20 Jul 11
4 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIsn't this idea the very foundation of evolution?
Nobody I know claims that "everything can be explained on the sole basis of the laws of physics and chemistry".
I guess you don't know very many people! Isn't this idea the very foundation of evolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
(And within such a view, what exactly would explain such laws to begin with?)[/b s of their point, how can any garden-variety atheist hope to honestly stand?
No. Evolutionary theory has no commitment regarding, say, the principle of sufficient reason. And why would the "very foundation" of evolutionary theory be constituted by some claim regarding the explanation of everything when evolutionary theory is obviously not in the business of addressing the explanation of everything?
Funny you should ask. That very question was put forth herein quite some time ago by yours truly, to much ridicule.
Well, here I think we can agree. If someone claims that some set of laws explain everything, that is a very strange claim indeed. What are they committed to regarding the explanation of those very laws? It seems they would be committed to the idea that such laws explain themselves, which is quite strange and difficult to understand, let alone the issue of plausibility. But, as I said, nobody I knows actually claims this. That atheists are committed to such a claim is a complete fantasy of yours.
So can it be assumed that these "brute facts" are to be given credit for existence?
WTF? No. Why would one assume that? I do not even know what it means to say that some set of brute facts "are to be given credit for existence".
I'd submit that neither you nor the atheists you know are able to explain morals/value systems [b]in light of the cause of existence.[/b]
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Could you please clarify. After that, what's your actual argument for it?
20 Jul 11
Be a moral relativist. Acknowledge that the is no absolute morality, but merely the subjective whims and fancies of those in power. This is why we have cultural differences. The people who believe that there is a "right" answer are the ones who will start conflicts to prove themselves. So, is man inherently "good" or "evil"? Neither. Good or evil are concepts created by human beings to reflect what is the currently accepted behavior. This has and will change over time.
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHJust the way you pose the question is an implied attack on atheism. There seems to me for you to put such a question out without such an implied attack on atheism.
Read these recently on another website, thought they were pretty interesting food for thought... for those inclined.
• If everything ultimately must be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, what is a moral value (does it have mass, occupy space, hold a charge, have wavelength)?
• How did matter, energy, time and chance result in a set of ob ...[text shortened]... ry? Why can't it simply be ignored? Won’t our end be the same (death and the grave) either way?
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo. Evolutionary theory has no commitment regarding, say, the principle of sufficient reason.
Isn't this idea the very foundation of evolution?
No. Evolutionary theory has no commitment regarding, say, the principle of sufficient reason. And why would the "very foundation" of evolutionary theory be constituted by some claim regarding the explanation of everything when evolutionary theory is obviously not in the business of addressing the ...[text shortened]... ed to mean. Could you please clarify. After that, what's your actual argument for it?[/b]
Well, that's kinda the point, even if seems beside the same. The reader is asked if it seems possible/plausible that evolution (and/or whatever caused existence) can be held as responsible for the banking system, for instance. Instead of 'banking system' insert 'philosophical structure,' and you're looking at pretty much the same equation, i.e., exceedingly unlikely. Moreover, this question is directly pointed at one aspect of philosophy, namely, moral value. To wit, in light of a materialistic
The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
perspective, what in the world is a moral value?
That atheists are committed to such a claim is a complete fantasy of yours.
I suppose next you'll say that most atheists aren't committed to some form of materialism. I know, I know: you know dozens of atheists who are not committed to materialism... or, so they say. When their belief system is broken down, however, they are left with agnosticism, not atheism.
WTF? No. Why would one assume that? I do not even know what it means to say that some set of brute facts "are to be given credit for existence".
You rejected the notion that atheism is committed to a physical kick-start to existence, which--- I assumed--- meant you were going to write it off as inscrutable. What did you mean by brute facts, if not this?
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Could you please clarify.
Fill in the blank.
Existence began as a result of ___________.
As a subsequent result of this beginning, moral values are classified as ___________.
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo atheists are materialistic and theists are totally non-materialistic. I did not know that.
[b]No. Evolutionary theory has no commitment regarding, say, the principle of sufficient reason.
Well, that's kinda the point, even if seems beside the same. The reader is asked if it seems possible/plausible that evolution (and/or whatever caused existence) can be held as responsible for the banking system, for instance. Instead of 'banking system ...[text shortened]...
As a subsequent result of this beginning, moral values are classified as ___________.[/b]
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"Existence began as a result of ___________."
[b]No. Evolutionary theory has no commitment regarding, say, the principle of sufficient reason.
Well, that's kinda the point, even if seems beside the same. The reader is asked if it seems possible/plausible that evolution (and/or whatever caused existence) can be held as responsible for the banking system, for instance. Instead of 'banking system ...[text shortened]...
As a subsequent result of this beginning, moral values are classified as ___________.[/b]
This presumes that existence is a 'result.'
What is needed is a statement that does not presume existence is a result; has a cause, etc. Or, what is needed is a justification for the presumption.
We apply the principle of cause and effect to make our experiences and observations intelligible. If the principle doesn't help us do that, this does not justify filling in the blank with the name of an putative agent. It justifies leaving it empty.
Another problem with the statement is that if the blank is filled in by naming a supposedly existent thing, then the answer leads to a regress in which another blank is to be filled in, ad infinitum. Applying cause and effect doesn't stop just at our whim.
20 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat did you mean by brute facts, if not this?
[b]No. Evolutionary theory has no commitment regarding, say, the principle of sufficient reason.
Well, that's kinda the point, even if seems beside the same. The reader is asked if it seems possible/plausible that evolution (and/or whatever caused existence) can be held as responsible for the banking system, for instance. Instead of 'banking system
As a subsequent result of this beginning, moral values are classified as ___________.[/b]
I meant by 'brute fact' exactly what I already said: a fact is "brute" in virtue of there being no explanation for its existence. So by brute fact, I mean a fact that has no explanation. It is simply beyond me why you would assume that in discussing brute facts I am purporting to be discussing things that are "to be given credit for existence" (again, whatever that would even mean).
You seem just incapable of following discussions well. Let me try to explain to you why I even brought up the subject of brute facts. You were the one in this thread who made the implication that atheists are committed to the idea that everything can be explained on the "sole basis of the laws of physics and chemistry". But that implication is beyond absurd, which is why I brought up common examples of how, to the contrary, atheists think many things are not explained by the laws of physics and chemistry. One of the examples I brought up was the idea that there are brute facts. This is relevant to the discussion because if an atheist thinks there exist some brute facts, then obviously he is not going to think that everything can be explained by physics and chemistry. In particular, he will think those brute facts are not explaind by physics or chemistry because he will think those particular facts are not explained by anything at all.
Further, this discussion really only demonstrates the inconsistency of your own position. You are deluded here. Let's consider two persons. Person1 is an atheist who thinks everything can be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry. Person2 thinks everything can be explained by God. Both views I find patently absurd, but that's not the point. The point is that you seem to think that Person1 is merely offering an "avoidance package" whereas Person2 is not avoiding anything. That is complete delusion on your part. The fact of the matter is that NEITHER person will be able to meet a strong version of the principle of sufficient reason without resorting to self-explanation notions that are at bottom incoherent anyway, and their views are dialectically symmetric. You could ask Person1 "Well, what explains those laws?" He could amend his view to say that everything except the laws are explained by the laws and that the laws themselves are simply brute; or he could hold that the laws explain themselves. So, too, you could ask Person2 "Well, what explains God?" He could amend his view and say that God explains everything except his own existence, which is brute; or he could hold that God explains himself. Where exactly is the dialectic asymmetry here?
Fill in the blank.
Existence began as a result of ___________.
As a subsequent result of this beginning, moral values are classified as ___________.
I'm a bit confused. How does any of this constitute clarification? Also, I asked what your actual argument is. Do you have one?
21 Jul 11
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is an attack on the belief system. I hold that, as a belief system, atheism is illogical and rotten to the core and, further, that it falls in on itself every single time.
Just the way you pose the question is an implied attack on atheism. There seems to me for you to put such a question out without such an implied attack on atheism.
Harsh perhaps, but true.
21 Jul 11
Originally posted by JS357You have it right. Or, better: half-right. Our hardwired instinct to follow the infinite regress logically demands an uncaused cause. In your suggestion, the creation is that uncaused cause, a creator-less creation. To support such a view, one necessarily manufactures speculative and specious conjectures based on... well, the need for such stupidity as universal burping mechanisms, for instance.
"Existence began as a result of ___________."
This presumes that existence is a 'result.'
What is needed is a statement that does not presume existence is a result; has a cause, etc. Or, what is needed is a justification for the presumption.
We apply the principle of cause and effect to make our experiences and observations intelligible. If the princi ...[text shortened]... is to be filled in, ad infinitum. Applying cause and effect doesn't stop just at our whim.
Somehow, despite the advances in observation which have consistently, repeatedly shown a clock-like precision of predictable function, we are to throw such a pattern out the window and embrace a fantasy which posits that the universe (in its present state) behaved in a manner wholly inconsistent with everything else that it currently does.
In the world view of the theist, that uncaused cause is, of course, God, an ultimate being of inscrutable power and glory, One who behaves consistently (faithfully) from start to finish... and beyond.
I'm going with the second one, for reasons numerated above.
21 Jul 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHA book that demonstrates this thoroughly is "The Last Superstition" by Edward Feser. Highly recommended. (He also has a blog: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com )
It is an attack on the belief system. I hold that, as a belief system, atheism is illogical and rotten to the core and, further, that it falls in on itself every single time.
Harsh perhaps, but true.
I have no financial or other connection to Dr. Feser; I don't even know him personally. It's just a great book: thorough, scholarly, and scathing. And you might learn something, to boot.
21 Jul 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloI meant by 'brute fact' exactly what I already said: a fact is "brute" in virtue of there being no explanation for its existence.
What did you mean by brute facts, if not this?
I meant by 'brute fact' exactly what I already said: a fact is "brute" in virtue of there being no explanation for its existence. So by brute fact, I mean a fact that has no explanation. It is simply beyond me why you would assume that in discussing brute facts I am purporting to be discussing things ...[text shortened]... e clarification? Also, I asked what your actual argument is. Do you have one?[/b]
Oh, I see. So, exactly as I had it.
Thanks.
You seem just incapable of following discussions well.
In that house of glass, are there any mirrors? Holy fecal matter, dude. You're calling me on the carpet for assuming that you're saying exactly what you're saying, and I am incapable of following the thread?
In particular, he will think those brute facts are not explaind by physics or chemistry because he will think those particular facts are not explained by anything at all.
Riiiiight. He is allowed to simply ignore the creation/cause of existence and jump right into the middle of things and start espousing, waxing eloquent about the state of things... without actually addressing how the state of things even came about in the first place. I cry foul.
Where exactly is the dialectic asymmetry here?
Well, at least you admit they both end up with the same road block. "God explains Himself." That's a friggin' great line. Mind if I use it?
I'm a bit confused.
Don't feel bad: think how I feel spewing out such incoherent crap at such a regular pace. It's a full-time job and I have a part-time brain.
Can you just fill in the blanks--- from your perspective--- for a brother down on his luck?
21 Jul 11
4 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think the reason atheists don't feel God is necessary for morality is due to the fact that how we ought to treat a human being is determined by what is good for a human being—human nature being what it is regardless of whether God exists or not. For instance, based on the study of human nature alone, a moral atheist would have no problem understanding why murder is contrary to the good.
Who, besides the atheist, claims that all is explained by functions of the creation--- rather than giving credit where it is due, so to speak? The atheist rejection of the need for God for morality is intertwined with his assertion that creation itself can also be explained without relying on God.
I think one would be hard-pressed to find a theist who ...[text shortened]... and chemistry, without at some point running out of equations and left with the indivisible One.
That said, God's existence carries with it moral implications as well, e.g., the obligation to love God. It is conceivable that atheists, consciously or unconsciously, may wish to negate God's existence in order to escape such obligations—which coheres with scripture. But there are a great many moral obligations that can be deduced from human nature without reference to God.
21 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasMaterialistic in the sense that they have a bigger stake in actually fixing the planet than theists who could care less what happens here on Earth because they will be going to such a better place in their so-called next life.
Because atheists, in general, are materialists.
Theists think they are already in hell and can't wait till they get to their oh so much better fairy land where ripe fruit falls off the trees year round and everyone sings hosanna's and worships your lord.
Gag me with a spoon.
It's just too bad you theists can't care as much for this actual planet than you do your so-called afterlife. That's half the reason we are in such a mess now. Hear the weather reports lately?
21 Jul 11
Originally posted by sonhouseOf course Christians are responsible for global warming. The rising CO2 content in the atmosphere has nothing at all to do with the industrial revolution.
Materialistic in the sense that they have a bigger stake in actually fixing the planet than theists who could care less what happens here on Earth because they will be going to such a better place in their so-called next life.
Theists think they are already in hell and can't wait till they get to their oh so much better fairy land where ripe fruit falls ...[text shortened]... terlife. That's half the reason we are in such a mess now. Hear the weather reports lately?
Even if a Christian is bound for heaven, he remains morally obligated to be a faithful steward of the Earth. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply misinformed.