either go for the gusto on my own terms, or end it all now, and how could you talk me out of it, ultimately?
So my ultimate point is that mankind has no Ultimate Value, Meaning or Purpose sans an afterlife.
quote:
As to your final point, if our Ultimate Destiny relies on wisful thinking or making a lucky guess I have just to ask what sort of creator would set things up that way ?
To paraphrase Pascal badly, perhaps God set up the universe to contain enough evidence for the believer and kept that evidence vague enough to support the non-believer in his non-belief. I don’t find it to be wishful thinking at all to see the logical conclusions I have arrived at above, and bridge the remaining gap with faith.
quote:
I'd say that you were wrong on all three.
I would expect nothing less.
quote:
There are enough less-than-complimentary reports about Mother Theresa to doubt that the actual woman was an ideal role-model.
Notice I said the Mother Teresa ideal. Here is a good representation of what I mean;
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
quote:
Osama bin Laden's activities have a lot more to do with anti-Western sentiment than Islam (propping up the House of Saud is a good part of that - supporting Israel is another part).
From the Koran:
And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Apostle are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.
So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.
Ask forgiveness for them or do not ask forgiveness for them; even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times, Allah will not forgive them; this is because they disbelieve in Allah and His Apostle, and Allah does not guide the transgressing people.
And never offer prayer for any one of them who dies and do not stand by his grave; surely they disbelieve in Allah and His Apostle and they shall die in transgression.
And let not their property and their children excite your admiration; Allah only wishes to chastise them with these in this world and (that) their souls may depart while they are unbelievers.
Who do you think the unbelievers and idolaters are in the eyes of the fundamentalist Muslim? You and I are in this one together Paul, like it or not.
quote:
And I certainly don't regard Woody Allan or Madalyn Murray O'Hare as any sort of ideal nor see any reason why I should.
But I think their values are telling. O’Hare was a vigilante for getting any vestige of Christianity out of the public square. Then she gets killed by one of her close followers for, what else, money.
Mr. Allen seems to just drift from event to event, (at least in his movies, and by his own words they are at least somewhat autobiographical), unfocused, never able to make sense of anything, not receiving or giving anything of value, and then (in real life now) gets caught having sex with his 13 year old stepdaughter.
Don’t be offended here, please. I am sure you are a fine person. I just see these two people as having taken the atheistic worldview to it’s logical conclusion.
Regards to all
Dennis

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by PaulK, posted 01-26-2005 6:53 PM dshortt has replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 278 (180852)
01-26-2005 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by contracycle
01-25-2005 5:17 AM


Re: Morality and reason
Hey CC,
I think my general reply above answers your objections as well. Did you write "Slumber"?
Dennis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by contracycle, posted 01-25-2005 5:17 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by contracycle, posted 01-28-2005 5:14 AM dshortt has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024