Paul's comments are in italics, unless otherwise noted:
I'd consider them all wrong, but I wouldn't say their "irrational" on most definitions. And, a quote would have been nice, or is misrepresenting people part of your "internet hobby" as well?
I can quote you from your debate with Barker if you like, but I'll attempt to paraphrase you, "...Christianity is not just more rational than atheism...to say this would be an insult to my Lord...atheism is not rational at all..."
I can also dig through the archives and quote you on physicalism/materialism if you wish. Are you now admitting that the worldview of physicalism/materialism, and/or the conclusion of atheism, can be rational?
It's a bit presumptuous to assume I've not read any of thsoe guys.
I actually didn't say you didn't, as I was focused on which arguments you choose to engage and spend your time on -- I've never read you quote any of them and tear into them. All you seem to ever do is pass off your value judgment on the implications of atheism/physicalism as being irrational, hopeless, meaningless, etc.
I'm not claiming I've read everything by you, though, but I sure haven't seen much of it at all in the past few months, contrariwise, I sure have seen a lot of quoting of myself, Loftus, etc. So if anything, I'm self-denigrating, not debasing Vitzthum.
I'm also obviously making fun of your "review"/summary of Vitzthum. I never picked out one of his quotes to say that he had misrepresented someone or some argument. I commended your "review" of this passage (and presumably the context and conclusions from the rest of the book) with sardonic wit to demonstrate how you had. I note that you, and many other here always take the "reductionism = no value" route. "If we're 'just atoms', there's no value to anything," (Paul's subjective value judgment). Of course, Vitzhum doesn't say this -- he says that human beings contain and assign value.
You further debase the idea of an unclosed physics as a foundation for our epistemology. But you fail to see that the method of science is what I (and most others I know) have "pledged allegiance" to, and am philosophically/epistemically committed to. The particular interpretations at the time from the best data available is tentative, as I've admitted a million times. I have never said one bad word to a theist who says, "Well the data and evidence point to X, but it could be revised in the future in light of new evidence." The fact is, theists never say this. The "data" is already in, and you either believe it in the framework that one of many theologies present, or you don't. So what bothers you is that while you claim surety [God is X, God did X, people are the products of a miracle 6,000 years ago, etc.], we scoff at it. While you claim the subject is closed, we claim knowledge of our universe, its history, our future, etc., is still very much open and that you are quite silly for thinking otherwise.
What you try to do is set up a false dichotomy to compare the atheist's "faith" in science, or a future physics, to give him surety [which I really don't seek -- I am skeptical of any such "final knowledge"], with your own. Where you fail is that skeptics reject dogma and authority as bases of knowledge, while those are foundational and functionally necessary for you. Those are the important points to make in contrasting epistemic POVs, and the fact that dogma /= science, and arguments/appeals to authority /= science.
Further, Vitzthum here doesn't bother to even give the most rudimentary and basic of explanations of neural processes, he doesn't care. He isn't explaining the fine points in brain states as qualia. He is only summarizing the amorality and indifference of the external universe, which I doubt even you disagree with. Do you think that clouds and coyotes have morals? He is, I would bet, in this chapter, portraying man as a heroic and unique being, rather than focusing on explanations of how we might attach value and significance to ourselves and our morality in light of physicalism and its commitments.
He also doesn't bother to get into type-token-identity distinctions with respect to the ability to reduce our "feelings" to unfeeling atoms in motion, and distinguishing between a component-dependent entity (feeling depends on nerves, brains, etc.), that is irreducible if one is to maintain any coherence, and something which is completely reducible (gold, which can be reduced to the atomic).
Of course, atoms are not rational. Brains can be.
Of course, atoms do not feel. People do.
Of course, atoms do not have "meaning", people assign meanings.
Do atoms rain? Are atoms "soft"? Should we throw out the usage of these terms, and make them meaningless, because we cannot reduce these things beyond certain phenomenal levels?
Now, can people agree on objective values and objective markers by which they can be rational, feeling, and assign value/meaning? Yes. Language, death, and money come to mind immediately. As you well know, if languages, definitions, propositions are not carefully constructed and agreed upon before engaging in arguments, there is no rationality. The same is true with value judgments.
What you always say is, "Why should I care about pain/death/your values? [While implying that you do care about whatever God has said]" The answer is the same as the reason you care about what a fictitious deity says -- your own self-interest. I can ask you -- "Why do you care what God says?" And you were asked this, I believe, in the debate, and said something along the lines of, "God is perfect and the final authority." This is still not answering the question -- why do you care what the final authority or the perfect Being says? Can't you just not care about anything? Well, of course you can.
The question is circular and obvious to everyone but you. If you "care" at all, if someone can convince you by argument at all, it means it is something that you were willing to think about, listen to, and consider. If you don't care, then you don't care, regardless of the power of the argument. And, all it really takes for you, and for me, is that something somehow affects us or others we care about. You only care to follow what you perceive as the final authority because there are consequences -- both good and bad. And that is what differentiates a moral or rational person from an immoral or irrational person -- their willingness to sit down and sort out the things which make sense, and which are "good" in each specific context, and say, "What are the consequences for me, and for others, if I do X?".
Why shouldn't you beat me and steal my car, you ask? You don't care about: 1) causing unnecessary harm, 2) seeing physical well-being as superior over emotional impulses and impetuous choices, 3) what may happen to you as a consequence of your choice, 4) contributing to society -- the effect of the symmetry of crime [prisoner's dilemma as it relates to societal order]. You say it requires, "cause God said so," as if this is something objective (far from it) and/or something which would motivate the man to whom none of the above were sufficient. You say that self-interest isn't enough, that we can't care about how something affects us, but we can still care if God wants it to happen or not? Why? You can't get past this point, that your own motivations must come from self-interest. You don't run to the aisle in repentance because it has no effect -- you only go because you think it does. Would you believe, or obey, if there were no cosmic, eternal consequences either way? If I showed you tomorrow that there is no God, would self-interest evaporate? Would you stop caring about yourself, what happened to you? Would you divorce your wife and be completely unrestrained and act upon your first impulses? That is reckless and self-endangering behavior.
Can we reduce caring any further than self-interest? You either care or you don't. Sadly, those here think that we have to give the "value of values", as ridiculous as the idea is. You either care or you don't. If you have no self-interest, then you have no interest in what is "good" for you, or for others.
You either see values as valuable or you don't, because if you don't, then you don't call them "values". No argument in all the world will convince an irrational or careless person that X is a valuable or moral action, if morality is not something they can or want to know and do.
We cannot reduce these concepts (feeling, meaning/value, caring, rationality) beyond the human being, for the same reason that we cannot reduce "red" beyond the wavelengths between 680-720nm -- because this is how it is defined by, perceived by and known by human beings. Sure, using the word "red" is arbitrary, so is using a "meter" and the Arabic numeral system. But these are all objective standards that we have agreed to use. The level of crime in a society, jail sentences, taking a life not in self-defense, these things are not "subjective experiences".
"Why should I care what you 'decide to call red'?" I see this question in the same light as I see your question, "Why should I behave morally?" If you admit something is moral, or red, then the motivation to do it, or define it as moral, or decide to adopt a color scheme, is what differentiates you as either moral or immoral, rational or irrational, color-concerned and color-informed or not.
What you (and CalvinDude, and everyone else who argues this way) cannot get around or past is that you decide that you will value what [you think] God said, and you base God's sayings on yet another value judgment of yours: that the Christian Bible/faith is the most reliable place to find out what God is/does/says. See, the "value of your values" is still intrinsic to Paul Manata. You can't get around the fact that while you demand for me to justify self-interest, it is irreducible, and you yourself are a slave to it as well. Your own ethics are just as "human based", at the foundation, as mine. That doesn't mean they are necessarily subjective, though. After all, even though the perception of red may be subjective, and the conventions we use to explain and define "red" are arbitrary, does that make redness any less objective? No. Same with morality, value, and rationality.
Of course, Vitzthum already admitted this, that these things don't reduce further than the human being, in his quote (which you mangled the context of):
Human thought and feeling is the most complex, versatile, adaptive, sensitive, perceptive, creative, purposeful, and voluntaristic product of terrestrial evolution and perhaps cosmic evolution as a whole... It creates all the value and meaning that humans find inside or outside of themselves. The material order outside of human self-enclosure and self-definition is empty of human value and meaning, consisting as it does of an aimless interplay of natural process dictated by invariable physical laws. (from Richard C. Vitzthum's Materialism: An Affirmative History And Definition, Prometheus Books, 1995, pp. 230-232)
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Atheism, Physicalism
Danny,
ReplyDelete" can quote you from your debate with Barker if you like, but I'll attempt to paraphrase you, "...Christianity is not just more rational than atheism...to say this would be an insult to my Lord...atheism is not rational at all..."
This doesn't suprise me, what, with your mishandeling of the Bible n all.
What did I say, Danny?
"Well, we'd have to define "irrational."
I'd consider them all wrong, but I wouldn't say their "irrational" on most definitions."
Did you bother to define rational Danny? No, you just carved a path through your forrest of beating theists at all cost, even if you must misrepresent them and their holy book.
Note the context as well. You said that I said atheISTS were irrational but then quote me as saying atheISM is irrational. This brings up the disticntion I drew in the debate between agent and belief rationality, but why should I expect you to follow the finer points of what I said?
Yes, the belief is irrational, thogh the agent may not be. I'd have you know, also, that in my longer opening, which I had to shorten for time, I made it a point to say that I did not think Barker was irrational in the sense that he was howling and barking at the moon.
So, without bothering to define our terms, Danny, we will get bogged down in a petty debate just like you've done above. My post deliberately asked for "rational" to be defined. You didn't bother to do that. I knew what I was doing, I plan my moves in advance, but all the caution in the world won't help when you're dealing with a kid who just wants to "beat a theist."
You should also note that I gave an example of irrationality (agent) where I said that denying an elephant in front of your face is irrational. And so I admitted that the atheist is irrational on this analysis. I suspect that you think the same of the theist. Or, do you not think the case and evidence for atheism is that compelling? Thus even in my post I admited that on some analysis atheists were irrational, but you went and quoted my debater to show that I contradicted myself. The problem was that we were not using the terms in the same way, and, secondly, your quote was about belief irrationality when you needed to show agent irrationality. The latter was found in my post *and not* in my debate.* Thus it appears you don't even know what you're talking about in this discussion. You charge off to war without the proper weapons and training. That's a sure way to get killed... intelelctually.
Anyway, so you know what I said in the debate, in context, here's a relevant portion:
"Lastly we should define ‘rationality.’ Well, what do we mean by ‘rational?’ This is not as clear as it would seem. For example, Blackwell’s “Companion to Epistemology” lists no less than nine different conceptions or meanings of what might be meant by ‘rationality.’ We can see very quickly how this is the case. I think most people would agree that a rough and ready idea of ‘rationality’ are beliefs or agents that are formed or guided by legitimate reasoning. But different types of legitimacy are considered appropriate for different types of reasoning. Thus what is legitimate for correct mathematical reasoning is different than what is legitimate for inductive reasoning, or, say, “means-end” views of rationality. In some cases what people mean by ‘rational’ are those beliefs which come from what philosophers refer to as “the deliverances of reason.” For example, the claim that “all bachelors are unmarried” is a deliverance of reason because it is self-evident in the sense that once you understand the definition of bachelor you understand the truth of that proposition, it’s true by logical structure. Neither Christianity or atheism seem to be ‘rational’ in this way, though."
"I can also dig through the archives and quote you on physicalism/materialism if you wish. Are you now admitting that the worldview of physicalism/materialism, and/or the conclusion of atheism, can be rational?
Of course not, but you're, again, talking about belief rationality and you originally began speaking about agent irrationality. I thing that, on some defintions, physicalists are just as rational as the next bloke. That is, they're not eating grass and howing at the moon, naked! On other interpretations of agent irrationality, they are.
As far as belief rationality goes, of course I think physicalism is irrational because I think they are involved in a self-referentially incoherent position. That is, I think their position is self-refuting. I think the undermine rationality, reason, logic, morality, beliefs and the mind, and therefore do not have the material needed to properly defend or express their view.
But, I supose you think some of the attributes of God are contradictory. Thus my belief in said deity would be irrational. And so I suspect that you think, on some levels, Christians are irrational in the belief rationality sense.
"I actually didn't say you didn't [read those guys], as I was focused on which arguments you choose to engage and spend your time on ..."
Well, what did you mean by this:
"These guys have invested thousands of dollars into classes and books and into the offering plate, yet they don't dig deep enough to smash their hands against bedrock."
Did you mean that if I don't write a blog entry on Kim that I'm not "digging deep enough?" That would be absurd! It appears that you mean that I don't read those guys, just the Vitzthums. If not, then you're very unclear and irdiculous. Ridiculous because I don't need to write a blog entry on Kim to "dig deep" in to physicalism. Indeed, would many be interested or able to follow a detailed critique of a Kim or Melnyk? No. And, most atheists do not read Melnyk either. A lot of the readers here do not come across an atheist whose read those guys. They come across the hoi polloi atheist. The ones like you. The ones with the bad arguments, the misrepresentations, and the sophomoric understanding of their own position. So, it's more helpful to deal with the hoi polloi atheist since most believers deal with the back woods atheist and not the Martin's or Melnyks.
"I note that you, and many other here always take the "reductionism = no value" route. "If we're 'just atoms', there's no value to anything," (Paul's subjective value judgment). Of course, Vitzhum doesn't say this -- he says that human beings contain and assign value."
Oh, so what you're saying is that you're taking issue with a straw man of my position.
My position is not that reductionism = no values (again, a quote would be nice). My position is, rather, that reductionism = no objective values but only subjective value assignment. So, the vales it places upon anything is arbitrary. Just like Dan telling us that "cosmically" (really) we're not better than broccoli, but that we still, here and now, assign more value to our kids than broccoli. So what! And, furthermore, we should note that this is living in a fantasy world. It's denying the way things "really are" because one doesn't like it and then assigning pretend value to something which really doesn't have it.
So, your argument is with people like Dan Barker here, not me. If you don't like me picking on those points then email those many atheists (who are far more learned and published than you) and tell them to keep their mouths shut because they're causing you to loose debates.
"You further debase the idea of an unclosed physics as a foundation for our epistemology. But you fail to see that the method of science is what I (and most others I know) have "pledged allegiance" to, and am philosophically/epistemically committed to."
Yes I know you are. The problem is that your scientism is self-refuting because knowing this claim is not something which can be known on the basis of the scientific method. It's a philosophical claim. You rob Peter to pay Paul.
Furthermore, I deny that there is any single scientific method (i.e., "the method"). As Larry Lauden has said, "I'm afraid the scientific method is a will-o-the-wisps." If I'm not mistaken, though, Steve's already taken you to task on this issue but you choose to wallow in your ignorance of the realism/anti-realism debate. So be it.
"While you claim the subject is closed, we claim knowledge of our universe, its history, our future, etc., is still very much open and that you are quite silly for thinking otherwise."
Question begging epithets are not a substitute for debate. Indeed, this entire claim is question-begging. That is, if an all-knowing being has reveald certain truths to us then we are certainly within our epistemic rights to say "case closed." To say we are silly for thinking otherwise is to deny our position form the start. But, the logical fallacy of petitio principii is not an arument and "you are quite silly for thinking otherwise."
I'd also add that it's quite naive to think that scientists always hold their beliefs tenatively. Do you really question or hold tenatively the idea that blood circulates? Also, cf. Chishom's discussion on "Right to be sure" in "Theory of Knowledge," pp. 116-18. Unfortunatley your response is autobiographical. That is, your above comment mainly succeeds in telling everyone how manifestly ignorant you are on the subjects you venture to engage.
"He is only summarizing the amorality and indifference of the external universe, which I doubt even you disagree with."
Unfortunatley, you show your ignorance again. "Amorality is reserved for very immoral actions, "non-moral" is the term you're looking for.
And, no I don't disagree. The problem is that you fail to follow the argument through. You see, you're nothing more than a more complex pile of matter than, say, dog poo.
"He also doesn't bother to get into type-token-identity distinctions with respect to the ability to reduce our "feelings" to unfeeling atoms in motion, and distinguishing between a component-dependent entity (feeling depends on nerves, brains, etc.), that is irreducible if one is to maintain any coherence, and something which is completely reducible (gold, which can be reduced to the atomic)."
The problem is that "feelings" cannot be reduced since they are only accessible first person. The brain and nerves can be studied third-person, but not *your* feelings.
"Of course, atoms are not rational. Brains can be.
Of course, atoms do not feel. People do.
Of course, atoms do not have "meaning", people assign meanings.
Problems:
i. These are mere assertions.
ii. The mind is rational. The brain is governed by causal laws of physics, the mind by laws of rationality.
iii. Of course I know people have feeling, etc., the question is does physicalims have the resources the account for this.
iv. To the extent that you do, the above are redefined, or totally done away with since they're hold overs to folk psychology.
"Now, can people agree on objective values and objective markers by which they can be rational, feeling, and assign value/meaning? Yes."
No, Danny. You don't get "objectivity" by voting. The easiest refutation of you here is that people will (and have!) vote on different values, morals, and "objective markers." You don't get to "vote" yourself into being rational. Rationality is not like politics. There's not different parties with opposing systems.
"As you well know, if languages, definitions, propositions are not carefully constructed and agreed upon before engaging in arguments, there is no rationality. The same is true with value judgments.
Wrong again Danny. People don't vote and agree on truth and rationality. You've just made laws of rationality and truth contingent upon humans, Danny. That is, you've just destroyed them.
Also, I think you're just talking to hear yourself. What does this have to do with anything?
"What you always say is, "Why should I care about pain/death/your values? [While implying that you do care about whatever God has said]" The answer is the same as the reason you care about what a fictitious deity says -- your own self-interest. I can ask you -- "Why do you care what God says?" And you were asked this, I believe, in the debate, and said something along the lines of, "God is perfect and the final authority." This is still not answering the question -- why do you care what the final authority or the perfect Being says? Can't you just not care about anything? Well, of course you can.
This sums up your ignoarnce. The question is, on what basis or standard should we listen to anyone. Who has the absolute authority to say what is right or wrong. Well, God does.
So, when I say, "why should I care about x" I'm asking, "on whose authority should I obey or follow x?" That is, who has the right to tel, me not to rape women? On my view I have a universal and absoulte, unchaning standard. You do not, Danny.
I know people don't *have* to listen to God if they don't want to, indeed my worldview says this is part of the problem. So, you don't "have" to care what god says, the problem is that you're (1) objectively wrong and (2) you will pay for violating His law. In your worldview (1) I'm subjectively wrong and (2) there is no ultimate justice. So, do try and understand your opponent and do try to put together an argument wich actually attacks his position. (Oh, btw, you said I won the debate.)
I'll have to end here because the rest is more mumbo-jumbo, based on your misunderstandings, it's late, and I'm bored. So I'll end with one last thing:
"Why shouldn't you beat me and steal my car, you ask? You don't care about: 1) causing unnecessary harm, 2) seeing physical well-being as superior over emotional impulses and impetuous choices, 3) what may happen to you as a consequence of your choice, 4) contributing to society -- the effect of the symmetry of crime [prisoner's dilemma as it relates to societal order]."
1) Unecessary for what? Who determines it's unnecessary? It was "necessary" for me to do that to satisfy my desires for *your* car.
2) Where did we get this distinction? So, I say, "Who says?" not "Who cares?" You can't just make up moral laws, Danny. Why? Because I'll do the opposite.
3) What may happen? I don't plan oin getting caught and I'll be able to get the girls when i role up in your nice Bently. Then I'll take it to the chop shop beofre anyone can do anything about it. Danny, you're so ignorant of the criminal underworld. It wouldn't be such a big business if (3) was a deterant.
Anyway, non-Christian teleological ethics have many problems. The fact the I the consequences *are* "bad" (note the theory already needs to know what is bad in order to say the outcome is bad!) doesn't mean I *ought* not do them.
And, as a reductio, what if the car theifs got in charge fo society? If they did they would reward me for taking your car. Thus the consequences would be "good" and so should I then, therefore, steal your car?
4) I contribute to the society of car theives. Why don't you? Again you must know what is wrong in order to even make this claim, but that's what your theory was supposed to prove!
And, Danny, I don't deny an existential element to my ethical choices. But my theory is much more robust than yours. An ethical theory needs more than right motive. It needs the right goal and standard. Unfortunately you can't provide an objective basis for any of these. And, with out the other two, your claim to self-interest is arbitrary and irrelevant.
I refer you to chapters 4-8 of the book by Frame (first set of links you come to):
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/ethics.html