The following is taken from Richard C. Vitzthum's "Materialism: An Affirmative History And Definition," Prometheus Books, 1995, pp. 230-232
"The essential component of the material order is a substance whose nature even in our cosmos is not yet and may never be fully known or understood... Terrestrial life is an accidental realization of one of a large, perhaps infinite number of different kinds of being possible to material substance. The laws of nature at the macrophysical level assert themselves unconsciously, indiscriminately, and invariably...
[a]t the microphisical level... they embody laws of probability that are equally implacable and nonhuman in their total effect... Organic life evolved during a period of two to three billion years from accidental circumstances on the surface of the earth, itself a product of the evolution of the cosmos... The key event in organic evolution was the random combination of inorganic matter into units capable of self-reproduction... Biological death, or the breakdown of organisms into their chemical components, is total and irreversible. Nothing of the organism's identity survives.
Human thought and feeling is the most complex, versatile, adaptive, sensitive, perceptive, creative, purposeful, and voluntaristic product
of terrestrial evolution and perhaps cosmic evolution as a whole... It creates all the value and meaning that humans find inside or outside
of themselves. The material order outside of human self-enclosure and self-definition is empty of human value and meaning, consisting as it does of an aimless interplay of natural process dictated by invariable physical laws. Its amoral indiscriminateness contrasts sharply with the human compulsion to discriminate and judge. This compulsion evolved from the billions of years of biological adaptation to earth's environment that transformed simple cells into multicelled animals.
Human thought and feeling is a material offshoot of this very indiscriminateness. It consists of neural events that individually are insensitive, unthinking, and unfeeling as all other basic chemical reactions but that collectively are capable of processing raw electromagnetic signals into emotional and intellectual information. Although the process is not yet well understood, it may consist of computation that mathematically measure incoming arrays of signals against synaptic weightings in the brain's neural networks....
The wide variety of human response to the material reality humans
find themselves a part of is less interesting than reality itself. Powerful but contradictory and often volatile human impulses-- for example, to cooperate, to include others in or to exclude others from social structure, or to love or to hate-- have produced radically different yet more or less workable systems of religious, ethical, political, and social value."
So, in other words: Everything real is material, but we don't really know what the substance matter is, yet we ask theists to define the substance of God since we're arbitrary and are not bothered by intellectual hypocrisy. We're here due to one big accident, and we are determined to do what we do and think what we think because of the imposition of accidental, unconscious, and nonhuman laws upon a lump of matter (what's that) inside our head. Random combinations of things ultimately caused by an explosion brought about order, why(?), well we don't know but we're working on it. If we don't find out, no big deal, because we only live once so grab for all the gusto you can get. Human thought is just amazing and awesome, but it's an accident and we don't really understand how it all works, but it must have since we're here! Our thoughts are the product of unthinking electro-chemical reactions that happen inside our lump of custard in our head. Everything is subjective. There is no value, morality, purpose, or meaning. Our emotions are chemical reactions, so loving my wife and son is something like a complicated hiccup. You're bothered by our findings? So what! My findings are uninteresting and, though maybe powerful, they are contradictory. Indeed, when my atheistic, scientifically minded friends include me in their scholarly world that is contradictory, but who cares? Oh, by the way, religion is a product of evolution and religious tenets are determined by the unthinking laws of physics operating upon our custard pudding in our noggin, but we'll contradictorily act as if certain religions are "bad" and man should (I know, there's no moral statements, but let me slide) seek ( but there's no freedom, so let me slide) to be "scientifically" minded. Then we can all not know what the heck we're talking about and take things on blind faith. Amen.
Paul I have to take issue here you said: the unthinking laws of physics operating upon our custard pudding in our noggin, I have it on good authority from my wife that my head doesn't contain custard, tapioca, yes, custard, no. Again thanks for making my night.
ReplyDeletePeter, I should clarify, and apologies to your wife. The consistency is custard-like, it probably tastes like Tapioca, though
ReplyDeletehttp://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1
"Had the brain not been soaking for weeks in a fixative such as formaldehyde, you would be able to see that the brain itself is extremely soft, with an almost custard-like consistency."
Great summary Paul. How many other book reviews have you published? I'd love to read them, if they are half as good as this one.
ReplyDeleteI thought you were out of the blogging scene as of Aug 21st?
PS: I sure like getting my worldview presentations, or philosophical treatises, from historians who wrote dissertations called, "The art of paraphrasing: a study of Henry Adams's use of the paraphrastic technique in The History of the United States of America," rather than, say, from a philosopher like this guy, who got first-class honors from Oxford, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from there, and went on to publish, say, a book like this one, which is a comprehensive presentation and defense of physicalism as a worldview, rather than a shallow history of it.
ReplyDeleteWhat, you don't think that is a good idea?
But hey, it takes all kinds, right?
I prefer getting my worldview from a historian.
ReplyDeleteBut then, as I am one, I'm biased.
Oh, and I suspect Paul came back because of all the people crowing about having driven him off.
ReplyDeleteThese things tend to work like that.
I never gave a date, Daniel. I did say PTA will be closed on the 21st.
ReplyDeleteI was cleaning out my old blog, ran across these two posts, and simply cut and pasted them.
Chill out. I'll be gone soon and you won't need to read how sad your worldview is, from people espousing your own worldview!
Anyway, I'm glad you agree that Vitzthum's argumentation is very weak (someone should tell Prometheus book), looks like what I said was spot on. (Actually, where was I wrong? I used a little flare maybe, that's it.)
Look, Christians have to deal with people posting about a company that sells little "Armour of God" pjs. We have you guys post think by Fred Phelps et al. So, the same got thrown back on you.
Oh, and last, just because Vitzthum's a historian doesn't mean he's wrong. He actually put all of the above together from reading guys like who you posted. Or, does "not liking" a theory imply tghat it's "wrong?" You see, I saw no interaction and refutation of Vitzthum. Indeed, when you consider it, he seemed spot on.
I gues you think matter qua matter is "feeling and thinking." I guess you think the universe "cares" for you? I guess you think there are immaterial "laws" of morality. So you see Daniel, Vitzthum wasn't too far off.
So, we shouldn't go rejecting things based on fallacies (he's a historian) and feeling (you know, like how you intuitively felt while reading what he wrote. You told yourself, "Hey, this can't be what i believe. I've been trying to act as if I had a respectable worldview.)
Oh, one last thing, too bad physicalism isn't identical to materialism, Daniel. Didn't Melnyk cover that for you? But, why should I listen to you about physicalism? You're not a philosopher like, say, Melnyk.
If you say, "Oh, but I read Melnyk," then the problem for you is that Vitzthum read guys like Melnyk *and then some* (check out his bibliography!).
So, if reading the guys allows you to promote and defend and have your position listened to, then Vitzthum meets your criteria. (I'd also love to see your write up of Melnyk's book. Have you even read it? Write up a outline and review, surely you took the appropriate notes to do so?)
Now, if you say that reading the guy does not put you on good grounds to be the one who promotes, defends, and explains your worldview, then why should any of us listen to Daniel?
Looks like either way you're on the horns of a dilemma. Either Vitzthum was a good source, or we shouldn't listen to you!
Sorry, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. But who cares? Caring is just a physical interaction iside my body, like a hiccup.
I never gave a date, Daniel. I did say PTA will be closed on the 21st.
ReplyDeleteSort of. But you said,
Triablogue will still be open, though I won't be posting there...I have A LOT on my plate, and it is a lot that will take up the next few years or more, and so I do not have the time right now to do this.
So when you said, "I won't be posting there," were we supposed to take it to mean anything other than "as of the 21st", when you said you would be "closing up shop"?
If we take "this" to be blogging in general, are we taking it too far?
If not, we must differentiate between what sort of blogging you have the time to do. See, you didn't have the time "right then" to post to your blog, but you have the time, "right now" to post on Triablogue. Okay. Whatever.
Oh, one last thing, too bad physicalism isn't identical to materialism, Daniel.
I never said it was. However, your semantics aren't necessarily correct. Even if I had said that, physicalism is usually interchanged with materialism, and is simply a more flexible framework that incorporates materialism. Don't take my word for it.
See here:
* Physicalism is sometimes known as materialism. Most of the time they are used interchangeably.
* Historically, materialists held that everything was matter -- where matter was conceived as "an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist" (Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge, par. 9).
* The reason for speaking of physicalism rather than materialism is to abstract away from this historical notion, which is usually thought of as too restrictive -- for example, forces such as gravity are physical but it is not clear that they are material in the traditional sense (Dijksterhuis 1961, Yolton 1983).
But hey, he's just a philosopher, so what would he know?
Didn't Melnyk cover that for you?
I didn't read it. I read this and this, though. You may note that the latter was writte by my freethought group's faculty advisor, so perhaps I asked him a few things about it.
But, why should I listen to you about physicalism?
You shouldn't.
You're not a philosopher like, say, Melnyk.
And neither are you, and you're not even a qualified theologian, so I'll not waste further time reading your stuff or responding to it.
Have a nice vacation.
Sorry, that latter link was supposed to be to this review of Melnyk by Witmer. The server appears to be down at the moment, but the archived version of it is here.
ReplyDeleteSee what happens?
ReplyDeleteDaniel made the comment which turned around and bit him in the rear.
He gets stuck in a dilemma and ignores it. He further commets on something that is not relevant to the discussion.
Anyway,
"So when you said, "I won't be posting there," were we supposed to take it to mean anything other than "as of the 21st", when you said you would be "closing up shop"?"
I don't see why not. There was nothing, logically, inherent in my closing PTA on the 21st which would translate to not posting an *another* blog *after* the 21st. You're grasping for straws danny.
"If we take "this" to be blogging in general, are we taking it too far?
"If not, we must differentiate between what sort of blogging you have the time to do. See, you didn't have the time "right then" to post to your blog, but you have the time, "right now" to post on Triablogue. Okay. Whatever."
Danny, as I said, I cut and pasted something I had peviously written. it took me all of 1 minute. I think I have a minute.
Danny, you don't fair any better when debating petty stuff.
"I never said it was. However, your semantics aren't necessarily correct. Even if I had said that, physicalism is usually interchanged with materialism, and is simply a more flexible framework that incorporates materialism. Don't take my word for it."
Yes it is correct, technically. Anyway, make sure to remember this when theists do the same. Theists constantly conflate naturalism with materialism. Atheists love to tell them that they are not identical. Well, yeah, but it's usually interchangable. So, I was just playing your guys' game. I learned all of this from you guys.
"But, why should I listen to you about physicalism?
You shouldn't.
You're not a philosopher like, say, Melnyk.
And neither are you, and you're not even a qualified theologian, so I'll not waste further time reading your stuff or responding to it."
Good. Then I guess I wont' need to be on the lookout for the "refutation" you were supposedly writing regarding our last discussion.
Also, what does it say about you when you are constantly refuted by a non-philosopher/non-theologian.
And, what *is* a "qualified" theologian?
Is it someone with a degree from a seminary? So Loftus is a qualified theologian? hardly! Actually, many of the t-blog members do not have "seminary" degrees. So why interact with us anymore? See, now you can save face and stop the beatings you get on a regular basis.
Have a good one.
Once again, I do think that Daniel has a point. This is, I think the third time I've had to agree with him. Being a left-wing British Conservative who was brought up in the C of E, I need to be careful about these things or I'll end up agreeing with everyone! Or becoming an Anglican Vicar (yikes!).
ReplyDeleteI'd imagine most people here are not qualified theologians. I know I'm not. My field is Church history, although my degree (BA) is from a University (Wales) rather than a theological seminary. Since my dgree was history/politics joint honours, I can also claim some expertise in political theory, but here my main expertise is in Welsh politics and devolution.
Most of us, myself included, are therefore commenting outside of areas where we have received formal training. Thus we have to make allowances.
Daniel, I do feel (as a historian) you've been unfair on the gent Paul quoted. He is, after all, a historian, not a philosopher. Thus one should expect less emphasis on the deep theory and more history, while the other chap is attempting to lay out a cohesive theory.
Before reading a book or article, I always find it useful to ask myself what the author is trying to do. Sometimes bad reviews indicate not bad books, but a reviewer who expected something different and was disappointed.
It seems to me that what you're saying is that you'd have preferred Paul to have presented a theoretical rather than historical view of physicalism or materialism. What should be said is that, as an historian of ideas, this chap has a different view than a philosopher, and that perhaps the two presentations are complementary of each other, or perhaps that both books should be read before a final conclusion is reached.
I'm sounding too consensual, so I'll stop here before I ask why everyone can't just get along.
It seems to me that what you're saying is that you'd have preferred Paul to have presented a theoretical rather than historical view of physicalism or materialism. What should be said is that, as an historian of ideas, this chap has a different view than a philosopher, and that perhaps the two presentations are complementary of each other, or perhaps that both books should be read before a final conclusion is reached.
ReplyDeletePaul is here to defend Christianity and to attempt to refute alternative worldviews as "irrational". As such, of course, as Witmer and I were discussing just yesterday, Paul dismisses [what Witmer estimates as] greater than 85% of academic philosophers as "irrational" for being atheists and greater than 50% of academic philosophers as "irrational" for holding to a worldview of naturalism/physicalism/materialism.
Now, it would be a terrible burden to place on one's self to present the best and most sound representations of an argument in order to call it "irrational". Unfortunately, that is exactly what one must do in order to truly refute anything. In that sense, I often interact with persons on this blog, who, if not formally trained in theology, have certainly put in a goodish labor of education in the field.
They often cite voluminous passages from scholars in theology in an attempt to defend their worldview, and to attack my own, or someone else's.
What they rarely do is cite Melnyks or Witmers, because to do so is intellectual suicide. It is the mental equivalent of running through a mile-long gauntlet with angry Jose Canseco-sized Native Americans lining each side, sporting blunt objects to bludgeon you with. And so, our friends here at the T-blog shy away from doing a parallel amount of library and leg work on the atheist side of the fence. I'm not claiming they never read philosophical journals, or the hardcore stuff from others who consider atheism rational, but they certainly spend a disproportionate amount of time on "small fry" like me. What does that say to you?
It tells me a lot. Whereas this is just a fun hobby for me, this is the bread n' butter of Paul et al. These guys have invested thousands of dollars into classes and books and into the offering plate, yet they don't dig deep enough to smash their hands against bedrock. I suppose it helps them to ignore the reality of said foundational rationality, and builds their confidence that it really doesn't exist, when they spend so little time engaging the "swingin' di**s".
I've read some Plantinga, and some Swinburne. I don't think they're irrational. I just find their premises less believable. OTOH, Paul et al consider Dennett and Melnyk, Kim and Poland not just "not as believable," or "their arguments, weighed against rebuttals, just don't seem very airtight"...oh no, they're all irrational.
Hubris at its finest.
Well, we'd have to define "irrational."
ReplyDeleteI'd consider them all wrong, but I wouldn't say their "irrational" on most definitions. And, a quote would have been nice, or is misrepresenting people part of your "internet hobby" as well?
I think they're all wrong. I think they are irrational in one sense, that is, they deny the evidence right in front of them. A man who denies an elephant in front of him is, on some definitions, irrational.
God's evidence is palin for all.
God is the one who calls them fools.
God knows everything.
So, the being who knows eveything told me that they are fools for rejecting him.
Also, I quoted Vitzthum because his stuff was so compact and great. Kim et al say *the same thing* but in technical jargon.
It's a bit presumptuous to assume I've not read any of thsoe guys. In my library I have MANY books by non-Christains. I have ALL of Michael Martin's. I have George Smith, Kai Neilson, Sagan, Russell, Quine, Harris, Searl, Dennet, Kim, etc.
Anyway, I'm loving your comments. All you're doing is helping to tear down a fellow atheist/materialist.
My main point is that his book *summarized* what the "big dogs" are saying!
I find it funny you ignore my point that, basically, if Vitzthum is wrong, so are your boys. Why? Cause Vitzthum summarizes your boys. Show me where your boys say the opposite. Show me where your boys tell us that there's objective meaning. Show me where they say that physical particles are rational. Show me where they say that chemicals have feelings.
So, by arguing against Vitszthum you're arguing against your boys.
Might I suggest, Daniel, that the reason why many of us have not read Melnyks or Witners is because some of us have never heard of them before.
ReplyDeleteWhich is a testament only to my ignorance of such philosophers, I know. It has no greater meaning, but does not make me a coward, only an historian, not a philosopher. I prefer stories to theories.
I do not hold that because I have no wish to read a book means it is no good (that would be silly). However, I would hold that I have enough books I need to read, and I tend to find philosophy rather dry.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteI really must close comment after this.
I'd consider them all wrong, but I wouldn't say their "irrational" on most definitions. And, a quote would have been nice, or is misrepresenting people part of your "internet hobby" as well?
I can quote you from your debate with Barker if you like, but I'll attempt to paraphrase you, "...Christianity is not just more rational than atheism...to say this would be an insult to my Lord...atheism is not rational at all..."
I can also dig through the archives and quote you on physicalism/materialism if you wish. Are you now admitting that the worldview of physicalism/materialism, and/or the conclusion of atheism, can be rational?
It's a bit presumptuous to assume I've not read any of thsoe guys.
I actually didn't say you didn't, as I was focused on which arguments you choose to engage and spend your time on -- I've never read you quote any of them and tear into them. All you seem to ever do is pass off your value judgment on the implications of atheism/physicalism as being irrational, hopeless, meaningless, etc.
I'm not claiming I've read everything by you, though, but I sure haven't seen much of it at all in the past few months, contrariwise, I sure have seen a lot of quoting of myself, Loftus, etc. So if anything, I'm self-denigrating, not debasing Vitzthum.
I'm also obviously making fun of your "review"/summary of Vitzthum. I never picked out one of his quotes to say that he had misrepresented someone or some argument. I commended your "review" of this passage (and presumably the context and conclusions from the rest of the book) with sardonic wit to demonstrate how you had. I note that you, and many other here always take the "reductionism = no value" route. "If we're 'just atoms', there's no value to anything," (Paul's subjective value judgment). Of course, Vitzhum doesn't say this -- he says that human beings contain and assign value.
You further debase the idea of an unclosed physics as a foundation for our epistemology. But you fail to see that the method of science is what I (and most others I know) have "pledged allegiance" to, and am philosophically/epistemically committed to. The particular interpretations at the time from the best data available is tentative, as I've admitted a million times. I have never said one bad word to a theist who says, "Well the data and evidence point to X, but it could be revised in the future in light of new evidence." The fact is, theists never say this. The "data" is already in, and you either believe it in the framework that one of many theologies present, or you don't. So what bothers you is that while you claim surety [God is X, God did X, people are the products of a miracle 6,000 years ago, etc.], we scoff at it. While you claim the subject is closed, we claim knowledge of our universe, its history, our future, etc., is still very much open and that you are quite silly for thinking otherwise.
What you try to do is set up a false dichotomy to compare the atheist's "faith" in science, or a future physics, to give him surety [which I really don't seek -- I am skeptical of any such "final knowledge"], with your own. Where you fail is that skeptics reject dogma and authority as bases of knowledge, while those are foundational and functionally necessary for you. Those are the important points to make in contrasting epistemic POVs, and the fact that dogma /= science, and arguments/appeals to authority /= science.
Further, Vitzthum here doesn't bother to even give the most rudimentary and basic of explanations of neural processes, he doesn't care. He isn't explaining the fine points in brain states as qualia. He is only summarizing the amorality and indifference of the external universe, which I doubt even you disagree with. Do you think that clouds and coyotes have morals? He is, I would bet, in this chapter, portraying man as a heroic and unique being, rather than focusing on explanations of how we might attach value and significance to ourselves and our morality in light of physicalism and its commitments.
He also doesn't bother to get into type-token-identity distinctions with respect to the ability to reduce our "feelings" to unfeeling atoms in motion, and distinguishing between a component-dependent entity (feeling depends on nerves, brains, etc.), that is irreducible if one is to maintain any coherence, and something which is completely reducible (gold, which can be reduced to the atomic).
Of course, atoms are not rational. Brains can be.
Of course, atoms do not feel. People do.
Of course, atoms do not have "meaning", people assign meanings.
Do atoms rain? Are atoms "soft"? Should we throw out the usage of these terms, and make them meaningless, because we cannot reduce these things beyond certain phenomenal levels?
Now, can people agree on objective values and objective markers by which they can be rational, feeling, and assign value/meaning? Yes. Language, death, and money come to mind immediately. As you well know, if languages, definitions, propositions are not carefully constructed and agreed upon before engaging in arguments, there is no rationality. The same is true with value judgments.
What you always say is, "Why should I care about pain/death/your values? [While implying that you do care about whatever God has said]" The answer is the same as the reason you care about what a fictitious deity says -- your own self-interest. I can ask you -- "Why do you care what God says?" And you were asked this, I believe, in the debate, and said something along the lines of, "God is perfect and the final authority." This is still not answering the question -- why do you care what the final authority or the perfect Being says? Can't you just not care about anything? Well, of course you can.
The question is circular and obvious to everyone but you. If you "care" at all, if someone can convince you by argument at all, it means it is something that you were willing to think about, listen to, and consider. If you don't care, then you don't care, regardless of the power of the argument. And, all it really takes for you, and for me, is that something somehow affects us or others we care about. You only care to follow what you perceive as the final authority because there are consequences -- both good and bad. And that is what differentiates a moral or rational person from an immoral or irrational person -- their willingness to sit down and sort out the things which make sense, and which are "good" in each specific context, and say, "What are the consequences for me, and for others, if I do X?".
Why shouldn't you beat me and steal my car, you ask? You don't care about: 1) causing unnecessary harm, 2) seeing physical well-being as superior over emotional impulses and impetuous choices, 3) what may happen to you as a consequence of your choice, 4) contributing to society -- the effect of the symmetry of crime [prisoner's dilemma as it relates to societal order]. You say it requires, "cause God said so," as if this is something objective (far from it) and/or something which would motivate the man to whom none of the above were sufficient. You say that self-interest isn't enough, that we can't care about how something affects us, but we can still care if God wants it to happen or not? Why? You can't get past this point, that your own motivations must come from self-interest. You don't run to the aisle in repentance because it has no effect -- you only go because you think it does. Would you believe, or obey, if there were no cosmic, eternal consequences either way? If I showed you tomorrow that there is no God, would self-interest evaporate? Would you stop caring about yourself, what happened to you? Would you divorce your wife and be completely unrestrained and act upon your first impulses? That is reckless and self-endangering behavior.
Can we reduce caring any further than self-interest? You either care or you don't. Sadly, those here think that we have to give the "value of values", as ridiculous as the idea is. You either care or you don't. If you have no self-interest, then you have no interest in what is "good" for you, or for others.
You either see values as valuable or you don't, because if you don't, then you don't call them "values". No argument in all the world will convince an irrational or careless person that X is a valuable or moral action, if morality is not something they can or want to know and do.
We cannot reduce these concepts (feeling, meaning/value, caring, rationality) beyond the human being, for the same reason that we cannot reduce "red" beyond the wavelengths between 680-720nm -- because this is how it is defined by, perceived by and known by human beings. Sure, using the word "red" is arbitrary, so is using a "meter" and the Arabic numeral system. But these are all objective standards that we have agreed to use. The level of crime in a society, jail sentences, taking a life not in self-defense, these things are not "subjective experiences".
"Why should I care what you 'decide to call red'?" I see this question in the same light as I see your question, "Why should I behave morally?" If you admit something is moral, or red, then the motivation to do it, or define it as moral, or decide to adopt a color scheme, is what differentiates you as either moral or immoral, rational or irrational, color-concerned and color-informed or not.
What you (and CalvinDude, and everyone else who argues this way) cannot get around or past is that you decide that you will value what [you think] God said, and you base God's sayings on yet another value judgment of yours: that the Christian Bible/faith is the most reliable place to find out what God is/does/says. See, the "value of your values" is still intrinsic to Paul Manata. You can't get around the fact that while you demand for me to justify self-interest, it is irreducible, and you yourself are a slave to it as well. Your own ethics are just as "human based", at the foundation, as mine. That doesn't mean they are necessarily subjective, though. After all, even though the perception of red may be subjective, and the conventions we use to explain and define "red" are arbitrary, does that make redness any less objective? No. Same with morality, value, and rationality.
Of course, Vitzthum already admitted this, that these things don't reduce further than the human being, in his quote (which you mangled the context of):
Human thought and feeling is the most complex, versatile, adaptive, sensitive, perceptive, creative, purposeful, and voluntaristic product of terrestrial evolution and perhaps cosmic evolution as a whole... It creates all the value and meaning that humans find inside or outside of themselves. The material order outside of human self-enclosure and self-definition is empty of human value and meaning, consisting as it does of an aimless interplay of natural process dictated by invariable physical laws.
Anyway, I'll give you (and whoever else) the last word. Toodles, boys (any girls? I never met one on here).
Danny,
ReplyDelete" can quote you from your debate with Barker if you like, but I'll attempt to paraphrase you, "...Christianity is not just more rational than atheism...to say this would be an insult to my Lord...atheism is not rational at all..."
This doesn't suprise me, what, with your mishandeling of the Bible n all.
What did I say, Danny?
"Well, we'd have to define "irrational."
I'd consider them all wrong, but I wouldn't say their "irrational" on most definitions."
Did you bother to define rational Danny? No, you just carved a path through your forrest of beating theists at all cost, even if you must misrepresent them and their holy book.
Note the context as well. You said that I said atheISTS were irrational but then quote me as saying atheISM is irrational. This brings up the disticntion I drew in the debate between agent and belief rationality, but why should I expect you to follow the finer points of what I said?
Yes, the belief is irrational, thogh the agent may not be. I'd have you know, also, that in my longer opening, which I had to shorten for time, I made it a point to say that I did not think Barker was irrational in the sense that he was howling and barking at the moon.
So, without bothering to define our terms, Danny, we will get bogged down in a petty debate just like you've done above. My post deliberately asked for "rational" to be defined. You didn't bother to do that. I knew what I was doing, I plan my moves in advance, but all the caution in the world won't help when you're dealing with a kid who just wants to "beat a theist."
You should also note that I gave an example of irrationality (agent) where I said that denying an elephant in front of your face is irrational. And so I admitted that the atheist is irrational on this analysis. I suspect that you think the same of the theist. Or, do you not think the case and evidence for atheism is that compelling? Thus even in my post I admited that on some analysis atheists were irrational, but you went and quoted my debater to show that I contradicted myself. The problem was that we were not using the terms in the same way, and, secondly, your quote was about belief irrationality when you needed to show agent irrationality. The latter was found in my post *and not* in my debate.* Thus it appears you don't even know what you're talking about in this discussion. You charge off to war without the proper weapons and training. That's a sure way to get killed... intelelctually.
Anyway, so you know what I said in the debate, in context, here's a relevant portion:
"Lastly we should define ‘rationality.’ Well, what do we mean by ‘rational?’ This is not as clear as it would seem. For example, Blackwell’s “Companion to Epistemology” lists no less than nine different conceptions or meanings of what might be meant by ‘rationality.’ We can see very quickly how this is the case. I think most people would agree that a rough and ready idea of ‘rationality’ are beliefs or agents that are formed or guided by legitimate reasoning. But different types of legitimacy are considered appropriate for different types of reasoning. Thus what is legitimate for correct mathematical reasoning is different than what is legitimate for inductive reasoning, or, say, “means-end” views of rationality. In some cases what people mean by ‘rational’ are those beliefs which come from what philosophers refer to as “the deliverances of reason.” For example, the claim that “all bachelors are unmarried” is a deliverance of reason because it is self-evident in the sense that once you understand the definition of bachelor you understand the truth of that proposition, it’s true by logical structure. Neither Christianity or atheism seem to be ‘rational’ in this way, though."
"I can also dig through the archives and quote you on physicalism/materialism if you wish. Are you now admitting that the worldview of physicalism/materialism, and/or the conclusion of atheism, can be rational?
Of course not, but you're, again, talking about belief rationality and you originally began speaking about agent irrationality. I thing that, on some defintions, physicalists are just as rational as the next bloke. That is, they're not eating grass and howing at the moon, naked! On other interpretations of agent irrationality, they are.
As far as belief rationality goes, of course I think physicalism is irrational because I think they are involved in a self-referentially incoherent position. That is, I think their position is self-refuting. I think the undermine rationality, reason, logic, morality, beliefs and the mind, and therefore do not have the material needed to properly defend or express their view.
But, I supose you think some of the attributes of God are contradictory. Thus my belief in said deity would be irrational. And so I suspect that you think, on some levels, Christians are irrational in the belief rationality sense.
"I actually didn't say you didn't [read those guys], as I was focused on which arguments you choose to engage and spend your time on ..."
Well, what did you mean by this:
"These guys have invested thousands of dollars into classes and books and into the offering plate, yet they don't dig deep enough to smash their hands against bedrock."
Did you mean that if I don't write a blog entry on Kim that I'm not "digging deep enough?" That would be absurd! It appears that you mean that I don't read those guys, just the Vitzthums. If not, then you're very unclear and irdiculous. Ridiculous because I don't need to write a blog entry on Kim to "dig deep" in to physicalism. Indeed, would many be interested or able to follow a detailed critique of a Kim or Melnyk? No. And, most atheists do not read Melnyk either. A lot of the readers here do not come across an atheist whose read those guys. They come across the hoi polloi atheist. The ones like you. The ones with the bad arguments, the misrepresentations, and the sophomoric understanding of their own position. So, it's more helpful to deal with the hoi polloi atheist since most believers deal with the back woods atheist and not the Martin's or Melnyks.
"I note that you, and many other here always take the "reductionism = no value" route. "If we're 'just atoms', there's no value to anything," (Paul's subjective value judgment). Of course, Vitzhum doesn't say this -- he says that human beings contain and assign value."
Oh, so what you're saying is that you're taking issue with a straw man of my position.
My position is not that reductionism = no values (again, a quote would be nice). My position is, rather, that reductionism = no objective values but only subjective value assignment. So, the vales it places upon anything is arbitrary. Just like Dan telling us that "cosmically" (really) we're not better than broccoli, but that we still, here and now, assign more value to our kids than broccoli. So what! And, furthermore, we should note that this is living in a fantasy world. It's denying the way things "really are" because one doesn't like it and then assigning pretend value to something which really doesn't have it.
So, your argument is with people like Dan Barker here, not me. If you don't like me picking on those points then email those many atheists (who are far more learned and published than you) and tell them to keep their mouths shut because they're causing you to loose debates.
"You further debase the idea of an unclosed physics as a foundation for our epistemology. But you fail to see that the method of science is what I (and most others I know) have "pledged allegiance" to, and am philosophically/epistemically committed to."
Yes I know you are. The problem is that your scientism is self-refuting because knowing this claim is not something which can be known on the basis of the scientific method. It's a philosophical claim. You rob Peter to pay Paul.
Furthermore, I deny that there is any single scientific method (i.e., "the method"). As Larry Lauden has said, "I'm afraid the scientific method is a will-o-the-wisps." If I'm not mistaken, though, Steve's already taken you to task on this issue but you choose to wallow in your ignorance of the realism/anti-realism debate. So be it.
"While you claim the subject is closed, we claim knowledge of our universe, its history, our future, etc., is still very much open and that you are quite silly for thinking otherwise."
Question begging epithets are not a substitute for debate. Indeed, this entire claim is question-begging. That is, if an all-knowing being has reveald certain truths to us then we are certainly within our epistemic rights to say "case closed." To say we are silly for thinking otherwise is to deny our position form the start. But, the logical fallacy of petitio principii is not an arument and "you are quite silly for thinking otherwise."
I'd also add that it's quite naive to think that scientists always hold their beliefs tenatively. Do you really question or hold tenatively the idea that blood circulates? Also, cf. Chishom's discussion on "Right to be sure" in "Theory of Knowledge," pp. 116-18. Unfortunatley your response is autobiographical. That is, your above comment mainly succeeds in telling everyone how manifestly ignorant you are on the subjects you venture to engage.
"He is only summarizing the amorality and indifference of the external universe, which I doubt even you disagree with."
Unfortunatley, you show your ignorance again. "Amorality is reserved for very immoral actions, "non-moral" is the term you're looking for.
And, no I don't disagree. The problem is that you fail to follow the argument through. You see, you're nothing more than a more complex pile of matter than, say, dog poo.
"He also doesn't bother to get into type-token-identity distinctions with respect to the ability to reduce our "feelings" to unfeeling atoms in motion, and distinguishing between a component-dependent entity (feeling depends on nerves, brains, etc.), that is irreducible if one is to maintain any coherence, and something which is completely reducible (gold, which can be reduced to the atomic)."
The problem is that "feelings" cannot be reduced since they are only accessible first person. The brain and nerves can be studied third-person, but not *your* feelings.
"Of course, atoms are not rational. Brains can be.
Of course, atoms do not feel. People do.
Of course, atoms do not have "meaning", people assign meanings.
Problems:
i. These are mere assertions.
ii. The mind is rational. The brain is governed by causal laws of physics, the mind by laws of rationality.
iii. Of course I know people have feeling, etc., the question is does physicalims have the resources the account for this.
iv. To the extent that you do, the above are redefined, or totally done away with since they're hold overs to folk psychology.
"Now, can people agree on objective values and objective markers by which they can be rational, feeling, and assign value/meaning? Yes."
No, Danny. You don't get "objectivity" by voting. The easiest refutation of you here is that people will (and have!) vote on different values, morals, and "objective markers." You don't get to "vote" yourself into being rational. Rationality is not like politics. There's not different parties with opposing systems.
"As you well know, if languages, definitions, propositions are not carefully constructed and agreed upon before engaging in arguments, there is no rationality. The same is true with value judgments.
Wrong again Danny. People don't vote and agree on truth and rationality. You've just made laws of rationality and truth contingent upon humans, Danny. That is, you've just destroyed them.
Also, I think you're just talking to hear yourself. What does this have to do with anything?
"What you always say is, "Why should I care about pain/death/your values? [While implying that you do care about whatever God has said]" The answer is the same as the reason you care about what a fictitious deity says -- your own self-interest. I can ask you -- "Why do you care what God says?" And you were asked this, I believe, in the debate, and said something along the lines of, "God is perfect and the final authority." This is still not answering the question -- why do you care what the final authority or the perfect Being says? Can't you just not care about anything? Well, of course you can.
This sums up your ignoarnce. The question is, on what basis or standard should we listen to anyone. Who has the absolute authority to say what is right or wrong. Well, God does.
So, when I say, "why should I care about x" I'm asking, "on whose authority should I obey or follow x?" That is, who has the right to tel, me not to rape women? On my view I have a universal and absoulte, unchaning standard. You do not, Danny.
I know people don't *have* to listen to God if they don't want to, indeed my worldview says this is part of the problem. So, you don't "have" to care what god says, the problem is that you're (1) objectively wrong and (2) you will pay for violating His law. In your worldview (1) I'm subjectively wrong and (2) there is no ultimate justice. So, do try and understand your opponent and do try to put together an argument wich actually attacks his position. (Oh, btw, you said I won the debate.)
I'll have to end here because the rest is more mumbo-jumbo, based on your misunderstandings, it's late, and I'm bored. So I'll end with one last thing:
"Why shouldn't you beat me and steal my car, you ask? You don't care about: 1) causing unnecessary harm, 2) seeing physical well-being as superior over emotional impulses and impetuous choices, 3) what may happen to you as a consequence of your choice, 4) contributing to society -- the effect of the symmetry of crime [prisoner's dilemma as it relates to societal order]."
1) Unecessary for what? Who determines it's unnecessary? It was "necessary" for me to do that to satisfy my desires for *your* car.
2) Where did we get this distinction? So, I say, "Who says?" not "Who cares?" You can't just make up moral laws, Danny. Why? Because I'll do the opposite.
3) What may happen? I don't plan oin getting caught and I'll be able to get the girls when i role up in your nice Bently. Then I'll take it to the chop shop beofre anyone can do anything about it. Danny, you're so ignorant of the criminal underworld. It wouldn't be such a big business if (3) was a deterant.
Anyway, non-Christian teleological ethics have many problems. The fact the I the consequences *are* "bad" (note the theory already needs to know what is bad in order to say the outcome is bad!) doesn't mean I *ought* not do them.
And, as a reductio, what if the car theifs got in charge fo society? If they did they would reward me for taking your car. Thus the consequences would be "good" and so should I then, therefore, steal your car?
4) I contribute to the society of car theives. Why don't you? Again you must know what is wrong in order to even make this claim, but that's what your theory was supposed to prove!
And, Danny, I don't deny an existential element to my ethical choices. But my theory is much more robust than yours. An ethical theory needs more than right motive. It needs the right goal and standard. Unfortunately you can't provide an objective basis for any of these. And, with out the other two, your claim to self-interest is arbitrary and irrelevant.
I refer you to chapters 4-8 of the book by Frame (first set of links you come to):
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/ethics.html