In the Book of Revelation, Jesus speaks to a church that is lukewarm in this manner:
Revelation 3:16
So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.
In my mind, those included in this bunch will be liberal theologians, who mistakenly suppose that somehow the Bible’s historical narratives are not true, but merely metaphorical, and who believe that evolution is somehow compatible with Biblical Christianity (see related articles below).
On this second point, Richard Dawkins is on point – I am glad that he sees through the illogical position that you can somehow hold that both God is the creator and evolution is true.
In a recent WSJ article entitled Man vs. God: Two Prominent Thinkers Debate Evolution, Science, and the Role of Religion, Dawkins takes to task the mush that popular religion writer Karen Armstrong dishes up, desribing her logical predicament well:
“Now, there is a certain class of sophisticated modern theologian who will say something like this: “Good heavens, of course we are not so naive or simplistic as to care whether God exists. Existence is such a 19th-century preoccupation! It doesn’t matter whether God exists in a scientific sense. What matters is whether he exists for you or for me. If God is real for you, who cares whether science has made him redundant? Such arrogance! Such elitism….”
“Well, if that’s what floats your canoe, you’ll be paddling it up a very lonely creek,” Dawkins warns. “The mainstream belief of the world’s peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again.”
Al Mohler has an excellent discussion of this (A Tale of Two Atheists), and rightly concludes:
Clearly, this “certain class of sophisticated modern theologian” refers to those theologians who embrace theological non-realism. Dawkins clearly lumps Karen Armstrong in the same category of deluded theologians.
That is, if God is, at best, redundant in this world except as a subjective panacea disconnected from history and science, then God ‘has nothing to do,’ as Dawkins relates, and liberal theologians who agree are assigning God to the realm of ‘doesn’t have to be real to be true.’
Whatever happened to Aaron and James? The rantings of this right-wing, no-nothing paranoid are getting boring.
Hi Daniel:
It seems to me you both beg the question and argue against a strawman when you suggest that theistic evolutionists characterize the Bible's HISTORICAL narratives as metaphorical. There are plenty of theistic evolutionists who believe that much of the Bible IS historical including plenty of supernatural claims. Those people just deny that the Creation stories are historical at all. There is nothing "lukewarm" about that position, the passage you quote isn't even ABOUT such issues. It is undeniable that the Bible CONTAINS all kinds of literary genres, metaphorical stuff as well as historical. You beg the question when you claim that the Creation stories are history instead of mythology.
your friend
Keith
>> KEITH: when you suggest that theistic evolutionists characterize the Bible's HISTORICAL narratives as metaphorical.
I didn't, I said that was a characteristic of liberal theologians. Probably not clear.
>> KEITH: Those people just deny that the Creation stories are historical at all. There is nothing "lukewarm" about that position, the passage you quote isn't even ABOUT such issues.
I understand your point, but all I said was that in my mind, they are lumped together, perhaps because of the same unreasonable outcome – they are not logically consistent.
>> KEITH: It is undeniable that the Bible CONTAINS all kinds of literary genres, metaphorical stuff as well as historical.
I agree, but the problem with evolutionary believers is that by accepting evolution as true, they basically have to reduce the creation story to a metaphor rather than seeing it as a historical narrative.
While Jesus and other bible authors talk about Adam and Eve, for instance, as real people, evolutionary believers have to pretty much metaphorize them.
I am probably not making my point well, but I think that Dawkins criticism of theistic evolution is on point, and it is, in my opinion, the weakest theological and scientific position of all, bearing all of the weaknesses of the two poles it tries to straddle.
And I agree with Dawkins on this point – and that such religionists are worse than the Creationists, for their position is less logically tenable, and their position reduces God to a meaningless panacea.
Hi Daniel:
1. Regarding theological liberals: there is a wide range of people on the theological "left". I expect that there exist quite a few of them who believe some of the supernatural events in the Bible. It is an extreme faction that disbelieves ALL the supernatural stuff.
2. Regarding the so-called logical inconsistency of (in theistic evolution?): what inconsistency? You suggest the inconsistency is that Jesus refers to Adam and Eve as real people whereas theistic evolutionists have to see them as metaphors. A couple of comments:
A. Not necessarily. A person COULD believe that Adam and Eve were real people who were created from the dust of the earth VIA evolution, that God breathed his spirit into them which transformed them spiritually into something more than mere animal. I know of a Christian philosopher (I can't remember his name) who believes just that. This philosopher is not a liberal but he agrees with biologists that the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly solid.
B. It could be that Jesus AS Jesus had the same limited knowledge of scientific fact and the same (false) presuppositions about the literalness of the Adam and Eve story as the rest of his culture had. Even though Jesus is God (the 2nd person of the Trinity) there were things that Jesus AS the Incarnated one didn't know. There's no reason to imagine he knew Einstein's Relativity and there's no reason to believe he knew the (at the time non-existent) English language. Nothing essential is lost if the Creation Story is mythological, nor if Jesus at the time wrongly believed it to be historical.
3. How is theistic evolution LOGICALLY untenable. I see no contradictory beliefs implied by the view. Dawkins is wrong about this as well as so many other points, actually. It seems to me that this is just another false inference he draws.
your friend
Keith
"It is an extreme faction that disbelieves ALL the supernatural stuff."
Like Thomas Jefferson?
Hi Cin:
"It is an extreme faction [within Christianity] that disbelieves ALL the supernatural stuff."
Like Thomas Jefferson?
Yes.
your friend
Keith
Well then, thank God for extremists like Thomas Jefferson and their non-supernatural values.
An interesting take by Sullivan.
Hi Cineaste:
I rather like Jefferson myself but I don't see how his non-supernaturalism has anything to do with his values.
your friend
Keith
In an earlier conversation you said you believe moral values are grounded in the supernatural. Presumably, that's why you label people like Thomas Jefferson and I, who don't hold supernatural beliefs, as extremists.
Hi Cin:
You wrote: In an earlier conversation you said you believe moral values are grounded in the supernatural. Presumably, that's why you label people like Thomas Jefferson and I, who don't hold supernatural beliefs, as extremists.
That's not at all my reasoning. A couple of commentsd are due:
1. When I called Christians who disbelieved in the supernatural "extremists" I used that term RELATIVE to the overall Christian community. The overwhelming majority of Christians believe at least some of the supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened, the anti-supernatural view is an extreme minority within self-declared Christians.
2. When I claimed that moral truth is grounded in the supernatural, this in no way implies that a person must BELIEVE in the supernatural to have moral values.
3. I would not call you an extremist at all. You seem to be a moderate liberal. Louis is somewhat less liberal than you I would say, while Aaron is slightly less than moderate conservative. Daniel is definitely NOT a moderate conservative and I am definitely far left, much farther left than our President and probably much farther to the left than Aaron and anie,l are to the right. My instincts are moderate but my ideology is not.
your friend
Keith
Hi Keith, your response raised more questions than it answered for me.
"…the anti-supernatural view is an extreme minority within self-declared Christians."
So then, what makes this very small minority "extreme?"
Do Thomas Jefferson and I fit into this small group of Christians who don't hold supernatural beliefs? For example, I try to live by the moral values put forth in the Sermon on the Mount and in some parts of the bible. I also live by the morals of other religions/philosophies like Buddhism, The Enlightenment, and the Age of Reason. Am I a Christian if I declare myself so? I think Aaron would disagree because he doesn't allow for Christians who don't hold beliefs in the supernatural (miracles, resurrections, virgin births, etc.) but do you?
"When I claimed that moral truth is grounded in the supernatural, this in no way implies that a person must BELIEVE in the supernatural to have moral values."
And if the supernatural does not exist, can one still have moral values? If not, why? What exactly is the relationship between the supernatural and moral values and what are you basing this on?
"I would not call you an extremist at all."
Hmmmm, when you say "It is an extreme faction that disbelieves ALL the supernatural stuff" I'd say that describes me well, Christian or not. There really is dissonance between your two statements.
Hi Cin:
Continuing the discussion:
"…the anti-supernatural view is an extreme minority within self-declared Christians."
So then, what makes this very small minority "extreme?"
I was thinking about the Standard Normal Distribution fromm statistics, the Bell Curve if you will. The non-supernaturalist verson of Christianity is far from the center of that curve.
Do Thomas Jefferson and I fit into this small group of Christians who don't hold supernatural beliefs? For example, I try to live by the moral values put forth in the Sermon on the Mount and in some parts of the bible. I also live by the morals of other religions/philosophies like Buddhism, The Enlightenment, and the Age of Reason. Am I a Christian if I declare myself so? I think Aaron would disagree because he doesn't allow for Christians who don't hold beliefs in the supernatural (miracles, resurrections, virgin births, etc.) but do you?
I say that anyone who believes himself to be following jesus can properly call himself a Christian. This doesn't mean he is actually practicing what Jesus really taught. But do you really IDENTIFY yourself as a Christian? I wam wondering if you consider "extremism" to be a negative quality. I wasn't using the term like that.
"When I claimed that moral truth is grounded in the supernatural, this in no way implies that a person must BELIEVE in the supernatural to have moral values."
And if the supernatural does not exist, can one still have moral values? If not, why? What exactly is the relationship between the supernatural and moral values and what are you basing this on?
This is a metaphysical question we have debated before. I am convinced of these things: (a) there is an objective moral reality, (b) if God didn't exist then everything WOULD be permissible and (c) God does in fact exist. When I used to be an atheist, I disbelieved (b) and (c) but still believed in (a).
"I would not call you an extremist at all."
Hmmmm, when you say "It is an extreme faction that disbelieves ALL the supernatural stuff" I'd say that describes me well, Christian or not. There really is dissonance between your two statements.
It's all context and connotation, friend Cin. When I mae the comment you just quoted I took the word "extremist" to be a negative description, sort of how i would describe Muslim extremists (or the abortion clinic bombing Christian extremists). Your political view seems moderate/liberal and you seem to me to be an open minded person willing to discuss things with people you disagree with. The "extremist" as an epithet doesn't fit you. On the other hand, if you DO self-identify as a Christian and yet don't believe in any of the supernatural claims associated with Christianity, I would say you are on the far end of the Christian Bell Curve.
your friend
Keith
"I was thinking about the Standard Normal Distribution fromm statistics, the Bell Curve if you will. The non-supernaturalist verson of Christianity is far from the center of that curve."
So what you meant to say was "an extremely small minority" instead of "an extreme faction." You are not describing the views of those who have no supernatural beliefs as "extreme" but only their numbers as "extremely few." Am I right?
And if the supernatural does not exist, can one still have moral values?
Answer: (b) if God didn't exist then everything WOULD be permissible
That's a "no." But why can't you have an objective morality without the supernatural? What exactly is the relationship between objective morality and supernatural beings? It seems to me A,B, and C are simply assertions (what you believe) without a foundation.
>> CIN: And if the supernatural does not exist, can one still have moral values? Answer: (b) if God didn’t exist then everything WOULD be permissible….That’s a “no.” But why can’t you have an objective morality without the supernatural? What exactly is the relationship between objective morality and supernatural beings? It seems to me A,B, and C are simply assertions (what you believe) without a foundation.
I would first turn the question around. Show me how you arrive at the existence and identification of objective morals.
The philosophical argument around needing an external source (theism) for objective morality has been well developed. There is no LOGICAL materialist argument for the assertion that morals are objective. However, since most sane people admit that at least some of the greater moral truths are objective, they MUST rely on religious/supernatural presuppositions. Logically, they must.
See, for instance, What William Lane Craig is Right About (Common Sense Atheism):
In The Case for Objective Morality (strongatheism.net), the author attempts to argue for objective morality from reason without theism, but ends up merely asserting that ‘There cannot be any argument on whether there are objective moral principles: it’s a discussion about as ridiculous as asking whether the Earth exists. We all need to act to survive.’
Strangely, he asserst his bottom line for morality (survival), but he goes on to debunk the evolutionary argument for objective morals:
Essentially, it seems that atheistic morality has to be rooted in a strange Utilitarian survivalist rubric. But one of the many problems with this approach is that:
a. you still have no means for identifying wrong or right unless you know the consequences
b. if you focus on consequences, you end up with ‘the ends justifying the means’
For a very interesting discussion of the limits of Utilitarianism, read or listen to (mp3) the series of short vignettes on Utilitarianism (Probe.org)
More on Moral Arguments for the Existence of God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):
For a long argument about why God is logically necessary for establishing objective morals, see
Bradley Monton, an atheist philosopher who supports the scientific merit of Intelligent Design, has written a nice short post on Atheism and objective morality, with this conclusion:
Hi Cin:
"I was thinking about the Standard Normal Distribution fromm statistics, the Bell Curve if you will. The non-supernaturalist verson of Christianity is far from the center of that curve."
So what you meant to say was "an extremely small minority" instead of "an extreme faction." You are not describing the views of those who have no supernatural beliefs as "extreme" but only their numbers as "extremely few." Am I right?
I'm not sure what the difference is. The word "extremist" does have a connotation though of unreasonableness and I was definitely not trying to imply that.
CIN FROM BEFORE: And if the supernatural does not exist, can one still have moral values?
Answer: (b) if God didn't exist then everything WOULD be permissible
That's a "no."
How is that? If there were no supernatural a person could still VALUE behaving in those way that we conventionally call moral.
But why can't you have an objective morality without the supernatural? What exactly is the relationship between objective morality and supernatural beings? It seems to me A,B, and C are simply assertions (what you believe) without a foundation.
This would get us back into the metaphysical thornbush we were in before. Do you want to go another round? :-)
your friend
Keith
"The word "extremist" does have a connotation though of unreasonableness and I was definitely not trying to imply that."
Well, in the future please try to choose your words more carefully. When you use a term like "an extreme faction" that certainly does have "a connotation of unreasonableness." For example, for the sake of clarity say "small minority" instead. It's very easy to construe "extreme faction" negatively. Especially, given the context. One can easily characterize Tea Baggers as an "extreme faction" of republicans ("extreme" here describing their views not their numbers).
"How is that? If there were no supernatural a person could still VALUE behaving in those way that we conventionally call moral."
Sure. That's not objective morality though.
"This would get us back into the metaphysical thornbush we were in before. Do you want to go another round? :-)"
Sure! I'll even extend my hand to help you off the mat. I do enjoy this topic. Can we start with my questions? Why can't you have an objective morality without the supernatural? What exactly is the relationship between objective morality and supernatural beings?
Hi Cin:
Cineaste said…
"The word "extremist" does have a connotation though of unreasonableness and I was definitely not trying to imply that."
Well, in the future please try to choose your words more carefully. When you use a term like "an extreme faction" that certainly does have "a connotation of unreasonableness."
Yes mother:-)
Seriously though, I am a pacifist. It seems to me that this view is both extreme AND reasonable in that we pacifists are perfectly willing to consider arguments against it and we do not demonize those who disagree with us. So I don't hear the phrase "an extreme minority" to carry the connotation that the word "extremist" might carry.
Why can't you have an objective morality without the supernatural? What exactly is the relationship between objective morality and supernatural beings<?i>
I see it like this. If reality can be summed up as matter following the laws of physics, then agent causality doesn't exist–people do not make choices, they just do what physics makes their brains and bodies do. Without choice there is no such thing as moral significance. Maybe chemicals and genetics make people FEEL as if there is moral significance, maybe this feeling can be explained by evolution (I leave aside the problems of consciousness emerging from unconscious matter for a different time) but it would not actually BE moral significance since moral significance requires people can actually choose their actions. Thus on naturalistic atheism there is no real moral significance. That's how I see it.
So given the fact of real moral significance, there must be something beyond naturalism.
Hows that for a start?
your friend
Keith
…we [pacifists] do not demonize those who disagree with us.
Even Quakers are capable of negatively stereotyping those without supernatural beliefs as "extremists." When you characterize them as, "an extreme faction" readers don't immediately relate that to Standard Normal Distribution from statistics, right? Their first thought is that you are characterizing this group of people, or faction, as being "extreme."
"So given the fact of real moral significance, there must be something beyond naturalism."
Objective morality is a fact? That's still up for debate. And, even if objective morality is a fact, your conclusion sounds like wishful thinking because it just inserts the supernatural as a solution i.e., moral significance therefore, supernatural beings. It's like; fairy rings therefore, fairies. That's not logical.
hi Cin:
About the contrast between extreme political/religious ideas and extremely uncommon political/religious ideas. What is the difference?
About objective morality: I say it's a fact, you say that's up for debate. I don't know how the question CAN BE debated. For example, you might cite evolutionary psychology as an explanation for the moral instinct. I would say that whatever instinct evolution could produce, that thing it produces is not the same thing as moral significance. Moral significance is about what you SHOULD do, and evolution can at best tell you what IS not what SHOULD BE. IT seems to me there is no place for a debate to even begin–if you don't believe that things have real moral significance then the discussion must end.
your friend
Keith
"About the contrast between extreme political/religious ideas and extremely uncommon political/religious ideas. What is the difference?"
The former is usually negative. The latter, not necessarily so.
"About objective morality: I say it's a fact, you say that's up for debate. I don't know how the question CAN BE debated."
It's been up for debate for thousands of years, Keith. "Man is the measure of all things." – Protagoras Or, what about Hume and Spinoza?
Anyway, here is just one example of how the question can be debated if you are interested…
Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape (1997) – Michael Martin
"Moral significance is about what you SHOULD do, and evolution can at best tell you what IS not what SHOULD BE."
Are you paraphrasing, "You can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'"?" Hume, right?
"IT seems to me there is no place for a debate to even begin–if you don't believe that things have real moral significance then the discussion must end."
Well, I certainly don't want to end the discussion so soon. We just started. So, for the sake of discussion I'll grant that moral objectivity is a fact, though I think that's debatable. Anyway, even if objective morality is a fact, your conclusion sounds like wishful thinking because it just inserts the supernatural as a solution i.e., moral significance therefore, supernatural beings. The existence of moral objectivity no more necessitates a supernatural being than money under a pillow necessitates the Tooth Fairy or presents under a tree necessitates Santa.
Hi Cin:
"About the contrast between extreme political/religious ideas and extremely uncommon political/religious ideas. What is the difference?"
The former is usually negative. The latter, not necessarily so.
I understand that people take it that way, what I am trying to understand is why? It seems to me that as a matter of strict logic there is no difference between an extreme view and an extremely uncommon view.
"About objective morality: I say it's a fact, you say that's up for debate. I don't know how the question CAN BE debated."
It's been up for debate for thousands of years, Keith. "Man is the measure of all things." – Protagoras Or, what about Hume and Spinoza?
I'm only 51 years old so I missed a lot of the earlier discussion, but it seems to me that all we can offer is dueling assertions as to whether or not there is objective morality. I'll check out your link below though.
Anyway, here is just one example of how the question can be debated if you are interested…
Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape (1997) – Michael Martin
"Moral significance is about what you SHOULD do, and evolution can at best tell you what IS not what SHOULD BE."
Are you paraphrasing, "You can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'"?" Hume, right?
More or less, I guess.
"IT seems to me there is no place for a debate to even begin–if you don't believe that things have real moral significance then the discussion must end."
Well, I certainly don't want to end the discussion so soon. We just started. So, for the sake of discussion I'll grant that moral objectivity is a fact, though I think that's debatable. Anyway, even if objective morality is a fact, your conclusion sounds like wishful thinking because it just inserts the supernatural as a solution i.e., moral significance therefore, supernatural beings. The existence of moral objectivity no more necessitates a supernatural being than money under a pillow necessitates the Tooth Fairy or presents under a tree necessitates Santa.
Well actually there are a COUPLE of premises to my argument, one of them is the objective morality thing, the other is this. I claim that if reality is nothing but matter following the laws of the universe (i.e. if naturalism is true) then there would NOT be any objective morality. This is because IF reality is nothing but matter following then people do not really choose things, their actions are just as determined by physical law as the burning of the sun is. Real moral significance presupposes choosing.
Combining both of those premises entails naturalism is false, which entails supernaturalism is true. That's not wishful thinking, it's just what follows from the premises.
your friend
Keith
It seems to me that as a matter of strict logic there is no difference between an extreme view [Nazi] and an extremely uncommon view [pacifist].
"…all we can offer is dueling assertions as to whether or not there is objective morality."
LOL! That's what makes it debatable and not a fact.
"I claim that if reality is nothing but matter following the laws of the universe (i.e. if naturalism is true) then there would NOT be any objective morality."
1. If A (naturalism) is true then B (objective morality) is false.
"Well actually there are a COUPLE of premises to my argument, one of them is the objective morality thing…"
2. B (objective morality) is true. [granted for the sake of discussion]
"Combining both of those premises entails naturalism is false, which entails supernaturalism is true."
3. Therefore, C (supernatural beings) exist.
Four points…
First, I don't agree with your 1st premise. I think objective morality and naturalism are not mutually exclusive any more than I think supernatural creatures/beings (supernaturalism) and moral objectivity is mutually exclusive.
Second, I don't agree with your second premise because I think the issue of objective morality vs. subjective morality is debatable. It could even be a combination of both. I only grant you this premise because I don't want it to be a conversation killer.
Third, if naturalism is false, that doesn't necessitate fairies, angels, gods, etc. It just leaves a gap that can be filled with anything the imagination can conjure.
Fourth, the structure of your argument is invalid. Above, I tried to frame it as a modus tollens or modus ponens, but I couldn't get it into a valid argument. If you could structure it logically, that would help me understand your argument better. Your argument is, If A, then not B. B therefore, C? That doesn't follow.
P.S. Keith, I might not be able to respond on Monday but I will on Tuesday. Peace be with you! (See? I still retain some of my Catholicism. If I claim I am a Christian, am I?)
Hi Cin:
A handful of comments on your response:
KEITH:…all we can offer is dueling assertions as to whether or not there is objective morality."
CIN: LOL! That's what makes it debatable and not a fact.
KEITH: This reminds me of the old Monty Python skit where the guy wants an argument and his opponent just answers "no it's not" to every thing the guy says. I suppose you can call that debating if you want to:-)
About the logic of my argument. I didn't actually say the argument entails the existence of supernatural beings, I said it entails the existence of the supernatural. You don't agree with the two premises of the argument; I don't see how you can fail to believe at least one of them (the one about the incompatibility of naturalism with objective morality). Impasse. But about God vs. atheism, all I can say is that the world view of most atheists I know seems to be naturalism so any refutation of naturalism disqualifies that atheism. You don't see it as refuted, but I am convinced it is.
your friend
Keith
"This reminds me of the old Monty Python skit where the guy wants an argument and his opponent just answers "no it's not" to every thing the guy says. I suppose you can call that debating if you want to:-)"
I think that's an unfair exaggeration. I'm not just saying, "no it's not" to everything you say. The problem is that when it comes to objective morality, it is as you've stated, "all we can offer is dueling assertions" about the nature of objective morality. That's the case whenever we talk about gods as well. It's debatable.
"I didn't actually say the argument entails the existence of supernatural beings, I said it entails the existence of the supernatural."
Alright. What do you mean by "the supernatural" if not supernatural beings?
"I don't see how you can fail to believe at least one of them (the one about the incompatibility of naturalism with objective morality)."
Please don't be so closed minded about this. Atheism is compatible with objective morality 2 minutes
Also, even if I grant both of your premises, the conclusion does not follow from the premises of your argument in it's current form.
hi Cin:
KEITH: This reminds me of the old Monty Python skit where the guy wants an argument and his opponent just answers "no it's not" to every thing the guy says. I suppose you can call that debating if you want to:-)"
CIN: I think that's an unfair exaggeration. I'm not just saying, "no it's not" to everything you say. The problem is that when it comes to objective morality, it is as you've stated, "all we can offer is dueling assertions" about the nature of objective morality. That's the case whenever we talk about gods as well. It's debatable.
KEITH: I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about "dueling assertions" not BEING debating. It seems to me there is no way to objectively settle the issue of the existence of objective morality. That's all I was saying.
KEITH: "I didn't actually say the argument entails the existence of supernatural beings, I said it entails the existence of the supernatural."
CIN: Alright. What do you mean by "the supernatural" if not supernatural beings?
KEITH: The supernatural (if it exists) would be that which is beyond what naturalism claims to be the whole of reality. So let me express the argument:
1. Objective morality exists.
2. By definition the existence of objective morality requires agents who can make actual decisions about how to behave.
3. If reality were nothing but matter following the laws of physics (i.e. if naturalism were true) there would not be any authentic decisions–all of your actions would be like rocks falling under the effect of gravity.
4. Those premises entail that naturalism is not true, therefore there is something beyond what naturalism claims is true. By definition this means supernaturalism.
KEITH: "I don't see how you can fail to believe at least one of them (the one about the incompatibility of naturalism with objective morality)."
CIN: Please don't be so closed minded about this. Atheism is compatible with objective morality 2 minutes
KEITH; I am not trying to be close minded. I am simply saying that naturalism seems to me incompatible with an essential characteristic of objective morality: authentic choice. I am open minded enough to consider the possibility that I am wrong abuot this, but when I think a bout it it still seems to me I am right.
CIN: Also, even if I grant both of your premises, the conclusion does not follow from the premises of your argument in it's current form.
KEITH; I think it does but my above version of the argument makes explicit what I took to be implicit in the premises of my orginal articulation.
your friend
keith
"It seems to me there is no way to objectively settle the issue of the existence of objective morality. That's all I was saying."
LOL! Keith! That's why it is debatable and not a fact. That's all I was saying. :)
"2. By definition the existence of objective morality requires agents who can make actual decisions about how to behave."
No, that's incorrect IMO. I linked to why. Atheism is compatible with objective morality
"3. If reality were nothing but matter following the laws of physics (i.e. if naturalism were true) there would not be any authentic decisions–all of your actions would be like rocks falling under the effect of gravity."
I think that's incorrect as well. It sounds like you are conflating naturalism with determinism. Einstein thought the universe worked like what you describe. He never did come to grips with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. There is a randomness that exists in physics that can't be ignored. Einstein never learned that lesson. He wasn't open minded enough to think of physics in this new way.
Moreover, even if I grant #3 (which I don't) there is compatibilism.
Compatibilism, as championed by the ancient Greek Stoics, Hobbes, Hume and many contemporary philosophers, is a theory that argues that free will and determinism exist and are in fact compatible. Remember Hume who you paraphrased as saying "you can't get and 'is' from an 'ought'?" Well, he would beg to differ.
"4. Those premises entail that naturalism is not true, therefore there is something beyond what naturalism claims is true. By definition this means supernaturalism."
If naturalism is false, that doesn't necessitate fairies, angels, gods, etc. It just leaves a gap [something beyond what naturalism claims is true] that can be filled with anything the imagination can conjure.
"I am open minded enough to consider the possibility that I am wrong abuot this, but when I think a bout it it still seems to me I am right."
When you say things like, "I don't see how you can fail to believe at least one of them (the one about the incompatibility of naturalism with objective morality)" it does make me feel that you have not really considered the arguments for naturalism and objective morality being compatible. You've gone so far as to claim moral objectivity is a fact and that you "don't know how the question CAN BE debated." What do you think about the video that I linked to? Please keep an open mind about it.
"I think it does but my above version of the argument makes explicit what I took to be implicit in the premises of my orginal articulation."
I still don't think it's valid, Keith. Let's grant, for the sake of discussion, that naturalism is not true ("Those premises entail that naturalism is not true"). You then say, "therefore there is something beyond what naturalism claims is true." I don't think that's necessarily so because all you've done is show that naturalism is not true. It does not automatically follow that supernaturalism [which includes supernatural beings since they too are "beyond natural"] is true. If naturalism is not true, we are left with a giant gap in our knowledge of how things work, but that's all.
I'll deal with your atheist morality link, but I have to say, it is very weak. Here's a summary of a debate between WLC and an atheist on this subject. There is SO much stuff on atheism, objective morality, and xianity that it is going to take some time for me to boil it down. But this summary is useful, since it presents both sides in brief format:
Is God necessary for morality?
Hi Cineaste:
1. I don't agree with compatiblism, which is to say, whatever it is that a person whose behavior is the product of matter + the laws of physics does, I wouldn't use the phrase "choose stuff" to describe it. So when I talk about choice this is definitely not compatible with determinism. Nor is it compatible with indeterminism. On indeterminism there is a degree of randomness in the way things behave, but a random action is ALSO not chosen.
2. In your comment you seem to think the supernatural implies the existence of supernatural beings. I don't think so. Supernaturalism just means that SOMETHING beyond naturalism exists. Assuming my argument establishes that something exists beyond what is contemplated by naturalism, it BY DEFINITION establishes supernaturalism. On the other hand, on my argument, choosing stuff IS beyond naturalism, so any beings that make authentic decisions COULD be called supernatural beings. Like you and me for example.
3. You seem to think that because I do not think one can create a persuasive ARGUMENT for or against the existence of objective morality therefore I am close-minded about that topic. I don't see how. I am always open to hearing any argument you might have that objective morality doesn't exist, or any argument that it does.
your friend
Keith
1. "…whatever it is that a person whose behavior is the product of matter + the laws of physics does, I wouldn't use the phrase "choose stuff" to describe it."
Why not? We can have a few beers together and after too many, our behavior and the choices we make change. That means that chemistry, physical laws, do influence our will and the choices we make. You can be very inebriated but the choice to drink and drive is still YOUR choice. You can't just blame the alcohol and say the chemicals robbed me of my free will.
Also, we have to get past the uncertainty principle before we even discuss determinism. The reason is that this principle makes determinism very questionable. Nothing is predetermined as you've described it, "there would not be any authentic decisions–all of your actions would be like rocks falling under the effect of gravity." From a naturalist's perspective, determinism is unlikely.
2. 2. In your comment you seem to think the supernatural implies the existence of supernatural beings. I don't think so. Supernaturalism just means that SOMETHING beyond naturalism exists.
Like I asked before, if not supernatural beings what exactly do you mean by "SOME THING beyond?" Who or what is beyond? I think you can just fill in the blank with your imagination, right?
"Assuming my argument establishes that something exists beyond what is contemplated by naturalism…"
But it doesn't. Not only is your argument invalid, but it's unsound. I'd like ask that you to please put it into Modus Ponens so that it's valid at least.
"…any beings that make authentic decisions COULD be called supernatural beings. Like you and me for example."
This makes no sense. You and I could be called supernatural beings? Keith, booze and LSD is a bad combo. You should lay off :)
3. "You seem to think that because I do not think one can create a persuasive ARGUMENT for or against the existence of objective morality therefore I am close-minded about that topic."
No, that's not what I think at all. I think you are not open to the arguments of subjective morality because you've already made up your mind that objective morality is true. You've already made up your mind that naturalism and objective morality are incompatible. Indeed, you don't even see how I can fail to believe you. These issues are very debatable and have been for thousands of years by heavy hitting philosophers.
"I am always open to hearing any argument you might have that objective morality doesn't exist…"
Well, actually I agreed with you when you said, "It seems to me there is no way to objectively settle the issue of the existence of objective morality. That's all I was saying." So, you won't hear an argument from me about that. But you say you are open minded to hearing arguments. With an open mind, please tell me what you thought of Atheism is compatible with objective morality I thought it was succinctly put.
Hi Cin:
1. First things first: I just finished listening to "Atheism is compatible with objective morality". I have to say I was not impressed. Here is why. His argument was SUPPOSED to be a rebuttal to the theist claim that on atheism there is no objective right or wrong. I assume you agree that a response of the form "there is too!" would NOT be a legitimate ARGUMENT to support the claim that that on atheism there can be an objective morality. But that's really all the argument the video supplied. It offers utilitarianism, which is the principle that we OUGHT to do what promotes the greatest good for the greatest number. But that itself is an ethical principle, and it would not be exempt from whatever problems atheism would provide to any other ethical system. Offering utilitarianism does nothing to address the theistic claim that on atheism anything (even anti-utilitarianism) is morally permissible.
Now the guy in the video can claim whatever he wants. He can claim that the proper moral principle is utilitarianism and that this moral principle would hold even if naturalism is true. But he hasn't presented an ARGUMENT to that effect so I see no reason to be persuaded by his claim.
2. About humans as supernatural beings: I don't see why you mock that idea. Assuming as I do that choosing things is incompatible with my actions being determined by the laws of physics (being in part random quantum events), then every choice we make is something beyond naturalism. Every choice we make would be BY DEFINITION a supernatural act. The reason you think that's nuts is because you don't believe in the supernatural and you probably assume that supernuralism HAS to mean things like ghosts or mind reading or spell casting and stuff like that.
3. About supernaturalism just meaning something beyond naturalism, about that leaving open a gap we can fill with our imaginations. That would apply to naturalism too so long as we don't already KNOW all the laws of nature. Any gaps in our knowledge COULD be filled by our imaginations (science fiction writers do it all the time even thought they usually write as if naturalism is true). The fact is, I BELIEVE that there is the supernatural being known as God. But my argument doesn't IMPLY God's existence. But if my argument is sound then we can properly conclude that God is more likely to exist than if naturalism were still a viable option. This is because a whole set of atheistic possibilities are eliminated.
your friend
Keith
Heya Keith,
"I have to say I was not impressed."
I had a million to one odds that you would be. :) I thought the video was very direct. I don't understand your reply though. How is it that if you don't believe in supernatural somethings beyond nature that everything is morally permissible? That sounds really sketchy.
"Assuming as I do that choosing things is incompatible with my actions being determined by the laws of physics (being in part random quantum events), then every choice we make is something beyond naturalism."
However, our actions are not determined. The uncertainty principle makes a deterministic universe highly improbable. That is why Einstein spent his last days futility trying to shoehorn physics into his deterministic world view. I don't see why you think choice and naturalism are incompatible unless you equate naturalism with Einstein's "God does not play dice" view.
…every choice we make is something beyond naturalism.
Except when we choose to drink and drive, take Prozac, etc. It's all too clear that our choices, which according to you are supposed to be "beyond naturalism" are influenced by substance.
"…you probably assume that supernuralism HAS to mean things like ghosts or mind reading or spell casting and stuff like that."
When you use language as incredibly vague as "something beyond naturalism" well, the only limit to that is your imagination. When I ask you for specifics I get more of the same, "it's something beyond naturalism." Well ya, that's the definition. :P
"Any gaps in our knowledge [of naturalism] COULD be filled by our imaginations…"
Yes, that's the proverbial "God of the gaps." We don't know how life came to be. Oh, "God did it." Before evolution, the answer to how species came to be was, "God did it." But those gaps are getting fewer and farther between because science explains more and our knowledge grows. That's a good thing, IMO.
"But if my argument is sound…"
Not even valid.
"That would apply to naturalism too so long as we don't already KNOW all the laws of nature."
The main point is this; even if we know nothing at all about the laws of nature, that doesn't necessitate "something beyond nature." Even if we don't know how the presents under the tree got there, that doesn't necessitate the existence of "something beyond nature." Like Santa. :)
your skeptical friend,
Cineaste
Heya Keith,
KEITH: I have to say I was not impressed."
CIN: I had a million to one odds that you would be. :) I thought the video was very direct. I don't understand your reply though. How is it that if you don't believe in supernatural somethings beyond nature that everything is morally permissible? That sounds really sketchy.
KEITH: It was a safe bet because I am old, smart and have encountered most of the main arguments already. So I probably would have been impressed already before I heard THIS guy make the argument:-) If I see a NEW argument I might be more impressed. But as to your question, let me make sure I am clear: I am not saying that BELIEF in the supernatural is necessary for objective morality. I am saying that if the supernatural doesn't exist then everything is morally permissible.
KEITH: "Assuming as I do that choosing things is incompatible with my actions being determined by the laws of physics (being in part random quantum events), then every choice we make is something beyond naturalism."
CIN: However, our actions are not determined. The uncertainty principle makes a deterministic universe highly improbable.
KEITH: On quantum mechanics there is a degree of randomness to the way matter behaves but that doesn't rescue choice. A random action is no more chosen than is a determined action.
KEITH: ..every choice we make is something beyond naturalism.
CIN: Except when we choose to drink and drive, take Prozac, etc. It's all too clear that our choices, which according to you are supposed to be "beyond naturalism" are influenced by substance.
KEITH: I'd say that alcohol affects your perceptions and judgment, no doubt (I do have some experience in this area). When the drunk decides to make advances to the woman who would not interest him if he were sober, this is because of his impaired judgment. In a sense he is facing a different set of choices than the sober man who recognizes the negative consequences of pursuing the woman. The sober man has a fuller understanding of the costs of the pursuit and chooses NOT to suffer those costs. The drunk is blind to those costs and plunges full speed ahead. But I would say the drunk STILL has some degree of choice. If he did not then his actions would not be morally significant (although the choice to drink in the first place might be).
KEITH: "…you probably assume that supernuralism HAS to mean things like ghosts or mind reading or spell casting and stuff like that."
CIN: When you use language as incredibly vague as "something beyond naturalism" well, the only limit to that is your imagination. When I ask you for specifics I get more of the same, "it's something beyond naturalism." Well ya, that's the definition. :P
KEITH: Incredibly vague? it IS the definition! Supernaturalism means nothing more than the existence of SOMETHING beyond naturalism!
KEITH: "Any gaps in our knowledge [of naturalism] COULD be filled by our imaginations…"
CIN: Yes, that's the proverbial "God of the gaps."…
KEITH: I am talking about NATURALISM of the gaps. Naturalism is just as prone to gapism as supernaturalism is.
KEITH: "But if my argument is sound…"
CIN: Not even valid.
KEITH: so you say…
KEITH: "That would apply to naturalism too so long as we don't already KNOW all the laws of nature."
CIN: The main point is this; even if we know nothing at all about the laws of nature, that doesn't necessitate "something beyond nature." …
KEITH: That's not my argument. My argument is about MORALITY, not gaps in our scientific knowledge.
CIN: Even if we don't know how the presents under the tree got there, that doesn't necessitate the existence of "something beyond nature." Like Santa. :)
KEITH: But my argument doesn't suggest such.
your friend
Keith
your skeptical friend,
Cineaste
"If I see a NEW argument I might be more impressed."
His argument was good. You were not impressed because his argument was old. Old arguments are not necessarily unimpressive. The odds of you being impressed were a million to one because you've already made up your mind that atheism and objective morality are incompatible.
"On quantum mechanics there is a degree of randomness to the way matter behaves but that doesn't rescue choice. A random action is no more chosen than is a determined action."
Because there is a degree of randomness in the way matter behaves that means nothing is predetermined. Without determinism, that leaves room for choice. You still think naturalism is deterministic, but it most likely isn't.
"I'd say that alcohol affects your perceptions and judgment…"
…which affect the choices we make. Prozac is an anti-depression drug that affects "happiness." Prozac is not "beyond natural." If someone has a stroke and it alters their personality, is that change "supernatural" or is it physical? In my opinion, prozac, alcohol, etc are not "beyond nature." I say again, "It's all too clear that our choices, which according to you are supposed to be "beyond naturalism" are influenced by substance."
"But I would say the drunk STILL has some degree of choice."
Of course! Like I said before, "You can't just blame the alcohol and say the chemicals robbed me of my free will." You have to admit that the physical has an affect on the choices we make. Even our genes can influence our temperament.
"Incredibly vague? it IS the definition!"
ROTFLMAO! And by definition "beyond natural" includes everything from Superman to universal mysticism. "Beyond natural" is a term that encompasses anything you can imagine. It's like me asking where did you park your car and you answer "Earth."
"I am talking about NATURALISM of the gaps. Naturalism is just as prone to gapism as supernaturalism is."
Those naturalism gaps, AKA what we don't know yet, are filled with the supernatural as an answer. That's how superstitions get started.
"so you say…"
So I know. Your argument is not in a valid form and you haven't been able to do anything to correct it. Suggestion: try Modus Ponens.
"That's not my argument. My argument is about MORALITY, not gaps in our scientific knowledge."
I thought your argument was naturalism is false, therefore supernaturalism is true. Remember, you said, "Combining both of those premises entails naturalism is false, which entails supernaturalism is true." And again, that's invalid. Also, even if it was valid, it's unsound because you haven't shown naturalism is false. Here is what I have so far…
1. Objective morality exists.
(you simply assert this)
2. By definition the existence of objective morality requires agents who can make actual decisions about how to behave.
(do you mean supernatural agents or people or both?)
3. If reality were nothing but matter following the laws of physics (i.e. if naturalism were true) there would not be any authentic decisions–all of your actions would be like rocks falling under the effect of gravity.
(this is determinism which is very unlikely because of the uncertainty principle)
4. Those premises entail that naturalism is not true, therefore there is something beyond what naturalism claims is true. By definition this means supernaturalism.
(Invalid, if naturalism is not true that does not necessitate "something beyond" Also, science (naturalism) does work. You are typing on a computer after all.)
Therefore, C (something beyond nature) exist. (Anything one can imagine)
Hi Cin:
CIN: I thought your argument was naturalism is false, therefore supernaturalism is true. Remember, you said, "Combining both of those premises entails naturalism is false, which entails supernaturalism is true." And again, that's invalid. Also, even if it was valid, it's unsound because you haven't shown naturalism is false. Here is what I have so far…
KEITH; That indeed is my argument. Either naturalism is true or it is false. I claim that on my argument it is false. I claim that means there must be something beyond naturalism, I call that something "supernaturalism". You seem to object to that terminology but I don't see why. Below you say that even if naturalism is false that doesn't necessitate "something beyond" naturalism. I have to know what you mean by "something beyond". I'd say that if naturalism isn't true then reality must be MORE than what naturalists claim. If reality were EQUAL to naturalism then naturalims would be true. I have no idea what you could even MEAN by a claim that reality is less than naturalism, so that leaves "more than naturalism".
Below you present my argument. Let me respond;
THE ARGJMENT SAYS: 1. Objective morality exists.
CIN RESPONDS: (you simply assert this)
KEITH ANSWERS: This is a PREMISE of my argument, something that I take to be self evidently true. I know that you and others dispute this premise but it still seems true to me and I have never seen a good reason to reject it.
ARGUMENT: 2. By definition the existence of objective morality requires agents who can make actual decisions about how to behave.
CIN: (do you mean supernatural agents or people or both?)
KEITH: At this point in the argument there'd been no mention of supernatural anything. All I was talking about was the existence of agents who can make actual decisions. I assert that we people are among that set of deciding agents–we make decisions.
ARGUMENT:3. If reality were nothing but matter following the laws of physics (i.e. if naturalism were true) there would not be any authentic decisions–all of your actions would be like rocks falling under the effect of gravity.
CIN: (this is determinism which is very unlikely because of the uncertainty principle)
KEITH: You keep going on about the uncertainty principle but that's entirely beside the point. Nothing I said above conflicts with the uncertaintly principle. Determinism vs. indeterminism is irrelevant to my point. if reality were purely deterministic then our behaviors woould be mechanically produced and not the result of our choices. If reality were purely INDETERMINANT then our actions would be random and stil lwould not be the result of any choosing. Modern physics holds that there is some degree of randomness within the laws of physics, but either way none of our actions would be CHOICES.
ARGUMENT: 4. Those premises entail that naturalism is not true, therefore there is something beyond what naturalism claims is true. By definition this means supernaturalism.
CIN: (Invalid, if naturalism is not true that does not necessitate "something beyond" Also, science (naturalism) does work. You are typing on a computer after all.)
KEITH: Science is not the same thing as naturalism. Science is an epistemological process, naturalism is an ontological claim.
your friend
Keith
"I call that something "supernaturalism". You seem to object to that terminology but I don't see why."
I don't think I can be any clearer. Haven't I said that "something beyond nature" is incredibly vague? That it can mean anything that the imagination can conjure? That is like me asking where is your car and you answer "Earth?" That "something beyond nature" can includes everything from Superman to a universal mysticism and everything in between? Yet, you can't give me any specifics. I think it's because you have no specifics, right? What exactly is this "something beyond nature" to which you refer?
"I have to know what you mean by "something beyond"."
LOL! Keith, it's your terminology. You tell me.
"You keep going on about the uncertainty principle but that's entirely beside the point. …either way none of our actions would be CHOICES."
If our actions are not determined, then why wouldn't our actions be choices?
"Science is not the same thing as naturalism. Science is an epistemological process, naturalism is an ontological claim."
Actually Keith, naturalism is both. Wiki reference if interested.
"I'd say that if naturalism isn't true then reality must be MORE than what naturalists claim. If reality were EQUAL to naturalism then naturalims would be true. I have no idea what you could even MEAN by a claim that reality is less than naturalism, so that leaves "more than naturalism".
This is all irrelevant. You're argument is, "naturalism is false, therefore supernaturalism is true." [Keith: That indeed is my argument.]
It can be summed up like this…
1. A is false.
Therefore, B is true.
I'm sorry to say, that just doesn't logically follow. It's invalid. Just because A is false does not mean B is true. You need to have premises for "B is true." All you have are premises, unsound ones I might add, that "A is false." My suggestion, try again with a valid structure like Modus Ponens. I'm sorry to keep harping on this but we are not going to get anywhere if your argument is invalid. I'm trying to help you, Keith.
"Objective morality exists: This is a PREMISE of my argument, something that I take to be self evidently true."
That's all well and good but it's NOT self evidently true. For example, this guy I spoke with a few posts ago, also named Keith said this about objective morality, "It seems to me there is no way to objectively settle the issue of the existence of objective morality." I happened to agree with that Keith. He makes a lot of sense. But which Keith should I believe now? :)
Hi Cin:
KEITH: "I call that something "supernaturalism". You seem to object to that terminology but I don't see why."
CIN:I don't think I can be any clearer. Haven't I said that "something beyond nature" is incredibly vague? That it can mean anything that the imagination can conjure? That is like me asking where is your car and you answer "Earth?" That "something beyond nature" can includes everything from Superman to a universal mysticism and everything in between? Yet, you can't give me any specifics. I think it's because you have no specifics, right? What exactly is this "something beyond nature" to which you refer?
KEITH: Your car location analogy is correct, Cin. That's my point. Naturalism claims reality is limited in a certain way, it doesn't allow for certain possibilities. My argument proves that naturalism is false, leaving open those possibilities.
KEITH: "You keep going on about the uncertainty principle but that's entirely beside the point. …either way none of our actions would be CHOICES."
CIN: If our actions are not determined, then why wouldn't our actions be choices?
KEITH: Because actions that are chosen ARE determined–by the chooser.
KEITH: : "Science is not the same thing as naturalism. Science is an epistemological process, naturalism is an ontological claim."
CIN: Actually Keith, naturalism is both. Wiki reference if interested.
KEITH: I'll look up what wikipedia says but our experi3nce only established the epistemological effectiveness of science.
KEITH: "I'd say that if naturalism isn't true then reality must be MORE than what naturalists claim. If reality were EQUAL to naturalism then naturalims would be true. I have no idea what you could even MEAN by a claim that reality is less than naturalism, so that leaves "more than naturalism".
CIN: This is all irrelevant. You're argument is, "naturalism is false, therefore supernaturalism is true." [Keith: That indeed is my argument.]
It can be summed up like this…
1. A is false.
Therefore, B is true.
I'm sorry to say, that just doesn't logically follow. It's invalid. Just because A is false does not mean B is true.
KEITH: It does when there are only two alternatives. That was the point of the stuff you called irrelevant–to show that the choice is between naturalims and (the vaguely defined) supernaturalism.
CIN: You need to have premises for "B is true." All you have are premises, unsound ones I might add, that "A is false." My suggestion, try again with a valid structure like Modus Ponens. I'm sorry to keep harping on this but we are not going to get anywhere if your argument is invalid. I'm trying to help you, Keith.
KEITH; I am am beginning to tire of your patronizing tone Friend Cin. You are wrong about the logical structure of my argument I am guessing because you keep making unwarranted and unexamined assumptions about what is entailed by supernaturalism.
KEITH: "Objective morality exists: This is a PREMISE of my argument, something that I take to be self evidently true."
CIN: That's all well and good but it's NOT self evidently true. For example, this guy I spoke with a few posts ago, also named Keith said this about objective morality, "It seems to me there is no way to objectively settle the issue of the existence of objective morality." I happened to agree with that Keith. He makes a lot of sense.
KEITH; There is no conflict between saying that something is self evident and saying there is no way to objectively demonstrate it. The latter just means that if someone is goofy enough to deny the self-evident there is nothing I can do about it:-) I am kind of kidding in this last part, but thinking would be impossible if you NEVER took ANYTHING to be self-evident and if unless someone can give you a good reason to see that you are wrong about what is self-evident you have no reason to reject it. That's what objective morality is to me and you haven't given me reason to think otherwise.
your friend
Keith
Hi Cin:
I looked up your wikireference. It distinguishes between METHODOLOGICAL naturalism vs. ONTOLOGICAL naturalism. We have been of course discussing the ontological version.
Keith
Naturalism claims reality is limited in a certain way, it doesn't allow for certain possibilities. My argument proves that naturalism is false, leaving open those possibilities.
Like fairies.
"CIN: If our actions are not determined, then why wouldn't our actions be choices?
KEITH: Because actions that are chosen ARE determined–by the chooser."
And if they are determined, at least in part by people and not for us by the physical, that means free will can co-exist with naturalism.
"It does when there are only two alternatives."
It's like saying, "If evolution is false, then creationism is true." It does not follow that if evolution is false then creationism is automatically true. Also, if there really were only two choices then the inverse of your argument would be true as well, that if supernaturalism were false, then naturalism would be true. That does not follow either. There is ALWAYS the possibility of the supernatural because it's impossible to show either way. I think you set up a false dichotomy.
"I am am beginning to tire of your patronizing tone Friend Cin. You are wrong about the logical structure of my argument…"
You cannot hear my tone. You can't tell if I was being honest or patronizing. You mistook me, Keith. I'm honestly trying to get to a valid argument because I'd rather debate your premises, which are unsound IMO, than argue structure. But, the validity of an argument must be verified before we get into the premises. With that, I can offer you my help because I don't think your argument is valid. You are literally thinking in black and white, IMO. Like, night is false, therefore day is true. You can see what is wrong with that argument.
"…but thinking would be impossible if you NEVER took ANYTHING to be self-evident and if unless someone can give you a good reason to see that you are wrong about what is self-evident you have no reason to reject it."
It's self-evident that all men are mortal. It is NOT self evident that objective morality exists. That's why there are people who say, "Man is the measure of all things."
"That's what objective morality is to me and you haven't given me reason to think otherwise."
As I said before, "Well, actually I agreed with you when you said, "It seems to me there is no way to objectively settle the issue of the existence of objective morality. That's all I was saying." So, you won't hear an argument from me about that." That's why I think you are not open-minded about the existence of objective morality. You've made up your mind about it. You even go so far as to say it's self-evident. Me, I don't know if it exists or if it doesn't. It seems to me that it co-exists with subjective morality. So, I don't agree with your first premise, not because I haven't argued against the existence of objective morality, but because you present no arguments for it other than to be mystified about how I don't believe your premise.
I'm talking about METHODOLOGICAL naturalism. ONTOLOGICAL naturalism is just an assertion either way.
"It's self-evident that all men are mortal."
Actually, no it's not. Is it?
KEITH: Naturalism claims reality is limited in a certain way, it doesn’t allow for certain possibilities. My argument proves that naturalism is false, leaving open those possibilities.
CIN: Like fairies.
KEITH: What is your point with that comment?
“CIN: If our actions are not determined, then why wouldn’t our actions be choices?
KEITH: Because actions that are chosen ARE determined–by the chooser.”
CIN: And if they are determined, at least in part by people and not for us by the physical, that means free will can co-exist with naturalism.
KEITH: No, because on naturalism, all you have is matter following the laws of physics. The laws of physics include the uncertainty principle, which is to say that there is some degree of indeterminancy, some degree of randomness, but random actions are not determined actions, chosen actions ARE determined.
KEITH: “It does when there are only two alternatives.”
CIN: It’s like saying, “If evolution is false, then creationism is true.”
KEITH: It’s not like saying that at all. It’s more like saying that IF an unplanned origin of the universe is false then a PLANNED universe must be true.
CIN: …Also, if there really were only two choices then the inverse of your argument would be true as well, that if supernaturalism were false, then naturalism would be true.
KEITH: Exactly!
CIN: That does not follow either. There is ALWAYS the possibility of the supernatural because it’s impossible to show either way. I think you set up a false dichotomy.
I’d say you are wrong. There is a PERFECT dichotomy between naturalism and supernaturalism. If naturalism is false then what do you think would BE an alternative to supernaturalism?
KEITH: “I am am beginning to tire of your patronizing tone Friend Cin. You are wrong about the logical structure of my argument…”
CIN: You cannot hear my tone. You can’t tell if I was being honest or patronizing.
KEITH: I assume you were being both. That part about your trying to help me was a patronizing comment.
CIN: : You mistook me, Keith. I’m honestly trying to get to a valid argument because I’d rather debate your premises, which are unsound IMO, than argue structure. But, the validity of an argument must be verified before we get into the premises. With that, I can offer you my help because I don’t think your argument is valid. You are literally thinking in black and white, IMO. Like, night is false, therefore day is true. You can see what is wrong with that argument.
KEITH: I can see I am going to have to spell it out for you (note the patronizing tone of this). Here goes:
1. Definition: A = objective morality exists
2. Definition: B = authentic choice exists
3. Definition: C = naturalism is true
4. Definition: supernaturalism = not-naturalism
5. If A then B (that is to say, if objection morality exists then authentic choice exists)
6. If C then not-B (if naturalism is true then authentic choice does NOT exist.
7. A is true (Objective morality exists)
8. Therefore B is true (follows from “if A then B”)
9. Therefore C is false (follows from the contrapositive of “If C then not-B”) in other words, naturalism is false, therefore not-naturalism is true. BY definition (4) this means supernaturalism is true.
There is nothing at all invalid about the logical form of the argument.
KEITH: “…but thinking would be impossible if you NEVER took ANYTHING to be self-evident and if unless someone can give you a good reason to see that you are wrong about what is self-evident you have no reason to reject it.”
CIN: It’s self-evident that all men are mortal. It is NOT self evident that objective morality exists. That’s why there are people who say, “Man is the measure of all things.”
KEITH; here you claim that if ANYONE doesn’t agree that something self-evident then it is not self-evident. By that principle, self-evidence can be refuted by finding a schizophrenic to disagree with the most obvious truth. There is no reason to assume that people cannot disagree about what things are self-evident.
KEITH: “That’s what objective morality is to me and you haven’t given me reason to think otherwise.”
CIN: As I said before, “Well, actually I agreed with you when you said, “It seems to me there is no way to objectively settle the issue of the existence of objective morality. That’s all I was saying.” So, you won’t hear an argument from me about that.” That’s why I think you are not open-minded about the existence of objective morality. You’ve made up your mind about it. You even go so far as to say it’s self-evident. Me, I don’t know if it exists or if it doesn’t. It seems to me that it co-exists with subjective morality. So, I don’t agree with your first premise, not because I haven’t argued against the existence of objective morality, but because you present no arguments for it other than to be mystified about how I don’t believe your premise.
KEITH: In other words, you and I disagree about what is self-evident. I would claim that there are things that YOU think are self-evident that I don’t. For example, you surely think it’s self evident that I am not open minded about the existence of objective morality. Otherwise, please offer a logically valid argument to support your belief that I am close-minded on the topic.
your friend
Keith
“What is your point with that comment?”
That fairies, in part, is the conclusion of your argument. Fairies are indeed, “something beyond nature.”
“The laws of physics include the uncertainty principle, which is to say that there is some degree of indeterminancy, some degree of randomness, but random actions are not determined actions, chosen actions ARE determined.”
Again, this means that naturalism and free will are compatible. Actions are not completely determined; set in stone from the instant of the big bang, because of the uncertainty principle. That means our actions are our own. That doesn’t make them random actions. Can you provide an example of a “random action” someone can make so that I know what you are talking about when you say this?
“I can see I am going to have to spell it out for you (note the patronizing tone of this).”
Noted. Feel better? Now, let’s go through your argument. This helps but I think you are going to have to spell your argument out even more…
1. Definition: A = objective morality exists
[does it? What if it’s subjective? What if it’s a combination? Some morality is objective: boiling babies for pleasure is wrong. Some morality is subjective: based on social norms]
2. Definition: B = authentic choice exists
[does it? What if every action is determined by a chain of cause and effect and choice is just an illusion?]
3. Definition: C = naturalism is true
[I think it is, at least partly. We know that naturalism, “nature,” exists. So if the existence of matter is self evident, that means naturalism is true. From Wiki, “Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. “Nature” refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.” An alternative would be the supernatural co-existing with the natural, in another dimension or something, where natural entities can’t perceive the supernatural ones. I think that’s highly improbable but I don’t assert supernaturalism doesn’t exist.]
4. Definition: supernaturalism = not-naturalism
[The inverse of this, naturalism = not-supernaturalism, is not true. It’s possible they co-exist.]
5. If A then B (that is to say, if objection morality exists then authentic choice exists)
[I don’t think B follows from A. Is not a morality that is subjective, that reflects social convention, also an authentic choice as long as it’s determined by the individual and not a chain of causality?]
6. If C then not-B (if naturalism is true then authentic choice does NOT exist.
[There’s no way -B follows from C here. Just because matter follows the laws of physics does not mean free will doesn’t exist. Everything we know of follows the laws of physics. Our brains follow the laws of physics. If you are like Einstein, and believe that all choices were predetermined in the first instant of the big bang, then there would be no free will. However, the uncertainty principle makes that very unlikely. The uncertainty principle doesn’t make our choices “random.” The uncertainty principle simply breaks the chain of causality from the first instant of the big bang thereby making our choices authentic; not predetermined by prior cause.
7. A is true (Objective morality exists)
[Maybe it does, either partly or wholly. This is an assertion on your part though and it has no foundation. I don’t think it’s self evident, it’s rather debatable as evidenced by the amount of philosophical debate on the matter over the millennium.]
8. Therefore B is true (follows from “if A then B”)
[What you have in parenthesis is just repeating #5 so I have the same comments about it]
9. Therefore C is false (follows from the contrapositive of “If C then not-B”) in other words, naturalism is false, therefore not-naturalism is true. BY definition (4) this means supernaturalism is true.
[This would be valid if it was not a false dichotomy, IMO. I think that naturalism and supernaturalism are not mutually exclusive. We know that matter exists. Matter is not supernatural. At most, one can argue that natural and supernatural coexist. The alternative would be that there are only natural things and no supernatural things.]
There are some things that I disagree with more than others but they include objections about the validity of your argument as well as the soundness.
“…here you claim that if ANYONE doesn’t agree that something self-evident then it is not self-evident. By that principle, self-evidence can be refuted by finding a schizophrenic to disagree with the most obvious truth.”
How about some of the greatest minds in history: Einstein, Hume, Spinoza, etc.? Are all of them schizophrenics? There is even an entire branch of moral philosophy called “moral relativism” that holds the opposite is true, all morality is subjective.
“There is no reason to assume that people cannot disagree about what things are self-evident.”
Indeed, to a mad man it’s self evident that he is Napoleon. I’d certainly disagree with him.
“In other words, you and I disagree about what is self-evident.”
Yes, you are in the theist’s camp and I’m in the skeptic’s camp. Along with objective morality, you also believe God’s existence is self-evident and I don’t. I bring that up because I know that you believe god’s existence is somehow tied to morality, though you can’t say exactly how. Apparently, that too is self-evident but only to theists.
“For example, you surely think it’s self evident that I am not open minded about the existence of objective morality.”
You mean “non-existence of objective morality.” And no, that’s not self evident. Maybe you are open-minded, but you just don’t act like it with me. You continue to be mystified that I don’t believe your assertion of 7. A is true (Objective morality exists). Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t, maybe morality is a combination of subjective and objective.
Your friend, Cineaste.
P.S. You may not like my tone sometimes, but don’t ever think that I’m mocking when I call myself your friend.
Hi Cin:
CIN: That fairies, in part, is the conclusion of your argument. Fairies are indeed, “something beyond nature.”
KEITH: My argument doesn’t lead to the conclusion that fairies exist.
KEITH: “The laws of physics include the uncertainty principle, which is to say that there is some degree of indeterminancy, some degree of randomness, but random actions are not determined actions, chosen actions ARE determined.”
CIN: Again, this means that naturalism and free will are compatible. Actions are not completely determined; set in stone from the instant of the big bang, because of the uncertainty principle. That means our actions are our own.
KEITH: That doesn’t follow at all.
CIN: That doesn’t make them random actions. Can you provide an example of a “random action” someone can make so that I know what you are talking about when you say this?
KEITH; I am talking about stuff like the spontaneous decay of a radioactive atom or the trajectory of an atom moving through space. On determinism the exact location of the atom is fixed from the beginning, on quantum indeterminism where it ends up exactly is a matter of chance. Being a matter of chance is incompatible with being DETERMINED by choice.
KEITH: “I can see I am going to have to spell it out for you (note the patronizing tone of this).”
CIN: Noted. Feel better? Now, let’s go through your argument. This helps but I think you are going to have to spell your argument out even more…
KEITH; I feel the same. I believed I need to let you know that I was offended by the way you presented your case, what you do with that is your business.
THE ARGUMENT: 1. Definition: A = objective morality exists
CIN: [does it? What if it’s subjective? What if it’s a combination? Some morality is objective: boiling babies for pleasure is wrong. Some morality is subjective: based on social norms]
KEITH: It is valid for you to questions the premises of my argument. I listed the argument to demonstrate that the logic of my argument was valid. I do not agree with you that some morality is subjective.
ARGUMENT: 2. Definition: B = authentic choice exists
CIN: [does it? What if every action is determined by a chain of cause and effect and choice is just an illusion?]
KEITH: Another fair question, but I believe we DO have choice. Again, since this is a premise of my argument, whether or not the premise is true doesn’t affect the LOGICALLY VALIDITY of the argument.
CIN: 3. Definition: C = naturalism is true
[I think it is, at least partly. We know that naturalism, “nature,” exists. So if the existence of matter is self evident, that means naturalism is true. From Wiki, “Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. “Nature” refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.”
KEITH: Nature is not the same as naturalISM. Naturalism says that all reality is matter plus the laws of physics.
CIN: An alternative would be the supernatural co-existing with the natural, in another dimension or something, where natural entities can’t perceive the supernatural ones. I think that’s highly improbable but I don’t assert supernaturalism doesn’t exist.]
ARGUMENT; 4. Definition: supernaturalism = not-naturalism
[The inverse of this, naturalism = not-supernaturalism, is not true. It’s possible they co-exist.]
KEITH: I disagree entirely that naturalism is compatible with supernaturalism. The words are antonyms.
ARGUMENT: 5. If A then B (that is to say, if objection morality exists then authentic choice exists)
CIN: [I don’t think B follows from A. Is not a morality that is subjective, that reflects social convention, also an authentic choice as long as it’s determined by the individual and not a chain of causality?]
KEITH: Of course. I didn’t say that IF there’s authentic choice THEN there’s objective morality. Subjective morality is compatible with agent choice. But objective morality is not compatible with LACK of authentic choice.
ARGUMENT: 6. If C then not-B (if naturalism is true then authentic choice does NOT exist.
CIN: [There’s no way -B follows from C here. Just because matter follows the laws of physics does not mean free will doesn’t exist. Everything we know of follows the laws of physics. Our brains follow the laws of physics. If you are like Einstein, and believe that all choices were predetermined in the first instant of the big bang, then there would be no free will. However, the uncertainty principle makes that very unlikely. The uncertainty principle doesn’t make our choices “random.” The uncertainty principle simply breaks the chain of causality from the first instant of the big bang thereby making our choices authentic; not predetermined by prior cause.
KEITH: You are misunderstanding the implications of the uncertainty principle IMO. But here you are just denying a PREMISE of my argument. Whether or not the premise is true doesn’t affect the logical validity of the argument.
ARGUMENT: 7. A is true (Objective morality exists)
CIN: [Maybe it does, either partly or wholly. This is an assertion on your part though and it has no foundation. I don’t think it’s self evident, it’s rather debatable as evidenced by the amount of philosophical debate on the matter over the millennium.]
ARGUMENT: 8. Therefore B is true (follows from “if A then B”)
CIN: [What you have in parenthesis is just repeating #5 so I have the same comments about it]
KEITH: Strictly speaking, I didn’t repeat (5). (5) said that A => B. This statement says B is true. The logical chain is A & [A => B], therefore B.
ARGUMENT: 9. Therefore C is false (follows from the contrapositive of “If C then not-B”) in other words, naturalism is false, therefore not-naturalism is true. BY definition (4) this means supernaturalism is true.
CIN: [This would be valid if it was not a false dichotomy, IMO. I think that naturalism and supernaturalism are not mutually exclusive. We know that matter exists. Matter is not supernatural. At most, one can argue that natural and supernatural coexist. The alternative would be that there are only natural things and no supernatural things.]
KEITH: WE are quibbling over the term “supernaturalims”, specifically about the ISM part. I really don’t know what YOU mean by the term. What I mean is the negation of naturalism.
CIN;: here are some things that I disagree with more than others but they include objections about the validity of your argument as well as the soundness.
keith: For my argument to be invalid, it has to be that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. All you have done so far is to challenge the premises. Please show me where GIVEN MY PREMISES the argument goes wrong. It seems to me the logic was perfect and perfectly simple: A => B, C => not-B, A is true, therefore B is true, therefore C is false.
KEITH: “…here you claim that if ANYONE doesn’t agree that something self-evident then it is not self-evident. By that principle, self-evidence can be refuted by finding a schizophrenic to disagree with the most obvious truth.”
CIN: How about some of the greatest minds in history: Einstein, Hume, Spinoza, etc.? Are all of them schizophrenics?
KEITH: What is your point with this question? That THEY don’t agree with me about the self-evidence of objective morality? All I was saying HERE was that your construal of self-evidency produces absurd results IMO.
CIN: There is even an entire branch of moral philosophy called “moral relativism” that holds the opposite is true, all morality is subjective.
KEITH; Yes. Those people do not agree with me that objective morality is self-evident. I don’t see the problem, people disagree all the time.
KEITH: “There is no reason to assume that people cannot disagree about what things are self-evident.”
CIN:Indeed, to a mad man it’s self evident that he is Napoleon. I’d certainly disagree with him.
KEITH; What is the point of this comment (that I agree with you about, so long as the mad man isn’t named Napoleon:-)
KEITH: “In other words, you and I disagree about what is self-evident.”
CIN: Yes, you are in the theist’s camp and I’m in the skeptic’s camp. Along with objective morality, you also believe God’s existence is self-evident and I don’t. I bring that up because I know that you believe god’s existence is somehow tied to morality, though you can’t say exactly how. Apparently, that too is self-evident but only to theists.
KEITH: Even before I was a theist I believed in objective morality.
KEITH: “For example, you surely think it’s self evident that I am not open minded about the existence of objective morality.”
CIN: You mean “non-existence of objective morality.” And no, that’s not self evident. Maybe you are open-minded, but you just don’t act like it with me. You continue to be mystified that I don’t believe your assertion of 7. A is true (Objective morality exists). Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t, maybe morality is a combination of subjective and objective.
KEITH: It’s not your disbelief in (7) that mystifies me. It is your previously stated disbelief in (5).
CIN: Your friend, Cineaste.
P.S. You may not like my tone sometimes, but don’t ever think that I’m mocking when I call myself your friend.
KEITH: I never thought otherwise, friend Cin. Really.
your friend
Keith
Hi Cin:
Let me try again to clarify what I am saying about naturalism and choice and how the uncertainty principle is irrelevant to the issue. Consider a collection of atoms. On the classical Newtonian view, future movement of every atom is precisely caused by previous interactions between atoms. If you knew the exact location and velocity of every atom you could derive from the laws of physics the exact behavior of the collection of atoms. I contend that THAT would be incompatible with authentic choice.
But of course such determinism doesn't fit with the Uncertainty Principle. On the uncertainty principle, the behavior of the collection of atoms isn't entirely caused by the interactions between atoms. There is a degree of acausality to the way the atoms will move in the future. But the only thing that means is that SOME part of the behavior was NOT caused by the collection of atoms, that while the laws pf physics determine the general location and velocity of the atoms in the collection, the precise location is a random event.
On naturalism, what we are IS a collection of atoms. Inasmuch as our atoms are following the laws of physics we didn't CHOOSE the behavior. And inasmuch as our atoms are randomly located within the margin provided by the Uncertainty Principle we didn't choose the behavior either. The only way you can get Free Will and Choice out of naturalism is if you define "free will" according to compatiblism. I don't use the phrase that way.
your friend
Keith
"My argument doesn't lead to the conclusion that fairies exist."
You conclude that "something beyond nature" exists; what we call "the supernatural." This can include magic, fairies, Santa, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and anything else one can imagine. Just take your pick. At least naturalism doesn't allow for all these nonsensical critters. Your argument does.
"I am talking about stuff like the spontaneous decay of a radioactive atom or the trajectory of an atom moving through space."
So, what did you mean when you said "A random action is no more chosen than is a determined action." Maybe you are right and a random action is indeed not chosen but can you provide an example of someone making a random action that is not chosen so i know what you are talking about? If you are referring to atoms, then what do atoms have to do with the word "chosen?" They are just atoms, after all.
"I believed I need to let you know that I was offended by the way you presented your case, what you do with that is your business."
I took no offense. I turned the other cheek :) If you took offense just know that it wasn't intended. I really was trying to help you out by suggesting Modus Ponens.
"Nature is not the same as naturalISM. Naturalism says that all reality is matter plus the laws of physics."
Naturalism is inextricably tied to nature. All naturalism is, is the belief that only nature exists. Everything is natural. All supernaturalism is, is the belief that nature plus the supernatural exists. To show that NATURALISM is false, you must either show that nature itself is false [which you can't] or you must show that the supernatural co-exists with nature. It's not an either or thing. Your argument is invalid. It's a false dichotomy because nature(naturalism) and the supernatural can co-exist.
"I disagree entirely that naturalism is compatible with supernaturalism. The words are antonyms."
No, for naturalism and supernaturalism to truly be antonyms, supernaturalism would have to be the belief that all reality is supernatural as naturalism is the belief that all reality is natural.
"5. If A then B (that is to say, if objection morality exists then authentic choice exists)… Of course. I didn't say that IF there's authentic choice THEN there's objective morality. Subjective morality is compatible with agent choice."
So this premise could also have been, If subjective morality exists, then authentic choice exists.
"WE are quibbling over the term "supernaturalims", specifically about the ISM part. I really don't know what YOU mean by the term. What I mean is the negation of naturalism."
I know what you mean but your argument is invalid here. Supernaturalism is not a negation of naturalism. They are not antonyms.
Naturalism = Nature(X) + 0
Supernaturalism = Nature(X) + "something beyond nature"(Y)
Naturalism IS nature and nothing else, just nature: (X) + 0 = (X). To show naturalism is wrong, you'd have to show (X)+(Y):co-existence OR (-X) a negation of Nature(naturalism). Your argument is: nature is false(-X) therefore, nature(X)+(Y)supernatural.
KEITH: Even before I was a theist I believed in objective morality.
Even though non-theism and objective morality are incompatible?
Keith, I can't finish this post tonight. I didn't get to your 2nd post. I'll respond to it as soon as I can. Good Night!
"Your argument is: nature is false(-X) therefore, nature(X)+(Y)supernatural."
For naturalism and supernaturalism to truly be antonyms, supernaturalism would have to be the belief that all reality is supernatural just as naturalism is the belief that all reality is natural.
Basically, if (-X) is true, then you'd have to factor that into your conclusion of (X)+(Y). This would result in (Y) which is the true antonym of naturalism, that all reality is supernatural.
"On naturalism, what we are IS a collection of atoms. Inasmuch as our atoms are following the laws of physics we didn't CHOOSE the behavior."
This is also how it is in supernaturalism, we didn't CHOOSE the behavior.
Hi Cin:
KEITH: "My argument doesn't lead to the conclusion that fairies exist."
CIN: You conclude that "something beyond nature" exists; what we call "the supernatural." This can include magic, fairies, Santa, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and anything else one can imagine. Just take your pick. At least naturalism doesn't allow for all these nonsensical critters. Your argument does.
KEITH: My argument does not preclude the existence of fairies, that is true, the same as naturalism doesn't preclude the possibility that the President was born in Kenya. Neither of those "failures to preclude something ridiculous counts against the position.
KEITH: "I am talking about stuff like the spontaneous decay of a radioactive atom or the trajectory of an atom moving through space."
CIN: So, what did you mean when you said "A random action is no more chosen than is a determined action." Maybe you are right and a random action is indeed not chosen but can you provide an example of someone making a random action that is not chosen so i know what you are talking about? If you are referring to atoms, then what do atoms have to do with the word "chosen?" They are just atoms, after all.
KEITH: Here's what atoms have to do with it: on naturalism all we ARE is collections of atoms.
KEITH: "Nature is not the same as naturalISM. Naturalism says that all reality is matter plus the laws of physics."
CIN: Naturalism is inextricably tied to nature. All naturalism is, is the belief that only nature exists. Everything is natural. All supernaturalism is, is the belief that nature plus the supernatural exists. To show that NATURALISM is false, you must either show that nature itself is false [which you can't] or you must show that the supernatural co-exists with nature. It's not an either or thing. Your argument is invalid. It's a false dichotomy because nature(naturalism) and the supernatural can co-exist.
KEITH: All I need to do is to show that something that DOES exist is incompatible with nauralism. This I did (I claim) when I (claim I) showed that the existence of objective morality is inconsistent with naturalism.
KEITH: "I disagree entirely that naturalism is compatible with supernaturalism. The words are antonyms."
CIN: No, for naturalism and supernaturalism to truly be antonyms, supernaturalism would have to be the belief that all reality is supernatural as naturalism is the belief that all reality is natural.
KEITH: Not true. Supernaturalism has to be the OPPOSITE of naturalism to be an antonym. And it is. Naturalism is the idea that only the natural exists, supernaturalism is the negation of that, i.e., that there exists something other than the natural.
KEITH: "5. If A then B (that is to say, if objection morality exists then authentic choice exists)… Of course. I didn't say that IF there's authentic choice THEN there's objective morality. Subjective morality is compatible with agent choice."
CIN: So this premise could also have been, If subjective morality exists, then authentic choice exists.
KEITH: I don't know that it could have been. If so then even the existence of SUBJECTIVE morality implies naturalism is false. Naturalism would need no morality to exist at all to survive the argument.
KEITH: "WE are quibbling over the term "supernaturalims", specifically about the ISM part. I really don't know what YOU mean by the term. What I mean is the negation of naturalism."
CIN: I know what you mean but your argument is invalid here. Supernaturalism is not a negation of naturalism. They are not antonyms.
Naturalism = Nature(X) + 0
Supernaturalism = Nature(X) + "something beyond nature"(Y)
Naturalism IS nature and nothing else, just nature: (X) + 0 = (X). To show naturalism is wrong, you'd have to show (X)+(Y):co-existence OR (-X) a negation of Nature(naturalism). Your argument is: nature is false(-X) therefore, nature(X)+(Y)supernatural.
KEITH: You have misstated the negation. If naturalism is "X alone exists" then the negation IS "X is NOT the only thing that exists".
KEITH: Even before I was a theist I believed in objective morality.
CIN: Even though non-theism and objective morality are incompatible?
KEITH; Indeed. I didn't realize that back then, I hadn't thought deeply about the question.
your friend
Keith
Neither of those "failures to preclude something ridiculous counts against the position.
Gods and fairies; there is no difference except what people believe about them. They could be one and the same for all you know.
"Here's what atoms have to do with it: on naturalism all we ARE is collections of atoms."
I don't see how that negates the possibility of free will. Atoms make up everything, including animals and people. They physically combine, each combination unique, to make brains which have a will, can think, experience, emote and choose. We know that thought, emotion, memory, etc. are tied to the physical, to the material, because one can influence them physically. Just because that is so, does not preclude a free will.
"All I need to do is to show that something that DOES exist is incompatible with nauralism."
I noted many times why we disagree on that premise. You are simply asserting objective morality exists. We do not know that it does for there is no way to tell. And no, I don't view it as self-evident as you do. There are significant objections to every premise of your argument, making it unsound. Also, I think it's invalid and I explained why. We don't even agree on the definitions, which is really a show stopper since that effects the argument's validity.
"Supernaturalism has to be the OPPOSITE of naturalism to be an antonym. And it is."
It's not. For naturalism and supernaturalism to truly be antonyms, supernaturalism would have to be the belief that all reality is supernatural just as naturalism is the belief that all reality is natural. But, it's not. I can already tell this is the point where discussion will end and pointless arguing will ensue. What you are actually arguing for is nature [that's the "naturalism"] plus "something beyond nature" [which is the "super" part of the word].
"If naturalism is "X alone exists"
Then we have different definitions of naturalism. Naturalism is X + 0 because the supernatural is possible, just incredibly unlikely. Unlikely enough that "something beyond" is discounted because it would allow for "something ridiculous," as you put it, like fairies, Santa, ghosts, angels, demons, gods, etc. The naturalism you describe above would be the kind a strong atheist might hold. It would be an assertion, just as theism is an assertion. Not even Richard Dawkins qualifies as a "naturalist" under this definition.
"CIN: Even though non-theism and objective morality are incompatible?
KEITH; Indeed. I didn't realize that back then, I hadn't thought deeply about the question."
This confirms my thoughts, you've already made up your mind.
Hi Cin:
KEITH: Neither of those "failures to preclude something ridiculous counts against the position.
CIN: Gods and fairies; there is no difference except what people believe about them. They could be one and the same for all you know.
KEITH: If there is only one Fairy, and this fairy is the creator of heaven and earth, well maybe.
KEITH: "Here's what atoms have to do with it: on naturalism all we ARE is collections of atoms."
CIN: I don't see how that negates the possibility of free will. Atoms make up everything, including animals and people. They physically combine, each combination unique, to make brains which have a will, can think, experience, emote and choose. We know that thought, emotion, memory, etc. are tied to the physical, to the material, because one can influence them physically. Just because that is so, does not preclude a free will.
KEITH: sure it does. If naturalism is true then collections of atoms do not make decisions about how they behave, collections of atoms do what the laws of physics say (which includes some degree of random movement according to the uncertainty principle.
KEITH: "All I need to do is to show that something that DOES exist is incompatible with nauralism."
CIN: I noted many times why we disagree on that premise. You are simply asserting objective morality exists. We do not know that it does for there is no way to tell. And no, I don't view it as self-evident as you do. There are significant objections to every premise of your argument, making it unsound. Also, I think it's invalid and I explained why. We don't even agree on the definitions, which is really a show stopper since that effects the argument's validity.
KEITH: You were wrong about the validity of the argument. My argument was A implies B, C implies not-B, A is true, therefore B is true, therefore C is false. THAT is a perfectly valid argument.
KEITH: "Supernaturalism has to be the OPPOSITE of naturalism to be an antonym. And it is."
CIN: It's not. For naturalism and supernaturalism to truly be antonyms, supernaturalism would have to be the belief that all reality is supernatural just as naturalism is the belief that all reality is natural.
KEITH: Naturalism is the notion that all reality is matter plus the laws of physics. The negation of naturalism (i.e. supernaturalism) is the idea that matter plus the laws of physics is NOT all there is to reality.
"CIN: Even though non-theism and objective morality are incompatible?
KEITH; Indeed. I didn't realize that back then, I hadn't thought deeply about the question."
CIN: This confirms my thoughts, you've already made up your mind.
KEITH: I never denied that I had made up my mind. All I said was that I am open to arguments to the contrary, as opposed to being close-minded. I do not agree with the implication in your remark, that coming to a conclusion about something means you are close-minded.
your friend
Keith
"If there is only one Fairy, and this fairy is the creator of heaven and earth, well maybe."
Or, it could be a pantheon of fairies, like the Greek and Norse god's. You just can't even make an educated guess so everything is left to the imagination.
"If naturalism is true then collections of atoms do not make decisions about how they behave…"
If they form a human brain, they sure DO make decisions about how they behave as a human person. People ARE atoms. This is also true in supernaturalism, like it or not.
"You were wrong about the validity of the argument. My argument was A implies B, C implies not-B, A is true, therefore B is true, therefore C is false. THAT is a perfectly valid argument."
Only if you define naturalism as you do. I do not define naturalism as you though I consider myself a naturalist. I make no assertions as your definition does. So, your argument is invalid when naturalism is defined as I have outlined, as I truly believe naturalism to be. Under the definition you provide, I cannot be considered a naturalist. In fact, neither can the majority of atheists.
"Naturalism is the notion that all reality is matter plus the laws of physics."
An accurate paraphrase of what you said above is, Naturalism = Nature. Nature IS "matter plus the laws of physics." That is why…
Naturalism = Nature(X) + 0
Supernaturalism = Nature(X) + "something beyond nature"(Y)
and NOT naturalism = "X alone exists." That is an assertion I DO NOT MAKE! Einstein did. Dawkins doesn't. I'd say that all three of us hold to naturalism though.
"You were wrong about the validity of the argument. My argument was A implies B, C implies not-B, A is true, therefore B is true, therefore C is false. THAT is a perfectly valid argument."
It is not valid because we have different definitions for C. Until we can agree on that, we can't progress on this particular issue.
"I do not agree with the implication in your remark, that coming to a conclusion about something means you are close-minded."
Put it in a different light. In one respect, I am more open minded about God than you are about morality. I have not reached the point of denying the possibility of God but it sounds as if you've reached the point of denying that objective morality and "nature only" is even possible. It's not as if you have knowledge about this. No one does. The difference I see is that you make the assertion without any knowledge and I don't.
Hi Cin:
KEITH: "If there is only one Fairy, and this fairy is the creator of heaven and earth, well maybe."
CIN: Or, it could be a pantheon of fairies, like the Greek and Norse god's. You just can't even make an educated guess so everything is left to the imagination.
KEITH: For me, everything is left to my experience during prayer and worship and scripture study. Your point seems to be that a lot of silly possibilities are left open on supernaturalism, but the same is true for naturalism. In naturalism fairies could also exist, it's just that they'd be a physical phenomenon.
KEITH: "If naturalism is true then collections of atoms do not make decisions about how they behave…"
CIN:If they form a human brain, they sure DO make decisions about how they behave as a human person. People ARE atoms. This is also true in supernaturalism, like it or not.
KEITH; You can choose to CALL that decision making, but on naturalism all yu9or actions are is a physical effect. On naturalism you don't do something BECAUSE you wanted to do it, you actions merely reflect the working of physical law. Supernaturalism DOESN'T require people to be merely a collection of atoms. Supernaturalism allows for us to be something more than just matter.
KEITH: "You were wrong about the validity of the argument. My argument was A implies B, C implies not-B, A is true, therefore B is true, therefore C is false. THAT is a perfectly valid argument."
CIN: Only if you define naturalism as you do. I do not define naturalism as you though I consider myself a naturalist. I make no assertions as your definition does.
KEITH: Clearly you DO make assertions, you made several in your responses to me. You could hardly respond at all without making some assertions. You say you don't define naturalism the way I do. You elaborate on that below. I'll comment then.
KEITH: "Naturalism is the notion that all reality is matter plus the laws of physics."
CIN: An accurate paraphrase of what you said above is, Naturalism = Nature. Nature IS "matter plus the laws of physics." That is why…
Naturalism = Nature(X) + 0
Supernaturalism = Nature(X) + "something beyond nature"(Y)
and NOT naturalism = "X alone exists." That is an assertion I DO NOT MAKE! Einstein did. Dawkins doesn't. I'd say that all three of us hold to naturalism though.
KEITH; Please explain what the difference is between "naturalism = nature" and "naturalism = nature alone exists" which is how I define naturalism.
KEITH: "I do not agree with the implication in your remark, that coming to a conclusion about something means you are close-minded."
CIN: Put it in a different light. In one respect, I am more open minded about God than you are about morality. I have not reached the point of denying the possibility of God but it sounds as if you've reached the point of denying that objective morality and "nature only" is even possible.
KEITH: That you are less certain about God's non-existence than I am about moralities objectiveness doesn't make you more open-minded on the issue. The degree of open-mindedness isn't a function of how convinced you are now, it is a function of how willing you are to CONSIDER arguments against your POV. I am very willing to consider such arguments.
CIN: It's not as if you have knowledge about this. No one does. The difference I see is that you make the assertion without any knowledge and I don't.
KEITH: One definition of knowledge is "warranted belief in something that is true". I suspect that my warrant for believing in objective morality is every bit as strong as your warrant for believing that you came into existence prior to last Thursday (as opposed to popping into existence last Thursday with false memories of previous life). The skepticism you demand of me would preclude any belief being warranted, thus it would preclude the EXISTENCE of knowledge. If that's how you want to use the word, well to each his own.
your friend
Keith
"In naturalism fairies could also exist, it's just that they'd be a physical phenomenon."
Exactly! Fairies would have evolved. They wouldn't be magical. I doubt we'd even describe them as fairies. Or, take Santa as an example. the supernatural Santa has magic powers that allow him to visit every house and deliver presents to the world's children. The natural version of Santa went by another name, Saint Nicholas of Myra.
"On naturalism you don't do something BECAUSE you wanted to do it, you actions merely reflect the working of physical law."
No, Keith. You are describing robots. People can actually think. They have a will. Since people have a will, they can make choices. All this is perfectly natural.
"Supernaturalism DOESN'T require people to be merely a collection of atoms. Supernaturalism allows for us to be something more than just matter."
Well, we ARE made of atoms. I don't think you can argue that. I think supernaturalism allows for wishful thinking about an afterlife but that's about it. In a way, nature has it's own kind of immortality. I came across this wonderful poem…
"Please explain what the difference is between "naturalism = nature" and "naturalism = nature alone exists" which is how I define naturalism."
Post #51 under "If naturalism is "X alone exists"
"I am very willing to consider such arguments."
Why would you consider arguments for the impossible? I wouldn't consider arguments for a 6,000 year old Earth. I KNOW it is far older. When you say "consider" do you actually mean "humor?"
"The skepticism you demand of me would preclude any belief being warranted, thus it would preclude the EXISTENCE of knowledge. If that's how you want to use the word, well to each his own."
What are you talking about? I simply don't agree with your assertions about the nature of morality. For my part, I'm reluctant to make an argument from a position of ignorance.
Bump for, Keith.
Its easy to justify that your own thoughts and beliefs are normal but its hard to look at others belief and thoughts that are different than yours and not judge. we shall not judge. Let the judgeing be done by the man upstairs.
The same can be said about sin. You can justify your own sins as normal but you look at other peoples sins that are different than your own personal sin and you judge them.
Just had to throw this in.
Hi Cin:
KEITH: "In naturalism fairies could also exist, it's just that they'd be a physical phenomenon."
CIN: Exactly! Fairies would have evolved. They wouldn't be magical. I doubt we'd even describe them as fairies.
KEITH: Which is why the possibility of fairy existence says nothing about the merits of supernaturalism.
KEITH: "On naturalism you don't do something BECAUSE you wanted to do it, you actions merely reflect the working of physical law."
CIN: No, Keith. You are describing robots. People can actually think. They have a will. Since people have a will, they can make choices. All this is perfectly natural.
KEITH; Of course people have wills, that's why naturalism is false; our lives cannot be reduced to matter plus physics (i.e. naturalism)
KEITH: "Supernaturalism DOESN'T require people to be merely a collection of atoms. Supernaturalism allows for us to be something more than just matter."
CIN; Well, we ARE made of atoms. I don't think you can argue that.
KEITH: I can and do argue that we are MORE than just a collection of atoms. We have physical bodies that's true and those bodies are composes of atoms, but WE are more than just that.
CIN: I think supernaturalism allows for wishful thinking about an afterlife but that's about it.
KEITH: Supernaturalism allows for the possibility that an afterlife is more than wishful thinking.
KEITH: "Please explain what the difference is between "naturalism = nature" and "naturalism = nature alone exists" which is how I define naturalism."
CIN: Post #51 under "If naturalism is "X alone exists"
KEITH: X being nature, the statement "nature alone exists" is the same as "X + 0" which is how you defined naturalism in post # 51. I'm not seeing your point.
KEITH: "I am very willing to consider such arguments."
CIN: Why would you consider arguments for the impossible? I wouldn't consider arguments for a 6,000 year old Earth. I KNOW it is far older. When you say "consider" do you actually mean "humor?"
KEITH: you seriously would not consider an argument that the earth is super young (as in listen to and actually evaluate the argument if someone made it)? Really? Why not?
KEITH: "The skepticism you demand of me would preclude any belief being warranted, thus it would preclude the EXISTENCE of knowledge. If that's how you want to use the word, well to each his own."
CIN: What are you talking about? I simply don't agree with your assertions about the nature of morality. For my part, I'm reluctant to make an argument from a position of ignorance.
KEITH: You complained that because I have taken a position wrt the nature of morality then I am close-minded. You contrasted that with your being open to the notion that God exists. If taking a position on something equals being close-minded, well I wouldn't use that adjective.
your friend
Keith
"CIN: Exactly! Fairies would have evolved. They wouldn't be magical. I doubt we'd even describe them as fairies.
KEITH: Which is why the possibility of fairy existence says nothing about the merits of supernaturalism."
I don't know, Keith. It seems just saying that all fairies and gods, no matter who they are, be they Tinkerbell, Thor, or Jehovah, are highly improbable makes more sense than arguing that beings like these exist. I do not distinguish between one supernatural being and another because it's only what we believe about them that distinguishes one from the other. If I don't think the Icelandic belief in the existence of fairies has merit then why should the existence of other supernatural beings have merit? I'm not going to make a special exemption to the rule for particular supernatural being(s).
Of course people have wills, that's why naturalism is false; our lives cannot be reduced to matter plus physics (i.e. naturalism)
Can you give me just one example where something can't? Even the emotion of love is physical. If you (or I) have a brain scan while viewing a photo of someone we love, the parts of our brain that light up are rich in the chemicals oxytocin and dopamine. Morality? That can be found in nature as well. Especially, in social animals.
"I can and do argue that we are MORE than just a collection of atoms. We have physical bodies that's true and those bodies are composes of atoms, but WE are more than just that."
I don't think that we are, though I'll allow for a TINY chance that we might be. However, I refuse to assert that we are more than atoms, i.e. insert the supernatural, into what is natural. I think the addition of the supernatural into nature is unnecessary.
"Supernaturalism allows for the possibility that an afterlife is more than wishful thinking."
Supernaturalism itself is wishful thinking. Especially, the afterlife. Naturalism is simply recognizing what we actually know. Supernaturalism is everything we don't know about nature: the god of the gaps, if you will.
"X being nature, the statement "nature alone exists" is the same as "X + 0" which is how you defined naturalism in post # 51. I'm not seeing your point."
One is an assertion the supernatural does not exist. The other is simply a lack of belief that the supernatural exists. (X+0) invalidates your argument. And again, even with the assertion "nature alone exists," your argument is unsound IMO.
"you seriously would not consider an argument that the earth is super young (as in listen to and actually evaluate the argument if someone made it)? Really? Why not?"
No. I wouldn't consider that argument any more than someone who argues that they are Napoleon. Why waste my time? I don't have an open mind to impossible arguments. Now, let me ask you again, why are you "very willing" consider arguments for what you KNOW to be impossible? You don't even admit to the possibility of atheism being compatible with objective morality. I'd hardly call that open minded.
"If taking a position on something equals being close-minded, well I wouldn't use that adjective."
Straw man argument, IMHO. Taking a position on something does not equate to being closed minded. Making up your mind about something does. You are closed to even the possibility that atheism and objective morality are compatible so how can one argue with you about it? I am not that way even in regard to the supernatural.
Hi Cin:
“CIN: Exactly! Fairies would have evolved. They wouldn’t be magical. I doubt we’d even describe them as fairies.
KEITH: Which is why the possibility of fairy existence says nothing about the merits of supernaturalism.”
CIN: I don’t know, Keith. It seems just saying that all fairies and gods, no matter who they are, be they Tinkerbell, Thor, or Jehovah, are highly improbable makes more sense than arguing that beings like these exist.
KEITH: I certainly don’t agree with you about the probability of God’s existence, but I also wonder how you come to the conclusion that Tinkerbell probably doesn’t exist. I expect your reason will boil down to gut.
CIN: I do not distinguish between one supernatural being and another because it’s only what we believe about them that distinguishes one from the other.
KEITH: Not at all. God (if God exists) has very different properties than Tinkerbell (if she existed).
CIN: If I don’t think the Icelandic belief in the existence of fairies has merit then why should the existence of other supernatural beings have merit? I’m not going to make a special exemption to the rule for particular supernatural being(s).
KEITH: What rule are you talking about and what is your reason for believing the rule is true?
KEITH: Of course people have wills, that’s why naturalism is false; our lives cannot be reduced to matter plus physics (i.e. naturalism)
CIN: Can you give me just one example where something can’t? Even the emotion of love is physical. If you (or I) have a brain scan while viewing a photo of someone we love, the parts of our brain that light up are rich in the chemicals oxytocin and dopamine. Morality? That can be found in nature as well. Especially, in social animals.
KEITH: About correlations between brain states and emotions: all that shows is that the brain is involved in the experience. It gives you no reason at all to suspect that there is no spiritual entity that experiences stuff THROUGH the physical organ analogously to how you can see through a telescope without BEING the telescope.
About moral BEHAVIOR among social animals–that doesn’t prove the animals OUGHT to be moral, it just shows they tend to behave in ways we ASSOCIATE with morality. And it doesn’t show that their behavior is the result of authentic choices, but if it is then it is NOT the result of naturalistic forces–we don’t choose the laws of physics.
KEITH: “I can and do argue that we are MORE than just a collection of atoms. We have physical bodies that’s true and those bodies are composes of atoms, but WE are more than just that.”
CIN: I don’t think that we are, though I’ll allow for a TINY chance that we might be.
KEITH: if we are not then whatever it is our bodies/brains do it doesn’t count as making authentic decisions. The afformentioned collection of atoms would just be doing what the laws of physics makes them do (within the random movement the uncertainty principle describes)
CIN: However, I refuse to assert that we are more than atoms, i.e. insert the supernatural, into what is natural. I think the addition of the supernatural into nature is unnecessary.
KEITH: i didn’t assert that either. I asserted that we make authentic choices, the rest follows.
KEITH: “Supernaturalism allows for the possibility that an afterlife is more than wishful thinking.”
CIN: Supernaturalism itself is wishful thinking. Especially, the afterlife.
KEITH: So you assert (now THAT’S quite an assertion).
CIN: Naturalism is simply recognizing what we actually know. Supernaturalism is everything we don’t know about nature: the god of the gaps, if you will.
KEITH: No it’s not (not even methodological naturalism inasmuch as it says that we SHOULD only assume natural causes) You do not know that the assumption of methodological naturalism is the best method for discovering truth.
CIN: “X being nature, the statement “nature alone exists” is the same as “X + 0″ which is how you defined naturalism in post # 51. I’m not seeing your point.”
KEITH: One is an assertion the supernatural does not exist. The other is simply a lack of belief that the supernatural exists.
CIN: If all you mean by naturalism is agnosticism wrt the supernatural then I do not claim it is false–obviously you yourself are agnostic about the supernatural. The only knowledge you claim is that is is PROBABLY false. How do you get that?
KEITH: “you seriously would not consider an argument that the earth is super young (as in listen to and actually evaluate the argument if someone made it)? Really? Why not?”
CIN: No. I wouldn’t consider that argument any more than someone who argues that they are Napoleon. Why waste my time? I don’t have an open mind to impossible arguments.
KEITH; How do you know an argument is impossible if you haven’t heard the argument?
CIN: Now, let me ask you again, why are you “very willing” consider arguments for what you KNOW to be impossible? You don’t even admit to the possibility of atheism being compatible with objective morality. I’d hardly call that open minded.
KEITH: On the theory that I know I can be wrong about just about anything, I DO consider the possibility that I am wrong about the incompatibility of objective morality with atheism. I am willing to hear out any argument in favor of the claim. But nothing I have heard seems persuasive in the least so I continue to believe what I think is true. There is nothing closed-minded about it. It’s not like won’t even “waste my time” LISTENING to arguments because I’ve already decided on what’s true the way you have wrt Young Earth creationism. How is THAT not closed-minded?
KEITH: “If taking a position on something equals being close-minded, well I wouldn’t use that adjective.”
CIN: Straw man argument, IMHO. Taking a position on something does not equate to being closed minded. Making up your mind about something does.
KEITH: You mean like you are wrt Young Earthism?
CIN: You are closed to even the possibility that atheism and objective morality are compatible so how can one argue with you about it? I am not that way even in regard to the supernatural.
KEITH: But you are that way wrt Young Earthism?
your friend
Keith
"I also wonder how you come to the conclusion that Tinkerbell probably doesn't exist."
Like gods, Tinkerbell is supernatural. I trust my senses and those of others (enhanced by microscopes, telescopes, etc.) and they don't include Tinkerbell, Jehovah, or Thor. If you want me to say that the probability of Tinkerbell's existence is actually 50/50 because I can't prove Tinkerbell does not exist, I'd not be willing to do that for you.
"Not at all. God (if God exists) has very different properties than Tinkerbell (if she existed)."
…and what do you believe distinguishes Tinkerbell from God?
"What rule are you talking about…"
Why, the burden of proof of course! :)
"…and what is your reason for believing the rule is true?"
…it's probably true because things that exist leave evidence of their existence, even quarks. Critters who leave no evidence of their existence are easily made up. For example, do you realize there is a leprechaun sitting on my shoulder? I observe that the burden of proof mitigates such claims. As I said, if I don't think the Icelandic belief in the existence of fairies has merit then why should the existence of other supernatural beings have merit? I'm not going to make a special exemption to the rule for particular supernatural being(s).
"About correlations between brain states and emotions: all that shows is that the brain is involved in the experience."
So, why bother adding the supernatural into the mix?
"About moral BEHAVIOR among social animals–that doesn't prove the animals OUGHT to be moral, it just shows they tend to behave in ways we ASSOCIATE with morality."
Like, the way you and I behave. Humans are apes and we share a lot of morality with our relatives.
"…we don't choose the laws of physics."
We don't choose either way, whether choice is natural or supernatural.
"The afformentioned collection of atoms would just be doing what the laws of physics makes them do (within the random movement the uncertainty principle describes)"
No, that's robotics. I know we disagree here, but I think it's perfectly natural to have a will, to love, to have morals. There is no need to add supernatural explanations for these things where none is needed, IMO.
"I asserted that we make authentic choices, the rest follows."
Actually, It doesn't. I've outlined why.
"So you assert (now THAT'S quite an assertion)."
No, sir. I've actually observed that many people believe in the afterlife without reason. That's wishful thinking.
Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence or rationality. – Wiki
"You do not know that the assumption of methodological naturalism is the best method for discovering truth."
Well, what do you think could be a better one for exploring reality?
"How do you know an argument is impossible if you haven't heard the argument?"
If I know 2+2=4 and someone wants to argue otherwise, I don't have to hear the argument.
"I DO consider the possibility that I am wrong about the incompatibility of objective morality with atheism."
Ah! So this issue is not self-evidently true.
"How is THAT not closed-minded?"
I repeat, I don't have an open mind to impossible arguments. That includes YEC.
"You mean like you are wrt Young Earthism?"
Exactly, friend Keith. I am not open to any YEC arguments because they are ridiculous. Maybe I used to be, but that was before 2or3.
Hi Cin:
KEITH: I also wonder how you come to the conclusion that Tinkerbell probably doesn’t exist.”
CIN: Like gods, Tinkerbell is supernatural. I trust my senses and those of others (enhanced by microscopes, telescopes, etc.) and they don’t include Tinkerbell, Jehovah, or Thor. If you want me to say that the probability of Tinkerbell’s existence is actually 50/50 because I can’t prove Tinkerbell does not exist, I’d not be willing to do that for you.
KEITH: I’m not asking you to say anything except how you get that Tinkerbell probably doesn’t exist from the fact that you have never seen her.
KEITH: “Not at all. God (if God exists) has very different properties than Tinkerbell (if she existed).”
CIN: …and what do you believe distinguishes Tinkerbell from God?
KEITH: You mean what properties do I believe God has that Tinkerbell does not? Being creator of heaven and earth for one. Existence for the other:-)
KEITH: “What rule are you talking about…”
CIN: Why, the burden of proof of course! :)…
KEITH: “…and what is your reason for believing the rule is true?”
CIN: …it’s probably true because things that exist leave evidence of their existence, even quarks….
KEITH: Not always (or at least I’ll bet you can’t PROVE they always do), and not always very much evidence which is why criminals often get away with crimes. And the stuff you cited is physical stuff. What proof do you have that the rule applies to questions about the non-physical?
CIN: Critters who leave no evidence of their existence are easily made up. For example, do you realize there is a leprechaun sitting on my shoulder? I observe that the burden of proof mitigates such claims.
KEITH: In other words, if we choose to apply a burden of proof rule we can avoid falling for false claims. But how does that show that if a claim has no evidence it PROBABLY isn’t true?
CIN: As I said, if I don’t think the Icelandic belief in the existence of fairies has merit then why should the existence of other supernatural beings have merit? I’m not going to make a special exemption to the rule for particular supernatural being(s).
KEITH: Why should your position wrt one religious claim be the same as your position wrt to the other except that you CHOOSE to apply the burden of proof rule? What proof (I ask again) do you have that the whatever cannot pass your rule is probably false?
KEITH: “About correlations between brain states and emotions: all that shows is that the brain is involved in the experience.”
CIN: So, why bother adding the supernatural into the mix?
KEITH: Because (I claim) I have demonstrated that the supernatural exists with my argument from objective morality and authentic choice. My comment above just showed that your particular claim that the correlation between brain states and emotions proved that we were only physical beings.
KEITH: “About moral BEHAVIOR among social animals–that doesn’t prove the animals OUGHT to be moral, it just shows they tend to behave in ways we ASSOCIATE with morality.”
CIN: Like, the way you and I behave. Humans are apes and we share a lot of morality with our relatives.
KEITH: No doubt but none of that proves that morality is a physical thing. Since I believe that other animals besides humans make authentic choices, this is further evidence that THEY ALSO are not just a collection of atoms.
KEITH: “The afformentioned collection of atoms would just be doing what the laws of physics makes them do (within the random movement the uncertainty principle describes)”
CIN: No, that’s robotics. I know we disagree here, but I think it’s perfectly natural to have a will, to love, to have morals. There is no need to add supernatural explanations for these things where none is needed, IMO.
KEITH: On naturalism all we ARE is bio-robots.
KEITH: “So you assert (now THAT’S quite an assertion).”
CIN: No, sir. I’ve actually observed that many people believe in the afterlife without reason. That’s wishful thinking.
KEITH: First of all, even if SOME people believe without warrant in the afterlife out of wishful thinking, that doesn’t prove that all do. Secondly you haven’t observed the reason they believe, all you do is speculate about their motivations.
KEITH: “You do not know that the assumption of methodological naturalism is the best method for discovering truth.”
CIN: Well, what do you think could be a better one for exploring reality?
KEITH: A more open approach where you don’t automatically disqualify the non-natural. Your approach makes theism automatically out of bounds.
KEITH: “How do you know an argument is impossible if you haven’t heard the argument?”
CIN: If I know 2+2=4 and someone wants to argue otherwise, I don’t have to hear the argument.
KEITH: So you say that SOMETIMES being closed-minded is appropriate?
KEITH: “I DO consider the possibility that I am wrong about the incompatibility of objective morality with atheism.”
CIN: Ah! So this issue is not self-evidently true.
KEITH: Where do you get that?
your friend
Keith
"I'm not asking you to say anything except how you get that Tinkerbell probably doesn't exist from the fact that you have never seen her."
…it's probably not true because things that exist leave evidence of their existence, even quarks.
"You mean what properties do I believe God has that Tinkerbell does not? Being creator of heaven and earth for one. Existence for the other:-)"
Like I said then, "…it's only what we believe about them that distinguishes one from the other."
"Not always (or at least I'll bet you can't PROVE they always do)"
I can't prove the sun always rises either.
"What proof do you have that the rule applies to questions about the non-physical?"
What proof do I have that the burden of proof applies to the non-physical? I can provide an example, "do you realize there is a leprechaun sitting on my shoulder? I observe that the burden of proof mitigates such claims." I'm not sure how one would go about proving such a thing. I'll ask your help in this.
"But how does that show that if a claim has no evidence it PROBABLY isn't true?"
…it's probably not true because things that exist leave evidence of their existence, even quarks. Critters who leave no evidence of their existence are easily made up. Remember that leprechaun I claim is sitting on my shoulder? I think you'd agree with me that claim is probably not true.
"What proof (I ask again) do you have that the whatever cannot pass your rule is probably false?"
I can provide an example, "do you realize there is a leprechaun sitting on my shoulder? I observe that the burden of proof mitigates such claims." I'm not sure how one would go about proving such a thing. I'll ask your help in this.
"Because (I claim) I have demonstrated that the supernatural exists with my argument from objective morality and authentic choice."
I think that the existence of the supernatural does not follow from the existence of subjective or objective morality. I think morality is perfectly natural. So, I don't see why we have to add magic to matter.
"On naturalism all we ARE is bio-robots."
But when we add magic, we become more than bio-robots, right?
"…you haven't observed the reason they believe, all you do is speculate about their motivations."
It's wishful thinking because death is the undiscovered country.
"A more open approach where you don't automatically disqualify the non-natural. Your approach makes theism automatically out of bounds."
It does for me personally. If you want to believe that God gives everyone morality, guides evolution, or conducts the music of the spheres, I have no problem with that. I used to believe in magic (forces beyond natural) too. I'd like to believe that someday I'd be reunited with loved ones who've passed, but I just don't hold that belief. It's like wanting to believe 2+2=5.
"So you say that SOMETIMES being closed-minded is appropriate?"
No one wants to be gullible.
"Where do you get that?"
Your argument.
Hi Cin:
KEITH: "I'm not asking you to say anything except how you get that Tinkerbell probably doesn't exist from the fact that you have never seen her."
CIN: …it's probably not true because things that exist leave evidence of their existence, even quarks.
KEITH: Always? And what about spiritual things–do THEY always leave evidence? If you say yes then you agree they exist, if you say no then you agree that lack of evidence doesn't show they probably don't exist.
KEITH: "You mean what properties do I believe God has that Tinkerbell does not? Being creator of heaven and earth for one. Existence for the other:-)"
CIN:Like I said then, "…it's only what we believe about them that distinguishes one from the other."
KEITH: No. There is s difference between being the creator of the universe and being a tiny flying girl who hangs out with Peter Pan whether or not I believe in either.
KEITH: "Not always (or at least I'll bet you can't PROVE they always do)"
CIN: I can't prove the sun always rises either.
KEITH: Your point? Is it that you don't need proof for things you believe?
KEITH: "What proof do you have that the rule applies to questions about the non-physical?"
CIN: What proof do I have that the burden of proof applies to the non-physical? I can provide an example, "do you realize there is a leprechaun sitting on my shoulder? I observe that the burden of proof mitigates such claims." I'm not sure how one would go about proving such a thing. I'll ask your help in this.
KEITH: What does mitigating a claim mean? It seems to me you just mean that IF you CHOOSE to apply the burden of proof rule you can avoid believing some false claims.
KEITH: "But how does that show that if a claim has no evidence it PROBABLY isn't true?"
CIN: …it's probably not true because things that exist leave evidence of their existence, even quarks. Critters who leave no evidence of their existence are easily made up. Remember that leprechaun I claim is sitting on my shoulder? I think you'd agree with me that claim is probably not true.
KEITH: I agree the Leprechaun probably doesn't exist. But the fact that requiring evidence helps you avoid believing some false claims doesn't demonstrate that claims that aren't supported by evidence are probably false. All I'm asking for is your demonstration.
KEITH: "What proof (I ask again) do you have that the whatever cannot pass your rule is probably false?"
CIN: I can provide an example, "do you realize there is a leprechaun sitting on my shoulder? I observe that the burden of proof mitigates such claims." I'm not sure how one would go about proving such a thing. I'll ask your help in this.
KEITH: How does that show that whatever fails to meet the burden of proof is probably false?
KEITH: "Because (I claim) I have demonstrated that the supernatural exists with my argument from objective morality and authentic choice."
CIN: I think that the existence of the supernatural does not follow from the existence of subjective or objective morality. I think morality is perfectly natural. So, I don't see why we have to add magic to matter.
KEITH: Thus, the discussion comes to and end, right? We are merely repeating ourselves.
KEITH: "On naturalism all we ARE is bio-robots."
CIN: But when we add magic, we become more than bio-robots, right?
KEITH: Being more that bio-robots IS supernatural.
KEITH: "…you haven't observed the reason they believe, all you do is speculate about their motivations."
CIN: It's wishful thinking because death is the undiscovered country.
KEITH: I don't get your point.
KEITH: "A more open approach where you don't automatically disqualify the non-natural. Your approach makes theism automatically out of bounds."
CIN: It does for me personally. If you want to believe that God gives everyone morality, guides evolution, or conducts the music of the spheres, I have no problem with that. I used to believe in magic (forces beyond natural) too. I'd like to believe that someday I'd be reunited with loved ones who've passed, but I just don't hold that belief. It's like wanting to believe 2+2=5.
KEITH: Feel free to disbelieve whatever you want to.
KEITH: "So you say that SOMETIMES being closed-minded is appropriate?"
CIN: No one wants to be gullible.
The point then is, according to you there is nothing in PRINCIPLE wrong with being close-minded as long as you are close-mined about the right stuff?
your friend
Keith
"Always?"
Always. Well, unless they live beyond an event horizon or something.
"And what about spiritual things–do THEY always leave evidence?"
Well first, they have to exist to even be able to leave evidence. Also, there is a question of existence if something is unobserved. "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Clicky if interested.
"No. There is s difference between being the creator of the universe and being a tiny flying girl who hangs out with Peter Pan whether or not I believe in either."
That's a difference of belief in how you conceive of these things, nothing more.
"Your point? Is it that you don't need proof for things you believe?"
Yuppers! Even though I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. I don't have any proof that it will. However, I do have evidence via induction.
"What does mitigating a claim mean?"
You explained it well, "In other words, if we choose to apply a burden of proof rule we can avoid falling for false claims." So, I apply this to rule to all extraordinary/supernatural claims. I don't apply the burden of proof to matters I feel are prima facie. For example, I'd apply the burden of proof to the person who claims there is a leprechaun sitting on his shoulder though I wouldn't apply it to the claim that the sun will rise tomorrow.
"I agree the Leprechaun probably doesn't exist."
Just a gut feeling you have?
"All I'm asking for is your demonstration."
That's a problem. I have no idea how to demonstrate that with a supernatural being. The leprechaun example is the best I can provide.
"How does that show that whatever fails to meet the burden of proof is probably false?"
Maybe you can explain it better than I. You agreed with me that the claim a leprechaun is sitting on my shoulder is probably false.
"Thus, the discussion comes to and end, right? We are merely repeating ourselves."
I think on this point we have a fundamental difference of opinion. So, lets drop this particular issue by mutual agreement?
"I don't get your point. [about death as the undiscovered country]"
We know nothing about what happens after we die. It's complete speculation. I'm speculating oblivion. Other's are speculating Elysium, Heaven, Nirvana, etc. If wishful thinking is defined as "the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence or rationality" it seems to me that Elysium/Heaven/Nirvana is "more pleasing to imagine."
"Feel free to disbelieve whatever you want to."
You'd be more accurate if you said, "Feel free to be skeptical with whatever you want to." I will!
"The point then is, according to you there is nothing in PRINCIPLE wrong with being close-minded as long as you are close-mined about the right stuff?"
Correct. I'm closed minded towards boiling babies for pleasure, for example.
Hi Cin:
KEITH: And what about spiritual things–do THEY always leave evidence?"
CIN: Well first, they have to exist to even be able to leave evidence. Also, there is a question of existence if something is unobserved. "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Clicky if interested.
KEITH: I'd say that things DO exist independent of their being observed. But see the point of my question. You claim that unless there is evidence for the existence of something the something probably doesn't exist. When I asked you to show this rule is true you claimed that whatever exists leaves evidence of its existence "even quarks". But clearly you would say you only have evidence that material things follow this principle which means you have no evidence to justify using that principle in spiritual matters.
KEITH: "I don't get your point. [about death as the undiscovered country]"
CIN: We know nothing about what happens after we die. It's complete speculation.
KEITH: Here you assume that (let's say) The Q'uran is not a reliable source of truth wrt to the afterlife. This of course PRESUPPOSES the Q'uran is not from God since God would presumaby be a reliable source.
your friend
Keith