Square circles and the Trinity, part 3: the law of identity
Posted under expositions, polemics Thursday Jul 3, 2008part 1 part 2 part 3 part 4
This article has been heavily revised as of July 4, 2008, in response to a detailed critique from Mike, which can be viewed in the comment stream.
I’ve now talked about contradictions; argued that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be self-contradictory; acknowledged that Christians must concede at least the appearance of self-contradiction in it nonetheless; and then provided some reasons to explain why this contradiction might appear, and how it might be resolved. I’ve almost said enough to take on a critical examination of Steve’s formal argument. First, though, there is one vital issue which I must draw out of my previous post, which will significantly alter how we, as Christians, see that argument from the get-go.
III. How the ambiguity of being affects the law of identity
In part 2, I mentioned that God does not have parts: the Father is not a part of God; the Son is not a part of God; the Spirit is not a part of God. They are all fully God. They all share fully in God’s attributes. That is, each person of the Trinity is the same being as God. I then went on to suggest that it is reasonable to assume that there is an unspoken equivocation in our understanding of being. God is one being in one sense; three in another—but we don’t understand what it means to draw a distinction between ways of being. Nonetheless, it follows by good and necessary consequence from Scripture that “being” is not a univocal term; it does not (necessarily) have only a single, unambiguous referent. When applied to God, at least, it seems to refer to more than one thing, even though we don’t understand exactly what. When we subject the doctrine of the Trinity to logical analysis, we find that it forces us to formulate a doctrine of being which gives a consistent account of it: the principle of Non-Univocal Being. (Following in Anderson’s slightly droll footsteps, I dub this “NUB”.)
NUB appears central to Christian metaphysics, and affects it in a larger and fairly significant way, because it has ramifications for the law of identity.
The law of identity is one of the three major logical axioms. Simply put, it is the notion that an entity is the same as itself: A is A. By corollary, an entity is not the same as some other entity: A is not B. If an entity was the same as some other entity, then it would be one and the same with that entity: A is B. The reason this is important is because, if we make this identity statement fully explicit, we find that it is saying that
- A is the same as B with respect to its being
This is an unproblematically clear statement on the face of it. For a non-Christian it’s probably always unproblematically clear. However, for a Christian committed the thesis of non-univocal being, it is not necessarily clear, despite appearances. For example, if “A” is the Father and “B” is the Son, this statement is both true and false, because it contains an unarticulated equivocation. It is true in one sense for the term “being”, and false in another.
This has obvious ramifications for a certain category of arguments about the nature of God—a category which includes Steve’s argument in part 4 of this series, and similar ones employed by various would-be Christians in support of their Christological heresies. These arguments leverage a key feature of identity, which is transitivity: If A is the same as B, and B is the same as C, then by transitive relationship A is the same as C. This is important because we can draw the following kinds of inferences:
- The Father is the same as God.
- The Son is the same as God.
- Therefore, the Father is the same as the Son.
This is a heresy called Sabellianism or modalism, and is similar to the way in which Steve appeals to transitivity in his argument. However, because it relies on a univocal understanding of being, a Christian has no reason to accept it. If Christianity entails a non-univocal theory of being, he can see clearly that the argument only appears to go through because it equivocates.
Now, let me be clear. I am not suggesting that a non-Christian must accept, on his own terms, that this argument equivocates. He is by no means committed to a thesis such as NUB. He has no reason to be, because he does not presuppose that the Bible’s testimony regarding the nature of God is in any way authentic. What I am saying here is that a Christian may reject the conclusion of this argument because, on his own grounds, the testimony of Scripture gives him good reason to believe that the argument commits some kind of non-obvious error. Because the charge of self-contradiction is an internal critique of the Trinity, the Christian may bring all of his own religion’s resources to bear in refuting that charge. Since NUB is at least one way in which the apparent self-contradiction of the Trinity can be resolved, a Christian has every right to argue that the conclusion of the above argument is false, which is merely apparently contradictory as a result of an unarticulated equivocation. In fact, a Christian need not even be committed to NUB at all in order to use it as a means of showing that in principle these sorts of arguments fail to conclusively prove self-contradiction. Even if NUB is not true, it constitutes a defeater to the argument; just as the greater-good defense constitutes a defeater to the problem of evil, even if it isn’t true.
In other words, as an internal critique of Christian theology, the above sorts of arguments fail. I will show how Steve’s argument in particular fails in the final part of this series. This, alone, does not constitute any kind of reason for a non-believer to accept the doctrine of the Trinity. He can argue against it on other grounds. But NUB is sufficient to show that, on Christian grounds, the charge of internal incoherency is invalid. Having now said this, I think I’m at the perfect point to tackle Steve’s formal argument.
Hi Bnonn, Here’s the philosophical definition of essence:
Philosophy. the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc.
Assuming this definition, you are saying that what is the true constitution of the father is his essence. If we strip off all accidentals we are left with what is truly the father. Then you say this is the same as the essence of the son. So, the father and son are the same essence. We have 1 being. Now, for this to work, the person that is the father is a separate being from the essence of the father, and likewise with the other 2 people in the trinity. What you seem to have done is created an extra problem to be solved. First, you still have 3 people, which you’ve now uncoupled from whatever is essential to each respectively. This essence, God, is now not the father, not son nor holy spirit. This is because non of these three shares the true substance of God.
By the way, in reading your ‘Wisdom of God’ you say the problem of induction is that it lacks justification in a non christian worldview, which it does. This doesn’t matter for us, because induction works, and that’s all that matters. However, you have a problem of justification too. You say that God provides justification for your use of induction, but what justifies your reliance on God? It can’t be that up till now he’s kept his word, or the Bible seems true because then you’re using induction to justify induction. :)
therefore, by transitive relationship we truthfully conclude that the Father is the same as the Son with respect to essence. But with respect to person, this is not the case
Law of non-contradiction: it is not that case that something is the case and is not the case (Something cannot both be and not be). The father cannot both be identical with person and essence and not be identical with person and essence. So, either the father is identical with the person and essence, or is not identical with person and essence of the father. If the former, you have the original problem, if the later, as stated above, you have 4 beings now.
Brian, you seem to really have missed the point of my NUB thesis…
There is a relevant article by Lawrence Krauss quoting Einstein on theology in this week’s New Scientist. I have summarised it on my blog.
The summary of the summary is… I see lots and lots of epicycling.
Bnonn-
Brian is right, although I don’t think he goes far enough.
What you are saying is that for each member of the trinity, there is a person, and an essence, but the essences are the same.
So, we have God essence (GE), and the three essences of the father, son and holy ghost (call them AE, BE and CE)
Starting to look familiar?
It should. You are back to the Trinity again. Unless, of course, you say that all the essences are the same, in which case you are rejecting a Trinity.
I would like to specifically deal with one point:
When we subject the doctrine of the Trinity to logical analysis, we find that it forces us to formulate a doctrine of being which gives a consistent account of it
It doesn’t force you to do that. There are other alternatives, such as to accept that it is wrong. I know you won’t, but I think it is reasonable to point that out.
Bnonn, you are the one who doesn’t get the point. The essence of the father is that which is the father. To say that which is the father is not the person who is the father is to contradict oneself. You can’t have fashion an essence that is separate from the person. If it’s separate, it’s accidental. You’ve put yourself in a reductio ad absurdum.
By the way ‘the bible is the word of God’ is eminently evaluable, and up to this point epistemologically unsound. To claim it is sound is to beg the question. You need to show God exists first, and also that your biblical interpretation is his view. You can’t avoid this.
As Steve says, you’re committed to an incoherent point of view. The words in your apologetic that you wrote to mock those who don’t use logic and avoid the truth apply to you.
Take care.
I just realise Brian is saying the same as me about the Trinity - sorry Brian!
Brian.. I am not sure that further discussion here will achieve much on any subject.
I have started to read this article in more detail:
http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/?p=36
I noted the following sections:
This doesn’t mean that secular science will never yield useful results (by certain standards of usefulness).
Scientists may muddle their way through learning about reality to the point that they’re able to describe with reasonable accuracy how it works in certain situations. They may, despite their intellectual incompetence, eventually produce things like computers and cars, which work relatively well and are useful to us in everyday life.
Indeed, this is my advice to Christian scientists—there is no need to waste time fighting secular scientists on their own ground by trying to disprove evolution. Evolution will fall apart all by itself sooner or later. Let us rather devote our resources to furthering Christian science, and leave the unbelievers in their foolishness.
We are fools. We are intellectually incompetent. Science is only useful in certain areas.
But saddest of all: Evolution is wrong. I can’t tell you how much my heart sinks when I read such words. The sheer unfettered arrogance of someone who ranks their understanding of reality above that of Einstein, Watson and Crick, Hawking, simply because they put their trust in internal feelings and a book. Over centuries hundreds of thousands of scientists have worked to reveal how life has developed on our planet, but no, they are all wrong. Evolution is shown by biology, biochemistry, chemistry, physics, atomic theory and geology, but internal feelings and a book rank higher. That is a very troubling point of view, not even held by most theologians, not even by Popes.
This intellectually incompetent fool thinks that more discussion may be a waste of time.
Brian, Steve: please re-read what I have written. “Essence” and “person” are terms which theologians have devised so as to speak of the two aspects which God has revealed regarding the nature of his being. They are terms which are used to demonstrate non-contradiction; not a diversity of being. Your critique relies on an assumption of univocal being, which does not apply. As I said in part 2, non-univocal being is not explicable to us conceptually; but it can be described logically to show that no contradiction exists.
Brian, as regards your comments about biblical epistemology, according to what first principle would you evaluate the proposition ‘the Bible is the word of God’? If you have already taken this as your first principle, it is eminently non-evaluable. If you have not, you will need to demonstrate that whatever first principle you have adopted is capable of evaluating anything; let alone the Bible.
Steve, please remember that I was not directing those comments about intellectual incompetence toward you and others as a form of personal insult. I was reiterating what the Bible teaches, and it was important to do so in the context of that study on science.
Regards,
Bnonn
Bnonn-
I have re-read what you have written many times.
I am willing to discuss things further with you on one condition - you retract what you said in that post I linked to here.
I am a scientist. I believe in rationality. I find no reason to believe in a deity.
How can I not find what you said offensive? If you state things about a group, then individuals within a group will identify with what you say.
There is much to discuss. And I will enjoy that discussion. But while you have this view of science, and especially that view of evolution (I am a biologist), I will feel deeply offended.
There would be no shame in changing your mind about this. Goodness knows I have been proved wrong about much in recent years. I would consider it admirable.
The position of science and scripture should be up for debate. I will argue with vigour against those who disagree with my position, but I won’t call those people fools or incompetents (I have too many dear friends who are religious to do that!)
Are you willing to retract those accusations in your post, and engage with what I hope will be a friendly and interesting discussion?
Steve, I’m sorry but you misunderstood. I was not trying to defer offense; I was trying to clarify the source of that offense. I quite understand that you will find what the Bible says about unbelievers to be offensive. To be told that you are stupid and ignorant because you deny the source of wisdom and knowledge is offensive. To be told that you are sinful because you deny the source of goodness is offensive.
My point was not to avoid offending you. My point was to ensure that you understand I am not trying to personally insult you out of some kind of malice or general obnoxiousness of my own. Rather, I am conveying a scriptural teaching, because it is important and relevant to the context of the discussion.
That said, whether or not something is offensive has no bearing on its truth. I can’t very well retract something which I believe to be the truth, and which I have sound reasons for believing.
No doubt you think so; but you want me to accept this (with its lack of epistemic foundation) and reject my own position before we can even start discussion. You’ll only consent to further discussion if I will agree to it being based on your own presuppositions—presuppositions which are demonstrably unfounded and without rational justification; and antithetical to my own. Why would I do that?
Regards,
Bnonn
Hi!
In fact, many of the misconceptions I found in this post stem from an equivocation here that you don’t seem to have noticed. This is clear from the examples you use. You seem to equivocate the noun “being”, as in “a being” or “God is one being[...]“, and the being of “Being good in some respect”. A term which has to have (in a sentence that has meaning) an entity as a referent (a being) and a term for the ascription of properties (being a good so-and-so in this-and-that respect)
Before I continue - it would help if you distinguished in your text between usage and citation. When you talk about a word as a word, or a statement as a statement, it is put in quotation marks: The word “being” has 5 letters. The word “being” has so-and-so-many meanings. etc.
In fact, it does. That’s why we have singular and plural. “A being” - singular - one entity, one referent. “Multiple beings” - plural, multiple entities, multiple referents. “unambiguous” is of course the weasle-word here. The ambiguity -if and where it should exist - is an epistemic one, that we don’t know whether some phenomenon corresponds to a single entity or multiple distinct entities - so that we falsely use singular or plural where we ought to have used the other, but didn’t know better.
But that is not what you meant. In fact, you mean that the singular-noun (though a type-label, not a proper name) “being” can be used correctly in not refering to a distinct, singular entity. This is of course, bogus - because of the singular-plural distinction.
You tacitly introduce a premise(!) here, stating in effect that somehow the mereological and numerical problem of the trinity is not there “in reality”. You are claiming that the singular type-label “being” has at least one entity to which it refers that isn’t a singular entity. You can see the contradiction I hope - this is like saying that the type-label “triangle”, has at least one entity to which it refers that is not triangular. In the former case, the inconsistency, the contradiction, is with the numerus of the word, in the second it is with the non-numerical properties. So, you introduce tacitly (and probably not even knowingly) what you need to proof (that a logical contradiction is not a logical contradiction).
But that is what you were supposed to give arguments for. And you haven’t done that. You simply introduce the term “NUB”, the concept of which simply presupposes that the problem you need to solve is solved. And you do not give any sort of explanation HOW this concept is supposed to be consistent. None at all.
As for identity - that was pretty cheap. Given your equivocation I explained above and the exposition I just gave on how the “NUB” concept is worthless because meaningless unless shown to be consistent - it is clear that your “identity”-argument doesn’t hold.
This brings me to a very strange statement of yours:
Strange. The concept of “identity” has long been clarified, via properties - the famous two statements (expressed for example by Leibniz) of the Identity of indiscernibles and the indiscernability of identicals. Both alone take the form of conditional statements in second order logic (logic quantifying over properties):
“P” is a variable for properties
“x” and “y” are variables for entities
Indiscernability of identicals:
FOR ALLx,y: (FOR ALL P:(x=y -> (Px Py)))
Identity of indiscernibles:
FOR ALLx,y:(FOR ALL P: ((Px Py) -> x=y))
So, combined, we get:
FOR ALLx,y:(FOR ALL P:(x=y (Px Py)))
“For any x and any x, x is identical to y if and only if x and y have the same properties”
This makes your misconception even clearer: The variables are variables of singular entities. Where we talk of and quantify over multiple entities, either sets or ordered tuples of entities are used OR we specify the proposition for each individual per conjunction of propositions.
It is clear that this:
Is vacuous - because the paraphrased statements add no information whatsoever, the latter aren’t any more or less “proper” than “A is A”. And your last statement “A is A with respect to A” makes no sense whatsoever. It is BECAUSE “A” and “A” refer to the same thing - are identical - that you cannot put identity “with respect to” something which is identical to what is said upfront to be identical. That just makes no sense.
You really ought to take a basic course in logic, set-theory, mereology, category theory etc. The above is cruel to read to any logician.
Anyway - You don’t just get to claim that the singular-plural distinction is invalid or irrelevant.
Now for another blatant confusion (related to the above):
4. Ascribes a general property (in most cases moral) to an entity, an individual
but 5 ascribes a functional, not moral property with respect to some task or role (in this case).
The functional and the moral good are of course related - and for a utilitarianist for example, or indeed anyone with teleological ethics, the moral “good” is a functional property. But for a deontologist it isn’t.
But for a teleologist, even 4 is a proposition describing an entity as being capable of fulfilling a certain function, and thus is always shorthand for some proposition (or set of propositions) that explicate functions. Thus, 4 is indeed not contradictory, but only IN VIRTUE of an equivocation on “good” WITHIN that statement, because they are both shorthand for different ascriptions of functionality.
You, however are just taking this example and claiming that it shows that any contradiction you don’t like doesn’t have to be a contradiction - but you don’t give a consistent analysis of the kind the teleologist can in explicating the equivocation via tacit functional distinction. You only can resolve a conjunction of a proposition and its negation (like “P AND not-P” - or, as it were, the contradictions in the conceptions of the trinity) by proclaiming the term for the individual, the property or whatever which is present in the proposition and the negation to have a meaning/referent different and distinct in the two cases. But by this, you automatically introduce plurality. Thus, the logical inconsistency in the trinity can never be solved.
Now I shall discuss a blatant error of yours that would make every first-semester student of logic cringe:
You fail to distinguish between extension of a term and intension - between sense and denotation. For the position about identity you want to defend, it is extension/denotation that is central, not intension - because you are talking about identity - about being, not about by virtue of which property or properties we REFER to an entity or entities. Extension is what a term refers to (the entitiy/entities), Intension is that by which we pick out entities. For example:
The set of the numbers 2, 4, 6, 8 can be defined extensionally as {2,4,6,8} or as the set of all x where x are the even numbers above 1 and below 10 {x| x is even AND x is within the intervall [1,...,10]}.
Another example clarifying the difference between intension and extension is this:
We know that all beings who have kidneys also have hearts. Therefore, the terms “creature with a heart” and “creature with a kidney” are coextensive. They refer to exactly the same set of entities!
Wait for it - this is the punchline: “evening-star” and “morning-star” refer to the same entity/denote the same singular entity - namely the Planet Venus. So, the evening star IS the morning-star. Hesperus IS Phosphorus! It is in INTENSION that these terms differ, not in EXTENSION.
This was of course not always known - people didn’t know that the brightest star in the evening and the brightest star in the morning are the same entity - so of course they used different terms. But it was discovered that they were identical, and that therefore the TWO terms REFER to ONE entity. This is a prime example (a philosopher’s favourite) of so-called “a posteriori knowledge of an analytical truth”… or in short “analytical a posteriori”.
I’m sorry - I cannot be kind about this: You have the nerve to call the philosophical position of “identity” naive without giving arguments for that before you introduce the example (and making severe errors in the course of talking about that) and then you use this example which in fact PROVES YOU WRONG…. that is quite amusing, highly arrogant and and very embarrassing.
Honestly - this is elementary logic, set-theory, mereology and philosophy of language. Absolutely elementary.
You have produced about two pages of text - and ALL of the essential points are blatant fallacies or errors of another kind.
Of course, Steve and Brian have already taken apart most of this post on the conceptual level in a more informal way - and have done a great job.
Steve
Here is the problem with your position:
First, you spoke about men like Einstein – yet as I quoted/ referenced in the other thread, he did not believe that we could ever understand the true nature of the universe. Do you agree? Disagree? On what grounds?.
Second, why should we accept the present findings of science? In our discussion on your blog you said that theories were always tentative, and can/may be falsified at any time. So why does it bother you that we question these conclusions? This is especially true when it comes to “origins” since we can not repeat or observe these past events.
Third, we are Christians with a high view of Scripture. We really do believe that God communicated truth to man. If science and scripture contradict why on earth would we go with science? Since, as you said, so much of it is tentative? This would not be rational for us…
Bnonn-
My point was to ensure that you understand I am not trying to personally insult you out of some kind of malice or general obnoxiousness of my own.
Don’t be silly. You are responsible for your own words. If I said “All Tennants are nutcases” on a blog, you would take personal offense, and would be justified in doing so.
If you have already taken the truth of scripture as the foundation for everything, then there is simply no possibility for rational debate of any kind.
James-
As so often, you go round in circles.
I make no claims about reality. You are the one making claims - not just that the supernatural exists, but you know what it consists of. You can’t have it both ways - to say that reality is unknown, but that you know it.
I will take my leave for good from here now. I must say I have been deeply troubled by what I have encountered.
Mike, thanks for your detailed comments. As you implicitly observe, I have not had any formal training in ontology, or its underlying disciplines (in honesty, I find ontology quite difficult as I don’t have a very mathematical mind). Your criticism has been very helpful in clarifying my thinking; particularly regarding A P Martinich’s article, from which I derived many of my thoughts. I had been trying to reconcile his thesis regarding identity with my own regarding being, on the basis that they appear (superficially) compatible. However, I have come to think now that this is not the case; and that his thesis, indeed, is seriously flawed. So thank you for pointing out the errors I had made—correcting these has helped to refine and solidify my view of how identity is affected by the NUB thesis.
In light of your critique, I have significantly amended this article. I hope that isn’t considered poor form. The amendments are not so extreme as to answer all of your points, however, so let me make a few observations here as well:
The very purpose of my NUB thesis is to demonstrate that a presupposed truth (the Trinity) is not necessarily self-contradictory. As I have said, this does not mean that it is conceptually explicable to us, since it is a transcendent reality and may be beyond our conceptual limitations. My thesis is that being is non-univocal, at least as regards God: that is, there is actually more than one sense of being, and both senses correspond with our term “being”. God’s being is “three dimensional” rather than “two dimensional”. True, the equivocation in the word “being” is epistemic; but it is epistemic not because we don’t know enough about God, but because our noetic structure is intrinsically incapable of properly conceptualizing the distinction in God’s being, regardless of how much we do know about it.
You seem to want to argue that the term “being” is precise enough, and that we just don’t know enough about God to say whether he is one or three beings. You say that “being” must be a univocal term and have a single and unambiguous referent, which is why we have singular and plural terms. But this obviously begs the question against me, since my whole thesis is that these terms are inadequate to describe God in the first place and that “being” is not necessarily univocal. You haven’t given any actual reasons to suggest that, on Christian grounds, NUB is invalid.
Fair enough. I am not a logician; I’m just doing what I can to think these things through, and am doing it publicly because it is helpful for both myself and others.
Regards,
Bnonn
But this isn’t at all like what I have done, Steve. Your example is a strawman as it currently stands. You would have to instead say something like, “On the basis of naturalism, which I believe, all Tennants are nutcases, and this is why they are unable to properly understand the truth of naturalism.” And that would be fine. If this was, ex hypothesi, a valid inference from naturalism, I would have to engage with naturalism in order to show that I was not, in fact, a nutcase. Regardless of how offensive I found your statement, I could hardly claim that you were just saying it to be mean, or that you were trying to slander me for personal reasons, or whatever. Similarly, if my obligation is to the truth of Scripture, and Scripture says that non-believers are foolish and ignorant (which is a necessary inference from the fact that they deny God), you can hardly take umbrage with me for passing this along when it is relevant to the discussion at hand. Take umbrage with Scripture. Take umbrage with God. But don’t shoot the messenger.
Regards,
Bnonn
Bnonn-
You are welcome to post on my blog at any time. But I find continuing a conversation with someone once they deny evolution is pointless, unless it is about that denial. And as you have stated the reason for your rejection of science is that scripture is simply right, there is nothing to discuss about that.
It is, of course, incorrect for you to say that you are simply reporting scripture. No-one sane accepts all scripture (I am sure even you don’t believe that Pi is 3 or that the earth is flat and with 4 corners). Therefore you pick what you want to accept. In doing so, you take personal responsibility for the views you state.
Unless you are prepared to do what I do, and throw everything open to question, then useful rational conversation between us is simply impossible - we have no common standards by which to judge rationality.
Steve, I don’t mean to press the point unduly, but bolstering one strawman with another hardly strengthens your case. If you’d like to get into an exegetical examination of Scripture’s teaching regarding unbelievers, I’m quite prepared for that. Plus I’ve already given a brief justification of it via simple inference. Or if you’d like to get into the exegesis of things like numerical accuracy and metaphorical representations, that’s fine too. But it’s a patent strawman to make a blanket statement that no one sane believes all of Scripture because it teaches that Pi = 3 and the earth has four corners. If we did have a look at these teachings, you would that your interpretation looks deliberately simplistic and obtuse.
I believe Scripture is inerrant; I therefore believe all of it. I don’t think I’m particularly insane, and neither are most of the people I’ve met who share my belief. They are just better educated as regards what and how Scripture teaches than people who sling around these sorts of accusations.
Incidentally, don’t you think calling me insane in response to me explaining that Scripture teaches that you’re stupid is somewhat ironic? What’s your justification, under a naturalistic scheme?
Regards,
Bnonn
I believe Scripture is inerrant; I therefore believe all of it. I don’t think I’m particularly insane, and neither are most of the people I’ve met who share my belief. They are just better educated as regards what and how Scripture teaches than people who sling around these sorts of accusations.
Sorry, but people often don’t recognise their own delusions. If you seriously believe that scripture is inerrant, and superior to other forms of acquiring knowledge then you are, to be honest, a crackpot. This kind of nuttiness is tolerable in those who aren’t educated, but not in those who are.
I don’t have to justify anything. I am a sceptic. I find it ironic that all the time I have been facing accusations of question begging and having a closed mind when all the time your mind has been closed to anything that contradicts scripture.
You really need to learn about Ockham’s Razor. Picking an arbitrary old book and taking everything in it as axiomatic is ludicrous, and would be funny if it wasn’t being promoted as a serious way of looking at the world. I actually consider such an approach to be a threat to civilization, as we have different people picking up different books, and insisting that their book is the true one. Why is it the true one? Because it is.
I suspect after this, you won’t want me posting here again, but I have no concerns about that. You are welcome, as I say, to post on my blog, but there will be little tolerance for irrationality there.
So, I’ll say goodbye for now. I wish your wife and child well.
A question for Mike.
Mike on Steve’s blog a number of times I tried to get you to tell me which theory of knowledge you held. Were you an empiricist? A rationalist? A pragmatist? And would your theory of knowledge hold up under scrutiny? Would you like to share? Or are you afraid?
For Steve,
I’m glad to see that you are a sceptic. Are you a sceptic when it comes to your own conclusions and the scientific method in general?
I’m glad to see that you are a sceptic. Are you a sceptic when it comes to your own conclusions and the scientific method in general
I am glad you asked this.
I am prepared to be fully sceptical as to my conclusions. What I have a problem with is abandoning the scientific method.
If you want to abandon the scientific method, one has to allow arbitrary, un-verified personal opinions to have significance in understanding reality.
The problem is that no-one has ever provided any method of exploring reality beyond the scientific method that isn’t based on interpretation and opinion. Science allows ideas to be falsified by experiment. That is it’s greatest strength.
I hope that you, unlike Bnonn, are prepared to open all matters up to discussion, like I am?
Steve, you’re still quite welcome to post here. I am not offended that you think me deluded. On the testimony of Scripture, I expect you to think that. The wisdom of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.
The difficulty for you seems to be manifold, though. On the one hand, there are these highly educated people like Plantinga and Bill Craig and my theologically mercurial friend Victor Reppert who hold to the view that Scripture is inerrant. Apparently, for you, this is intolerable. Yet these people have developed various kinds of arguments which provide compelling evidence in favor of the thesis that it is entirely reasonable to believe in God, and to believe that he has communicated his thoughts to mankind. Now, you can say that you personally find these arguments unconvincing. Perhaps you are familiar with them, and perhaps you do; you obviously find at least one representation of the argument from reason unconvincing inasmuch as you understand it, which I don’t believe is as well as you think. But whether they sway you personally is irrelevant to their status as arguments. So for you to claim that it is “intolerable” that educated people would believe that the Bible is inerrant just smacks of either extreme ignorance or extreme prejudice; or perhaps both. I would suggest that you spend less time reading Dawkins’ frothy rantings, and more time reading the reasoned arguments of people who are actually educated in the areas that Dawkins pretends to talk about: philosophy and theology. I think it’s embarrassing for you that you make the sorts of blanket statements that you do, because they just make you look very foolish.
One another hand, you want to say that you don’t need to justify anything; as if having no metaphysical or epistemological foundation is a valid option for you. But regardless of what you claim, you are always going to have some kind of metaphysical presuppositions, as James has tried to show you with sadly little success. You are also clearly committed to some kind of empirical epistemology. The probem for you is that you don’t seem to have the faintest idea what this necessarily entails, all the various problems with it, or even why epistemology matters at all. And that, again, is just embarrassing for you. You are accusing people who have a solid epistemological theory of being deluded; but from what foundation? These questions do actually matter. Again, it sounds like you have really no knowledge at all of, say, Plantinga’s response to the de jure objection to Christianity. The simple-mindedness and obvious certainty with which you forward this objection just shows that you haven’t got the slightest awareness (or at least understanding) of Christian responses to it which thoroughly defuse it, and even turn it back on you. Again, I would suggest that to avoid embarrassing yourself you at least become familiar with some of the basic literature, like Warranted Christian Belief. Even if you don’t read it in full, but find some summaries of the various arguments so you are aware of their existence and gist.
Then there’s Ockham’s Razor. Well, I’m sorry Steve but this objection is just kinda O.o yah know? What justification can you give for even leveraging the Razor as a general rule, let alone the sort of “seventh logical axiom” you’ve tried to turn it into?
Regards,
Bnonn
Steve,
That’s all well and good. I once asked you - does truth only come through the scientific method? I believe you said no. Sience does help us to figure some things out, but when it comes to love, family, friendship, law, justice, ethics, art, music, beauty, history, logic, meaning, religion, etc… science is silent. Yet these are the things that touch our lives the most. Yes, at times science can extend our lives, but without the above - it’s all meaningless. It’s the intangables, the things that one can not put under a microscope, that give our lives true purpose and deep meaning.
You are all excited about the Higgs Boson test at CERN, that’s fine. But will that test save one human life? What was the cost of that collider? How many children could have been saved from starvation or malaria for that money? Or received the hope of the Gospel? Many of our priorities are upside down. This is what I would expect from sinful man. That money could have been much better spent on medical research.
You are accusing people who have a solid epistemological theory of being deluded; but from what foundation?
You don’t have a solid epistemological theory. For goodness sake, you hadn’t even researched the logic necessary to understand the concept of the Trinity.
You just say “it’s all true, whatever”.
You also seem to misunderstand the term “theory”. It doesn’t mean to try and dodge clear inconsistencies by even trying to redefine logic. That is intellectually dishonest.
If you wish to use the word “theory”, then you are going to have to indicate how it could be falsified, otherwise you have bothing but a “belief”.
My only attitude is not to believe things unless I am shown consistent evidence, because I know how fallible we all are.
James-
The money that is spent at CERN is a tiny fraction of that spent on other matters, not even 1% of the cost of the Iraq war, for example.
You are incorrect that science has nothing to say about matters such as family, friendship, history and so on. It provides an detailed explanation of why we live like we do. It can certainly explain how we reason, why we experience beauty and so on. What science doesn’t do is provide any framework for ethics or behaviour - that is what philosophy is for. It just seems dangerous to me
The real issue here is how we explore the world, and whether or not we choose to shut ourselves away in a cave of ignorance, where it may feel warm and safe, but we never get to see the real world with all its fearsome beauty. I find it hard to express the awe I get when I contemplate what science has revealed to us. Let’s just look at a very recent one - a quark star - a new form of matter. A star compressed to just a few kilometers in diameter, and with so much gravity that time runs significantly slower at its surface. Isn’t that amazing?
Let’s also pick a subject that I specialise in, as I am a biologist - evolution. It tells such wonderful stories, we know how fish came onto land, how dinosaurs developed into birds, how a small deer-like creature went back to the sea and gave rise to whales, and so on. We know the details, and when all this happened. And, we have discovered amazing animals - dinosaur-birds that flew with four wings, for example.
I am utterly astonished that anyone can reject the process that leads to such amazing discoveries, in favour of conflicting interpretations of inconsistent words in an old book. It totally eludes me. If someone could explain the psychological motivation, I would be seriously interested.
Bnonn-
Another point about “epistemological theories”.
Anyone can have them. I’ll make one up: knowledge comes from elves. It is nice and consistent: The elves define themselves as the source of knowledge.
Such systems of statements can be consistent. They can be self-affirming (I have some writing that I believe is from the elves say that all this is true).
But that doesn’t matter. What matters is whether or not it is reasonable to claim that such beliefs could possibly be true. In order for that to be the case you have to test the ideas against reality. Internal feelings aren’t sufficient.
All beliefs about the world have to be subject to verification. This isn’t going to necessarily prove that they are true, but it helps support them.
To be anti-science is to abandon tests against reality. I think that is dangerous. It allows people to make important claims without rational support:
“God loves me, not you”
“Gays are evil”
“Evolution is wrong”
Without such support, there is nothing to distinguish between competing supernatural claims, and it comes down simply to who shouts loudest and with the most voices.
This is why you are responsible for your words when you call those you oppose ignorant and foolish. It is fair for others to insist you justify those words with reasoned discourse. Saying “I can’t help it, I am just right”, as you have, is not reasonable in a civilized society. It isn’t about what you personally believe, it is about what it is acceptable to claim in a public forum.
True egalitarian democracies, that protect individuals against the majority, can only operate through the use of reason.
James-
Sorry, did not finish a sentence in a post above
“It just seems dangerous to me to base ethics on religion”
Steve,
When science does touch on things like family, friendship, love, beauty, ethics etc… it simply reduces it all to mechanical phenomenon. We are just coggs in the non-rational machine of nature. No free will, no ultimate accountability, no ultimate meaning, no transcendent grounding for ethics, love, beauty, rationality or justice. And any intuitive sense we may to the contrary is an illusion - according to you. And you wonder why people don’t flock to this view of human nature, reality?
And yes, I agree that the Iraq war is a great waste of money. But thanks to modern science we can not kill each other by the bushel full! Not only that, thanks to science we can now completely destroy humanity! And believe me, that may be right around the corner… Thanks guys… I think we were better off with sticks and clubs…
Ok, you asked why we believe in the words of an old book. Well, Steve truth is truth - no matter when it is first uttered. Second, and I will ask this again - what present theory has no chance of being falsified tomorrow? You yourself said that all scientific conclusions were tenative - so why sould we accept them as absolute truth? If you say that science does not deal in absolute truth, then I will say - what the hell Steve! Stop speaking as if it does!
Second, I certainly will question biological evolution. Especially non-teleological evolution by random mutations and natural selection. Remember you prevented me from posting on your board because I questioned the ability of RMs to created new body parts. There is no compelling evidence that they can. And without random mutations what are you left with to built all the new body parts and systems that would be needed to go from a cell to a man. Nevermind the fact that you can not even get to the first simple cell in the first place. I once had debate with another biologist on the evolution of the eye from a simple light patch up. His “just so stories” were just so fantastic, believing in Biblical miracles seemed tame in comparsion… And another point. Facts do not interpret themselves, all facts are filtered through the subjective human mind - a mind full of bias and assumption - that taint all said facts.
Third, if you are correct, and materialism is correct, then we believe in that old book because the evolutionary process caused us to do so. It’s not like we had any choice in the matter. Mother nature caused us to believe a lie. Of course, I wonder how many lies mother nature is causing you to believe right now?
As far as ethics Steve,
I my younger years I live what some may call a colorful life. Anyway, I knew a man who was a “fence.” He took stolen goods and resold at discount prices (goods that were often got at the end of a gun). He was very low key, and made a ton of money. He was never arrested and his family thought he was in the import buisness. He provided very well for his family. Put his three children through good colleges, and left them all quite a chuck of jack. And he died old and happy, surrounded by these faithful loved ones.
What on earth could an atheist like you tell this man on his death bed? That he did “wrong?” He would laugh in your face - as he should…
James-
I blocked you from posting on my blog because you were going around in circles;
repeating questions that had already been given an answer. You were not progressing the debate by responding to those answers.
There is certainly compelling evidence that random mutation can produce new body parts. This happens all the time in the arthropodia - our ancestors. We see different varieties with different body parts. The thing is that a certain common ancestor of the arthropodia survived to produce fish, with a certain fin pattern, and by that time thing were fixed. Given a different circumstance, fish would havd had different fins, and we would have had extra limbs.
However, In order for us to develop major new body parts, we would need to re-wind evolution back to the point where the worm-like creature that led to fish had a different number of segments.
What on earth could an atheist like you tell this man on his death bed? That he did “wrong?” He would laugh in your face - as he should…
I am completely baffled by this. You haven’t the faintest idea what your “God” wants of you. If I asked you to prove to me what theistic ethics where, you would not be able to.
We are all in the same situation regarding ethics. It is just that some people claim that their views are somehow linked to the creator of the universe. Without evidence, such claims have no value.
Steve,
You are again begging the question. You have to show that RMs produced the new body parts that you are speaking of. Did you observe this? No, you are assuming again…
And no Steve, I am not in the same boat since God made His views known on stealing (see the Torah and the ethical teaching of the New Testament) . That man will be judged for his wrongs, as will you. But the fact is, the atheist has nothing to say to this man. As a matter of fact, all morality or law is relative in your world. If a man can get away with it, and further his power, wealth and set up his children - then he did good. In the evolutionary sense, he did real good.
Steve, I’m away for a week from today, so I’ll reply when I get back.
Regards,
Bnonn
James-
We have actually observed mutations that produce extra limbs in the kinds of organisms that fish evolved from. We also know how fin patterns appeared in fish. This organisation is controlled by “homeotic genes”. We really do know how all this happened. Saying it is mistaken is a bit like saying that the theory of electromagnetism is wrong while using a computer. There is no doubt about it.
As for the matter of knowing that something is wrong because the Bible says so, that is question begging! Let’s look at all the steps you have to go through before saying that is reasonable.. You have to show:
1. That there is a God
2. That it is your God
3. That He inspired people to write the Bible (how did he do this?)
4. That God is good (why should this be?)
5. That what is said in the Bible is meant to be taken seriously, as against myth.
You have a lot of work to do before you can state that what is said in the Bible is to be used as the basis for ethics.
Also, being a thief is NOT actually good for genes. It isn’t what is known as an “evolutionarily stable strategy”: if we all did it, society would collapse. This has been investigated in detail for decades. If a behaviour is to persist in a group of organisms, it has to be the kind of behaviour that will succeed when it encounters copies of itself. That just does not work for stealing in the kind of groups humans used to live in. Our moral sense makes good evolutionary sense. We have morals to control behaviour just like we have a sense of pain to discourage ourselves from doing harm to our bodies.
Steve,
1. I’m sorry, I do not believe you observe any such thing. What you observe are mutations duplicating existing information (and almost always harmful, a fruit fly, reproducing a leg on the top of it’s head or a useless, extra set of wings) , and acting on existing systems. Not creating new systems, and let me quote Dr Christian Schwabe:
‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. … Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’ (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.107B:167–177).
Do you agree or disagree?
2. I certainly do not believe that you would take to heart any defense I made of scripture. You very seldom see me doing this. I in fact believe that you will fight tooth and nail against Holy Writ - a sinner seeks God like a bank robber looks for a cop. But I will say, it is not a leap to believe that a Creator God could communicate to His creation - man in particular. Even if we don’t know the mechanism. Just like you believe in Quantum entanglement - that two formely entangled particles mirror each other’s movement at a distance. There is nothing that can explain this - yet you believe it to be so. Now you could say that we may one day find the mechanism, but I could say the same thing - perhaps one day God will reveal how He accomplished certain things. But for now we both take it by “faith.”
3. Your point about ethics is meaningless. People steal all the time. Most are not so bold, like my co-workers taking little things from the workplace. So clearly stealing is an evolutionarily strategy for survival or we would NOT be doing it. I see apes stealing each other’s food all the time on the Animal Planet. Sometimes they share, but when the big ape wants the little ape’s food or mate, he just comes and takes it/them. So obviously stealing is a good strategy for survival.
Like I said Steve, you have nothing to say to the man in my story… He protected his gene pool and gave them advantage. Good strategy indeed…
A side note Steve concerning evolutionary behavior. Is there a behavior we humans could do that would falsify evolutionary behavior models? If so, could you name me one? Or are the present models of evolutionary psychology unfalsifiable?
James-
You are missing an important point. I am not talking about mammals, or even creatures with specialised limbs such as insects. The level of organism we need to consider are segmented worms with legs. Simple mutations can reduce or increase the number of segments. It is also true that most such mutations are harmful in more organised creatures. But that doesn’t matter. We are dealing with timescales of hundreds of millions of years.
This really is extremely well-researched. I just don’t understand why you have a problem with it.
Regarding ethics, you are trying to deal with absolutes. Things aren’t black and white. Lifting a few pencils from workplace isn’t equivalent to living off thievery.
So clearly stealing is an evolutionarily strategy for survival or we would NOT be doing it.
Again, you go with the black-and-white all-or-nothing arguments. Occasional pilfering may not be too harmful, but for most people, their consciences won’t allow them to rob banks.
Like I said Steve, you have nothing to say to the man in my story… He protected his gene pool and gave them advantage. Good strategy indeed…
No, he didn’t. If he passed on the same genetic tendency towards unfettered thieving, then this behaviour will not be successful.
You are confusing what happens in one generation with what happens long term.
As for proving evolutionary ideas of behaviour wrong, of course it is falsifiable. If all of humanity suddenly turned into mass murders for no apparent reason…
And yet again, you have nothing at all to say to that fellow, unless you can give a good reasonable explanation to believe in scripture…. all you are doing is projecting what you feel is right anyway into what you suppose comes from a supreme being. It is a form of sock-puppetry (”me and my powerful invisible friend both think…”)
Hey Steve,
1. Perhaps I’m not making myself clear. Like with your worm example. Are any new systems being created? I’m not speaking of duplication or losing information (like the loss of legs). That is mutation acting on existing material, existing body parts. Do we have observable evidence that mutations can built these systems in the first place?
2. You said: No, he didn’t. If he passed on the same genetic tendency towards unfettered thieving, then this behaviour will not be successful.
But you are assuming. Obviously the genetic trait was passed on to him. And he did just fine. It would depend on conditions and intelligence. There is a saying - only stupid criminals get caught.
3. You said: Again, you go with the black-and-white all-or-nothing arguments. Occasional pilfering may not be too harmful, but for most people, their consciences won’t allow them to rob banks.
But what moral obligations do we have to conscience? None in a materialistic world. People generally don’t understand that now, but when they do look out…
4. Again, we see stealing in the animal kingdom all the time Steve. The stronger constantly steal from the weaker. If you were correct we should have seen major species (including large primates) die out long ago. But they haven’t - so it must be effective. How can you argue against this?
5. You said: As for proving evolutionary ideas of behaviour wrong, of course it is falsifiable. If all of humanity suddenly turned into mass murders for no apparent reason…
First, men are already practice genocide. Men commit suicide. I don’t see how your example would disprove evolutionary psychology since we already have the seeds for mass murder , and self murder in our make up. It is interesting that you had to reach for such an extreme example - this only shows me that the theory, for all practical purposes, can not be falsified.
6. You said: And yet again, you have nothing at all to say to that fellow, unless you can give a good reasonable explanation to believe in scripture…. all you are doing is projecting what you feel is right anyway into what you suppose comes from a supreme being. It is a form of sock-puppetry (”me and my powerful invisible friend both think…”)
Ok, your will be done…
Perhaps I’m not making myself clear. Like with your worm example. Are any new systems being created? I’m not speaking of duplication or losing information (like the loss of legs). That is mutation acting on existing material, existing body parts. Do we have observable evidence that mutations can built these systems in the first place?
Yes, we do. There was recent observation of the development of new structures in the guts of lizards that had their diet changed. This happened after only decades.
But you are assuming. Obviously the genetic trait was passed on to him. And he did just fine. It would depend on conditions and intelligence. There is a saying - only stupid criminals get caught.
We have discussed this. It isn’t about single generations. Consider a situation where 80% of people were lifelong thieves? Does this work? How about 40%? How about 20%?
The problem is that even intelligent thievery doesn’t work if a significant number do it. That is why most of us have consciences telling us not to do it.
4. Again, we see stealing in the animal kingdom all the time Steve. The stronger constantly steal from the weaker. If you were correct we should have seen major species (including large primates) die out long ago. But they haven’t - so it must be effective. How can you argue against this?
I have just discussed this. Let me repeat precisely what I posted in my my previous effort. It is to do with degrees, and averages. Pilfering is not the same as a life spent thieving. There are some actions that just don’t work in groups that humans used to live in - say bands of a few dozen.
But what moral obligations do we have to conscience? None in a materialistic world. People generally don’t understand that now, but when they do look out…
Conscience IS morality. What you are talking about is ethics. Also, what you are suggesting is just plain silly - that if people found out they are just atoms, they would go around killing and stealing. Why should they? We have feelings for each other. We aren’t emotionless uncaring robots. Having someone point out the nature of their bodies doesn’t change that.
What I find totally bizarre is why you think that the existence of a non-material world (for which you have provided no evidence) changes anything at all to do with morality or ethics. If you have a think about it, you will see it doesn’t. The material/non-material status of the world has as much relevance to the status of morality as the colour of the sky.
First, men are already practice genocide. Men commit suicide. I don’t see how your example would disprove evolutionary psychology since we already have the seeds for mass murder , and self murder in our make up. It is interesting that you had to reach for such an extreme example - this only shows me that the theory, for all practical purposes, can not be falsified.
I am at a loss to explain why you say this. I have already covered this. Having some individuals do this is not the same as it being the usual case. That was my falsifiable situation.
Ok, your will be done…
I am not claiming an invisible friend who tells me what to do. I take personal responsibility for my actions, and for finding out what is right and wrong.
Hey Steve,
1. You said: Yes, we do. There was recent observation of the development of new structures in the guts of lizards that had their diet changed. This happened after only decades.
Do you have link for this?
2. You said: I have just discussed this. Let me repeat precisely what I posted in my my previous effort. It is to do with degrees, and averages. Pilfering is not the same as a life spent thieving. There are some actions that just don’t work in groups that humans used to live in - say bands of a few dozen.
What the bigger apes do to the smaller apes is not pilfering for goodness sake, they take their food. Which is necessary for survival. I mean you see this across the animal knigdom. The strong, or clever, take from the weak and stupid. How can you A. deny this is pretty universal among animals, and B. say it is not effective?
3. You said: Conscience IS morality. What you are talking about is ethics. Also, what you are suggesting is just plain silly - that if people found out they are just atoms, they would go around killing and stealing. Why should they? We have feelings for each other. We aren’t emotionless uncaring robots. Having someone point out the nature of their bodies doesn’t change that.
It would be logically foolish to be obligated to conscience. Why, if it stood in the way of a person’s power and wealth? And I do believe men act on, or from, their worldview. If we are nothing more than primordial slime evolved to a higher order then why not grab all you can? What’s the difference in the end?
4. You said: What I find totally bizarre is why you think that the existence of a non-material world (for which you have provided no evidence) changes anything at all to do with morality or ethics. If you have a think about it, you will see it doesn’t. The material/non-material status of the world has as much relevance to the status of morality as the colour of the sky.
A. This is an interesting point Steve - what is evidence? If I remember correctly you provided no evidence that the universe was either self-generating or self-sustaining. You could not even give non-arbitrary standards of what a purely materialistic universe would look like. We both assume our positions. But back to my question - what is evidence?
B. Your second point is just foolish. Belief in God has a profound effect on one’s moral life. It had on mine, and dozens of people I have known.
5. You said: I am at a loss to explain why you say this. I have already covered this. Having some individuals do this is not the same as it being the usual case. That was my falsifiable situation.
This is the problem Steve, evolutionary psychology explains why men rape, and why they don’t, why women birth their children, and why they abort, why we wage war and why we wage peace, why we are sexually attracted to the same sex and why we are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, why we are greedy, and why we share, etc, etc, etc… It explains every behavior and it’s opposite - that is unfalsifible (when looking at actual behavior) and therefore it is not science. And believe me, if we all really did start killing each other tomorrow you would come up for a evolutionary explaination for that too.
6. You said: I am not claiming an invisible friend who tells me what to do. I take personal responsibility for my actions, and for finding out what is right and wrong.
Tell me Steve, why is your moral opinion on let’s say genocide more correct or valid than Stalin’s?
James,
it seems obvious to me that your exchange with Steve concerning ethics/morality suffers from a massive misunderstanding on your part, namely the confusion between a descriptive theory and a prescriptive set of rules. The theory of evolution is the former, not the latter.
When you write
“What the bigger apes do to the smaller apes is not pilfering for goodness sake, they take their food. Which is necessary for survival. I mean you see this across the animal knigdom. The strong, or clever, take from the weak and stupid.”
you are describing a behaviour of organisms in nature and jump from there to the conclusion that humans should act likewise. Why? We have the mental capacity to reflect on our behaviour and are not dependent on instincts. Every time we use contraceptives for instance we are acting against the evolutionary “desires” (in an abstract sense) of our genes to propagate into the next generation. And why not, since we have reached a cognitive level where our destiny is to a certain degree in our own hands. Again, evolution is simply a process that goes on all around and within us. To claim that we should follow the “demands” of said process (and ignoring that this is not even a coherent proposition IMO) in ethical questions is a massive non sequitur.
Further, I have the impression that you think ethical propositions are either grounded in an absolute, objective standard or they are completely meaningless. Anyone who has studied philosphy of ethics will find such a statement so massively wrong that it hurts, not to mention that I very much doubt that you could show ethics based on your version of/belief in the Christian god to be objective. I would urge you to obtain some reading material on this topic bef0re arguing in this way, e.g. Mackie’s “Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong”.
Do you have link for this?
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2663,Lizards-make-adaptive-change,Stan-Freeman
How can you A. deny this is pretty universal among animals, and B. say it is not effective?
Please re-read what I posted before. You are just making stuff up to disagree with me. Full-time thievery is not a stable strategy for the majority of members of any species.
This is an interesting point Steve - what is evidence? If I remember correctly you provided no evidence that the universe was either self-generating or self-sustaining. You could not even give non-arbitrary standards of what a purely materialistic universe would look like. We both assume our positions. But back to my question - what is evidence?
Evidence is something that will convince a sceptic. That is repeatable at different places in space and time. That does not rely on personal testimony.
You make more complex assumptions with more entities than me. It is up to you to justify your position. If you have evidence for things not following laws of nature, please present it. If you have some evidence for a supernatural/natural divide, please present it.
If we are nothing more than primordial slime evolved to a higher order then why not grab all you can? What’s the difference in the end?
What a deeply silly statement. For goodness sake man, don’t you care about other people? Do you honestly think you only care about them because of your belief in God?
B. Your second point is just foolish. Belief in God has a profound effect on one’s moral life. It had on mine, and dozens of people I have known.
That is completely missing the point. We aren’t talking about belief, we are talking about there being some actual transcendent foundation for morality. Belief in God can have a profound effect on one’s moral life. Just see the way Osama Bin Laden acts. The point is that we construct our belief in God out of whatever existing moral framework we have. In truth, we don’t get our morals from God - we construct a God out of our morals. That is the danger - that people claim supernatural backing for whatever morality they happen to have. It is a real danger - we see it all the time.
This is the problem Steve, evolutionary psychology explains why men rape, and why they don’t, why women birth their children, and why they abort, why we wage war and why we wage peace, why we are sexually attracted to the same sex and why we are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, why we are greedy, and why we share, etc, etc, etc… It explains every behavior and it’s opposite - that is unfalsifible (when looking at actual behavior) and therefore it is not science. And believe me, if we all really did start killing each other tomorrow you would come up for a evolutionary explaination for that too.
No. It explains typical behaviour. We have been over this.
Tell me Steve, why is your moral opinion on let’s say genocide more correct or valid than Stalin’s?
Because I care about people. And, hey, I don’t need an imaginary friend to do it!
Hey Steve,
1. Thanks for the link. But that really does not answer my question. Creationists believe in change, even rapid change within type or kind. In your example there is no evidence that random mutations did this. As a matter of fact on your blog you told me that such change would take long ages, and we shouldn’t expect to see such things. If RMs did cause the change in these lizards you would expect to see it in the DNA, yet the DNA was exactly the same as the parent population. No I suspect some form of phenotypic plasticity. A inherent ability to adapt.
2. Steve, are you telling me that the stronger, more agressive animals of a group don’t regularly take from the weaker members of the group?
3. You said: Evidence is something that will convince a sceptic. That is repeatable at different places in space and time. That does not rely on personal testimony.
Then prove that you live in a materialistic universe. Convince this sceptic. Besides, you just reject most of ancient history since it relies on personal testimony and is not repeatable.
You make more complex assumptions with more entities than me. It is up to you to justify your position. If you have evidence for things not following laws of nature, please present it. If you have some evidence for a supernatural/natural divide, please present it.
What cause the universe only needs to be as complex as necessary, I suppose. Do you know what that was? Second, what laws of nature do formerly entangled particles follow? And again you are begging the question - how do you know these laws are “natural?”
4. You said: What a deeply silly statement. For goodness sake man, don’t you care about other people? Do you honestly think you only care about them because of your belief in God?
The question is why care? The man in my story did care very much for his family - obviously not at all for strangers. So? Did he do wrong? How so?
5, You said: Because I care about people. And, hey, I don’t need an imaginary friend to do it!
That is no answer. I’m sure Stalin cared for his family (actually he did). I asked why your moral opinion was more correct or valid than his?
Hello Iapetus,
1. How can we act against evolutionary “desires?” Are you suggesting free will? The fact is humans do steal, rape, practice genocide, etc… It’s our genetic make up to do so. How can genetics be “wrong?”
2. And yes, I am claiming that if ethics or morality are not objectively grounded that they are ultimately meaningless, and without moral authority. Again, how is Stalin’s moral opinion more correct or valid than yours?
3. And it really doesn’t matter what Mackie says, or how detailed his argument, it will come back to the samething. If there is no God, everything is permissible. Like the man in my story - if you can get away with it and further your gene pool, you won… Plain and simple.
Hello again Steve,
1. You said: That is completely missing the point. We aren’t talking about belief, we are talking about there being some actual transcendent foundation for morality. Belief in God can have a profound effect on one’s moral life. Just see the way Osama Bin Laden acts. The point is that we construct our belief in God out of whatever existing moral framework we have. In truth, we don’t get our morals from God - we construct a God out of our morals. That is the danger - that people claim supernatural backing for whatever morality they happen to have. It is a real danger - we see it all the time.
First, you are assumimg that we construct our belief in God out of a existing moral framework. Second, your points are completely bias. I can’t tell you how many christians I know that have left lives of crime and drug abuse because of their faith. Who are now good citizens because they believe in objective, God given, moral truths - like loving one’s neighbor, helping the poor and outcast, being true to their spouses, etc… The content of one’s faith (the moral tenets of that system) are important. So don’t lump us in with Bin Laden - it is intellectually dishonest.
2. You said: No. It explains typical behaviour. We have been over this.
My point remains, it is unfalsifible when observing actual behavior so it is not “science.”
James,
“1. How can we act against evolutionary “desires?” Are you suggesting free will? The fact is humans do steal, rape, practice genocide, etc… It’s our genetic make up to do so. How can genetics be “wrong?””
We are conscious of and able to reflect on our actions and therefore not bound to follow our instincts. Furthermore, as Steve already noted, we also have altruistic urges due to our evolutionary past that required us to develop some form of cooperation within small groups of individuals.
However, it seems you missed the point I was making. Inferring from the fact/hypothesis that we have a genetic predisposition to behave in a certain way the proposition that it is ethically justified/not justified to behave in this way is not warranted. It is the old is/ought problem that was formulated by Hume almost 300 years ago. When we say an action is ethically justified or not (or “good” or “bad” if you prefer) we mean that it is an action that one should or should not do, i.e. there is a prescriptive component involved.
In contrast, observing that human beings sometimes display violent tendencies is a description/observation. How would you derive from this a prescriptive rule that says “Behaving violently is good.”? Answering that our genes predispose us to it is not enough, because you have to explain why we should try to follow this genetic predisposition.
“2. And yes, I am claiming that if ethics or morality are not objectively grounded that they are ultimately meaningless, and without moral authority. Again, how is Stalin’s moral opinion more correct or valid than yours?”
This presupposes the existence of an objective standard that could be more or less exactly approached. Unless you can show this to be the case, your question does not make sense. Which brings me to this:
“3. And it really doesn’t matter what Mackie says, or how detailed his argument, it will come back to the samething. If there is no God, everything is permissible. Like the man in my story - if you can get away with it and further your gene pool, you won… Plain and simple.”
Again, I would recommend you familiarize yourself at least superficially with his work (or philosophy of ethics in general). It is precisely sentiments like these that Mackie shows to be untenable. For starters, could you please elucidate the chain of reasoning for your assertions that a) ethical propositions are objective and b) the Christian god (and only this god) makes these objective ethical propositions possible.
James-
I can’t see what you are arguing in your last post. You seem to have moved away from arguing that there is a God to arguing that the belief in a God and objective morality is all that matters.
Sorry, but you are wrong. People are much more decent than you appear to believe. There are hundreds of millions who don’t believe in a God or in objective morality but who live happy and decent lives. I’ll leave it up to you to decide if it is decent behaviour to try and change people’s lives based on delusions.
It is entirely fair to lump you in with Bin Laden while you, like him, continue to insist that your morality is supported by the divine. That is an unfair tactic in a civilized society. You say God says one thing, and he says God says another thing, but without hard evidence, the only reasonable thing is to ignore both claims. It is intellectually dishonest to talk about the objective nature of morality when you have no evidence for such a thing at all.
Also, there is not the slightest doubt that we construct ideas of Gods out of our own morality. We can see the consequence of this right now with the imminent splitting of the Anglican church. Apparently some people say the Holy Spirit says this, and other people say the Holy Spirit says that.
One would think that the Holy Spirit would just sort all this out!
My point remains, it is unfalsifiable when observing actual behavior so it is not “science.”
Yes, it is falsifiable. Ideas of animal behaviour based on this kind of work are falsified all the time! It is a robust experimental science.
I strongly back Iapetus’ suggestion that you read Mackie on these matters - he is a wonderfully clear writer.
Hello again Iapetus
1. Tell me how you rationally go from is to ought? And if you are not suggesting some form of libertarian free will, then as Dawkins says – we are just dancing to our DNA. Our DNA may cause us to be gracious and giving or greedy and violent. How is any of this outside of our genetic predisposition? How do you NOT follow this disposition? Again, how do go from is to ought – rationally?
2. We are both assuming at this point Iapetus, I assume the Christian God, you assume naturalism. And you can not prove that our moral sense is the result of evolutionary forces alone. So we work off our assumptions. If God then A, if no God then B. I have presented B and I don’t see how you can rationally refute it. So in the end it doesn’t matter what Mackie says, or anyone else - it will all come back to that simple point.
3. I will again ask-how is Stalin’s moral opinion more correct or valid than yours?
4. Or let me quote from Russell’s Science and Ethics:
“The theory which I have been advocating is a form of the doctrine which is called the ’subjectivity’ of values. This doctrine consists in maintaining that, if two men differ about values, there is not a disagreement as to any kind of truth, but a difference of taste. If one man says ‘oysters are good’ and another says ‘I think they are bad,’ we recognize that there is nothing to argue about. The theory in question holds that all differences as to values are of this sort, although we do not naturally think them so when we are dealing with matters that seem to us more exalted than oysters. The chief ground for adopting this view is the complete impossibility of finding any arguments to prove that this or that has intrinsic value.
Hey again Steve,
1. I did not move away from anything. Like I said I very rarely defend belief in God. My point is there are certain logical conclusions for morality depending on whether God exists or not….
2. As to my belief in God being a delusion. This is the problem Steve. Your opinion has no weight (and I’m not trying to be dismissive here) with me. Are you rational? Can you prove it? I mean some much of what you say is completely arbitrary. Like when I asked you what evidence was or why your opinion was more valid than Stalin’s. You believe many things without rational justification - like your experience of the world corresponds with reality
3. You said: Yes, it is falsifiable. Ideas of animal behavior based on this kind of work are falsified all the time! It is a robust experimental science.
Ok, then give me a real life example of a behavior that would falsify theories evolutionary psychology.
James,
“1. Tell me how you rationally go from is to ought? And if you are not suggesting some form of libertarian free will, then as Dawkins says – we are just dancing to our DNA. Our DNA may cause us to be gracious and giving or greedy and violent. How is any of this outside of our genetic predisposition? How do you NOT follow this disposition? Again, how do go from is to ought – rationally?”
Please read again what I wrote. The difficulty to derive an ethically prescriptive rule from an observation of (human) nature is exactly what I was talking about. Why do you ask me to lay out a rationale for crossing this divide when I explicitly questioned the validity of such an endeavour in the first place? You were the one who set up the strawman that a non-theistic ethical system must somehow be based on the theory of evolution and/or descriptions of natural patterns of behaviour. We can see this again in the above quote about genetic predisposition. Unless you can justify why accepting discovered facts about the natural world forces us to declare it ethically desirable to follow this or that genetic predisposition, your position is not coherent.
Regarding this “dancing to our DNA” theme, I will repeat what I already wrote: we have the mental capacity to reflect on our instincts, urges, desires etc. and to amend our behaviour. Furthermore, it is ludicrously simplistic to think that complex patterns of behaviour as displayed by humans are somehow 100% hardwired in our genes. Our brains have tremendous plasticity and are shaped through e.g. cultural factors during childhood.
“2. We are both assuming at this point Iapetus, I assume the Christian God, you assume naturalism.”
How would you know what my metaphysical assumptions are, if any? For all you know, I could be an atheist Buddhist who holds that the Universe is governed by an objective, yet impersonal moral law. The metaphysical landscape is bigger than this simple Christian god/no Christian god dichotomy.
“And you can not prove that our moral sense is the result of evolutionary forces alone. So we work off our assumptions.”
We also can not prove that a ball falling to the ground is the result of gravitational forces alone. Is it reasonable to assume that invisible leprechauns are pushing it? If we can sufficiently explain a phenomenon through natural forces, this is it. If you want to introduce additional mechanisms/entities to the explanation it is your burden to show corroborating evidence.
I would be interested to hear why theists are so frequently afraid of accepting that we are creatures that were shaped by evolutionary forces. Do you believe that it would deny you this special place in the Universe your god promised you? Do you fear that it would destroy the notion of absolute morality that you deem indispensable?
” If God then A, if no God then B. I have presented B and I don’t see how you can rationally refute it.”
If by “presented” you mean “asserted”, I would agree with you. As it is, there is not much on the table that could be refuted, because no rational argument was laid out. So I will repeat the request from my last post: could you please elucidate the chain of reasoning for your assertions that a) ethical propositions are objective and b) the Christian god (and only this god) makes these objective ethical propositions possible.
“So in the end it doesn’t matter what Mackie says, or anyone else - it will all come back to that simple point.”
Statements like these are precisely the reason why you would immensely profit from engaging philosophy of ethics in general and Mackie in particular.
“3. I will again ask-how is Stalin’s moral opinion more correct or valid than yours?”
I answered this already. If you mean “correct” in the sense of “maximal approximation of an objective truth”, then this presupposes the existence of such. Unless you can show this to be the case, the question does not make sense.
Hello Iapetus
1. Ok, then you agree that you can not go from is to ought and Stalin’s moral opinion is no more correct or valid than yours.
2. I have no idea what you mean by suggesting that we can override our genetic make up. Is Dawkins wrong? Yes our brains may have plasticity but they still dance to their genetic make up. You can assert, but unless you pose some form of libertain free will, all our thoughts, actions and responses are determined - do you deny that they are determined?
3. As far as proof Iapetus. Again, you can not prove that this universe is “natural.” You simply assume it. What is the difference between a supenatural universe and a purely natural universe - how would you know? By what objective standard?
4. And yes these is an ethical difference concerning man’s place in the universe. Man has no inherent dignity or value in a strictly material universe. He does have, objective, transcendent worth if the Christian God exists.
5. As far as Mackie goes, what is he going to say, bottom line, that you haven’t said? Are his conclusions going to be different? BTW - that quote from Russell was from one of Mackie’s online papers I read - I was not impressed - same old, same old….
James-
You keep missing the point.
I don’t have to prove anything to you about the nature of the world, or if I am rational.
You are making claims about invisible things. It is as simple as that.
What you are effectively proposing is a form of dishonest intellectual anarchy…. “we can’t prove anything, so I can just make stuff up”.
Even if I were to accept that science was useless (which I don’t), or that there is a supernatural realm (which I don’t), that doesn’t help you one bit to prove God. You have to give robust evidence - it is simple as that.
Also, what you are basically claiming is that your mind has super-powers. You are somehow able to have direct experience of some other realm.
Well, two can play at that game. I declare the existence of the hyper-natural realm. I experience it directly in my thoughts. I have spoken in my head to some entity called Dog, and he has told me that your mere “supernatural” realm is an inferior sort of place, where lesser beings hang out, and have fun deluding humans.
Do you see the kind of rubbish one can get to if you don’t start with the simplest working, tentative assumptions (one kind of reality, the one we see; the one we can prod)?
This is why you are in a very difficult position with your claims of the supernatural. I’m assuming one reality, you are assuming two. You have to justify your case.
He does have, objective, transcendent worth if the Christian God exists.
This is just stringing words together in the hope they make sense.
You first have to show that there is a supernatural realm, that there is a God, that he somehow gives us worth, and so on.
Otherwise this sentence makes as much sense as “floopy warble flip”.
3. As far as proof Iapetus. Again, you can not prove that this universe is “natural.” You simply assume it. What is the difference between a supenatural universe and a purely natural universe - how would you know? By what objective standard?
You keep making the same mistakes.
This isn’t about proving the universe natural. It is not assuming anything else until evidence is provided. Why do we start off with the assumption that the universe is natural? Because the scientific method works. We get the same, repeatable results at different points in time and space.
The supernatural isn’t even a sensible concept. How could you tell if something was supernatural?
I think it is time you answered this question.
James,
“1. Ok, then you agree that you can not go from is to ought and Stalin’s moral opinion is no more correct or valid than yours.”
I agree to the first half-sentence since this is what I was trying to communicate to you from the start. As for the second half-sentence, I refer you to my previous two posts.
“2. I have no idea what you mean by suggesting that we can override our genetic make up. Is Dawkins wrong? Yes our brains may have plasticity but they still dance to their genetic make up. You can assert, but unless you pose some form of libertain free will, all our thoughts, actions and responses are determined - do you deny that they are determined?”
If I wanted to ascertain your Dawkins-qoute I would have to know the exact wording and the context in which the statement was made. However, I doubt that he espouses the form of naive genetic determinism that you suggest here. As I said, it is both fundamentally naive and not supported by scientific findings to claim that human behaviour patterns are directly encoded in their DNA. As far as we know, there is no “violence gene” just as there is no “love gene” or “envy gene”. The most we can currently say is that there seems to be a correlation between some genetic traits and the propensity for a certain behaviour, e.g. alcoholism. However, a multitude of other factors apart from our genes come into play, e.g. circrumstances, upbringing, our mental and emotional state, psychological or physiological disease etc.
Regarding free will, if you mean “free” in the sense of “uncaused”, I would indeed deny that this is possible. If totally free will would exist, we ourselves would not know the reasons why we decided on this action and not another, i.e. it would not really be our will at all. Furthermore, it is overwhelmingly likely that our mental states are based on the physical states of our brain, so our decisions are the result of these physical states and in this sense not uncaused.
However, I feel we are going out on a tangent here. What does this have to do with whether non-theistic ethical systems are viable or whether objective, theistic ethical systems are possible?
“3. As far as proof Iapetus. Again, you can not prove that this universe is “natural.” You simply assume it. What is the difference between a supenatural universe and a purely natural universe - how would you know? By what objective standard?”
I second Steve’s request that you provide evidence for the existence of a second reality apart from the one we all experience. And while you are at it, please also provide your argumentation in support of objective ethical propositions and the role the Christian god plays in making them possible.
“4. And yes these is an ethical difference concerning man’s place in the universe. Man has no inherent dignity or value in a strictly material universe. He does have, objective, transcendent worth if the Christian God exists.”
See the preceding paragraph.
“5. As far as Mackie goes, what is he going to say, bottom line, that you haven’t said? Are his conclusions going to be different? BTW - that quote from Russell was from one of Mackie’s online papers I read - I was not impressed - same old, same old….”
Why not read Mackie yourself and find out? If you can counter his objections regarding the existence of objective ethical propositions, I’m all ears…