tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post8865569923015995967..comments2023-03-24T05:41:17.603-07:00Comments on OutsideTheBox: A Facebook ExchangeCliff Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-45868661410722406772010-07-09T23:28:51.552-07:002010-07-09T23:28:51.552-07:00Brown Panther,
I think we've opened up some t...Brown Panther,<br /><br />I think we've opened up some topics that would lead to endless debate ... which I do not care to perpetuate.<br /><br />A couple of over-all comments, and then I'll give you the last word.<br /><br />When I said <i>“If you cannot see the futility of the human experience in a materialistic reality, you merely haven’t stepped back far enough”</i>, I didn't think it required elaboration. If you view is that we are “chance chemical assemblages moving ... through an ultimately inconsequential universe,” that strikes me as a futile existence. You have fashioned what is for you a meaningful existence, and you have created a sense of purpose for your life. So long as you limit your scope to your lifetime, or even the life time of humankind (however long that may be), then it might not look futile to you. But in the end all your efforts are inconsequential. For me, that means all of life is ultimately futile. I acknowledge this is not your view. It is mine. And I have to say that the meaning you (and Tom) have fashioned could never satisfy me. It would lead me straight into nihilistic despair. And I fail to see how you avoid the same conclusions except by shielding from your view the larger scale. Focusing on the trees can successfully eclipse the forest. <br /><br />As for the question of ethics: comparing the prospects of secular humanism versus those of Christian faith in positively influencing humankind can make for interesting, if irresolvable, polemics. I will not argue against man’s ability to devise ethical standards that would potentially lead to betterment of the human condition. The human conscience, whether evolutionarily derived, or culturally nurtured, is common on most questions of ethics. The apostle John speaks of the light that enlightens every man. But this misses the heart of the issue for me. <br /><br />If the new atheists have their way, the death of God (I mean this philosophically à la Nietzsche) will usher us into unchartered territory. You welcome this territory. I shudder at the prospect. I do not share your optimism in the goodness of human nature. I believe a pervasive human sense that our actions matter to some Being, whether real or imagined, that we are accountable both as a race and as individuals in some way, has provided both a check upon abuses, and (more importantly) the moral force to fight for causes of righteousness. You look to a godless future and see a utopia of human engineering. I look to that future and see what Huxley saw.Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-42923187656976530502010-07-09T14:37:15.960-07:002010-07-09T14:37:15.960-07:00Brown:
"Within your theistic moral framework...Brown:<br /><br />"<i>Within your theistic moral framework, I wouldn't expect any less of you or Cliff as far as adhering to a more meaningful, nuanced morality than the most basic "because daddy said so" variety. If it seemed like that's what I was saying, I apologize. Didn't mean to. </i>"<br /><br />Not to worry. Sometimes my comments go beyond your point, but are for the benefit of the lurkers who are quietly sitting on the sidelines.<br /><br />Rich G.Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-5848526359864516942010-07-08T18:53:23.971-07:002010-07-08T18:53:23.971-07:00Tom,
Cheers! I think that's a first for me.
R...Tom,<br />Cheers! I think that's a first for me.<br /><br />Rich, <br /><br />"While 'causation' may be difficult to prove, the fact that both movements are occurring together may be indicative of some form of linkage."<br /><br />I'll agree with that.<br /><br />"I'm not so sure that the materialist majority has the capacity for a superior morality. If you can show an example, I am interested."<br /><br />Maybe on a different thread sometime. I think I was overstating my point and ended up distracting from it, so I'll rescind that for now (if you'll allow it). Here, I'm not really so interested trying to one-up this philosophical framework over that one as much as I'm trying to come to the defense of materialism. I will maintain that materialist philosophy is capable of at least as good a society as one with a theistic majority, which was the subject of my last post. My last post was very briefly addressing why I think materialism is morally viable and I still haven't heard a convincing argument as to why it wouldn't be. We could probably debate the materialistic nature of some religions like many NA Indian philosophies, sects of Taoism, etc. (I would classify them as such). But even if (this is a big "if" for me) there aren't examples in history of materialist-majority societies thriving, it would hardly preclude the viability of the worldview. I had never seen a kitty litter made of corn (nor would I have imagined it coming to pass), but, unfortunately, just such a brave new world was introduced to me by a commercial a couple months ago.<br /><br />"That 'supernaturally-based philosophy' is capable of producing a morality has been demonstrated, both for good and for ill. I am of the opinion that..."<br />I agree with you again on this portion. I didn't mean to imply that I thought that a supernatural philosophy couldn't be good. I know there are some atheists who will argue that theism produces naught but evil, but I'll readily stand by you in defense against those arguments (which I've unfortunately had to do before). Within your theistic moral framework, I wouldn't expect any less of you or Cliff as far as adhering to a more meaningful, nuanced morality than the most basic "because daddy said so" variety. If it seemed like that's what I was saying, I apologize. Didn't mean to.BrownPantherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750551800698927926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-40752235621411327322010-07-08T10:33:41.525-07:002010-07-08T10:33:41.525-07:00Brown:
"That may or may not be the case. I h...Brown:<br /><br />"<i>That may or may not be the case. I haven't seen any causation there. If the only rights that are recognized are those defined and granted by the government, I agree that that's bad. I [think] that a materialist majority has the capacity for... a higher order of morality than has ever been proposed by a supernaturally-based philosophy that I've heard of. </i>"<br /><br />While "causation" may be difficult to prove, the fact that both movements are occurring together may be indicative of some form of linkage. <br /><br />I'm not so sure that the materialist majority has the capacity for a superior morality. If you can show an example, I am interested. <br /><br />That "supernaturally-based philosophy" is capable of producing a morality has been demonstrated, both for good and for ill. I am of the opinion that we cannot simply retreat to a "because God says so" when we are standing for moral issues, for that is as immature as the kid who only understands "because daddy says so". We must have a more mature understanding that moral behavior is what should be expected from mature individuals who respect our shared humanity as well as the image of God that we all carry.Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-43203194854500452902010-07-08T07:31:58.444-07:002010-07-08T07:31:58.444-07:00Brown,
I value your eloquent phrasing. You echo m...Brown,<br /><br />I value your eloquent phrasing. You echo my ideas/beliefs, but seem far better than I at verbalizing them. I'm taking notes! Thanks!Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462218340570164741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-58917818092331022552010-07-07T20:48:02.885-07:002010-07-07T20:48:02.885-07:00Rich,
“I am convinced that our society has been m...Rich,<br /><br />“I am convinced that our society has been moving away from the intrinsic view toward the utility view, and our morality has been following.<br />One result has been a drift away from seeing natural rights as inviolable, toward the idea that rights are only those defined and granted by government.”<br /> <br />That may or may not be the case. I haven't seen any causation there. If the only rights that are recognized are those defined and granted by the government, I agree that that's bad. I agree that a materialist majority has the capacity for all kinds of awfulness. I also think that it has the capacity for a higher order of morality than has ever been proposed by a supernaturally-based philosophy that I've heard of.BrownPantherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750551800698927926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-50579723501650686002010-07-07T20:47:22.342-07:002010-07-07T20:47:22.342-07:00“By what right will the enlightened moral sensibil...“By what right will the enlightened moral sensibilities of your idealized secular humanist justify interfering?”<br /><br />By rationality, natural law, and commonality in human experience, the closest we can come to truth on an “objective” scale.<br /><br />“Imperfect as we may be, our nation was founded in a set of principles based squarely upon external divine moral law. Individual human rights were considered inalienable precisely because those rights were God given. ”<br /><br />When were individual human rights considered inalienable in this country? Certainly not at its founding, its “base.” I agree that it was founded on the concepts of divine moral law. It's also rooted in the most massive holocaust in known history, built on the backs of slaves, and carefully defined “human” as exclusively as they wanted. If you want to connect this countries history to any given philosophy, you must equally apply the good with the bad or demonstrate different causal relationships.<br /><br />“I see profound and immeasurable value as being intrinsic to individual, unique human beings. “ “But, like it or not, you are steeped in Christian principle.”<br /><br />Can this idea be derived in the absence of a supernatural, prescribed narrative akin to Abrahamic religions? Are you suggesting that no naturalistic philosophy has adopted similar values? I'm not saying that they should, but I understand that there have been many that held these values without the introduction of un-perceivable, extra-dimensional forces. Even if there weren't, it doesn't mean that we can't improve cultural moral hygiene in a predominantly materialistic society. I'm not arguing that that's where we should be headed per se, but I still don't see how materialism precludes an improved society. You say, with much appreciation from myself, that individuals can derive meaning and attain the highest degrees of goodness as a materialist and/or atheist, so why wouldn't a large collection of these individuals constitute a moral, meaningful society? <br /><br />To be honest, my first reaction to the “you are steeped in Christian principle” (the steeping which I do appreciate, by the way, both for it's epic virtues and epic failures) is to resent the comment, so I'd like to know what you mean. I understood it to mean that I would not have a meaningful moral base without it. Am I wrong? A question if my assumption is correct (otherwise, ignore): Considering the many principles and many sources in which I'm steeped (although I have many more to go), what would make Christianity the necessary source of any aspect of my world view?BrownPantherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750551800698927926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-88311171240658797632010-07-07T20:46:37.000-07:002010-07-07T20:46:37.000-07:00And because naturalistic morality is complex, I wo...And because naturalistic morality is complex, I would probably have write volumes on the topic. It seems to me that evolutionary psychology/neurology are to extra-dimensionally-dictated moral value systems as the germ theory of disease is to demon-caused sickness and spontaneous generation. I'd mostly just encourage everyone to brush up on their natural history, biology, and neurology (especially neurology) for a better understanding of the source of self and morality. I think we're better served by recognizing the apparent actual source of our morality (a naturally evolved brain), gaining a maximal understanding of our base nature, our autonomic moral framework, and applying cognitive accommodations as best we can figure. This is, of course, not necessarily always easy. It's why ethical dilemma puzzles are so interesting. What we call “morality,” in the light of modern understandings of our central nervous system, seems to be a complex and dynamic interrelationship of multiple processes and preferences. We have selectively evolved survival processes that manifest as preference in a given situation, both cognitive and subconscious. They are often discrete but can also conflict with each other. The combinations of these instincts are probably innumerable right now and not specifically able to be mapped yet, but to understand this interaction as much as possible is to maximize the human experience for the maximum amount of people. That's what I would call morality. If you ask someone if they'll indirectly cause a person's death in order to save a dozen lives, they'll give one answer. If they have to directly kill the person, they'll offer a different answer even though the math is the same. In the first case, the preference of cognitive calculation is more pressing, in the second, your impulse to not harm a member of your species without cause (a trait common throughout social species) is more pressing. This is one example of why morality is contextual, not set in stone by divine mandate. The value isn't measured in the life itself, but in the dynamics of circumstance. To ignore the neurological source of our morality with black-and-white moral statements of value seems much less constructive to me. To apply imperative values via archaic cosmic narratives, in my opinion, will keep an individual from realizing there highest moral potential in its denial of nuance.BrownPantherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750551800698927926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-36452487143506959572010-07-07T20:46:10.256-07:002010-07-07T20:46:10.256-07:00“If you cannot see the futility of the human exper...“If you cannot see the futility of the human experience in a materialistic reality, you merely haven’t stepped back far enough.”<br />I would if I knew how. How, epistemologically speaking, do you transcend your perceptual limitations from a human perspective and see the world from “back far enough?” I understand this to beyond human capability. How are you transcending your own biological limitations? Can you teach such a technique?<br /><br />“You object to 'infinite value', and monetary valuation is 'inappropriate', yet you offer no calculus for human worth, other than to say it’s 'complex'.” <br />Yes, I think that these one-dimensional units of measurement are inappropriate due to the complexity of the human system of morality and transient nature of the “value” of life, human or otherwise. “Infinite simply means, not finite.” Yes, but it is not an all-encompassing quality. It is a unit of measurement, which I think is inappropriate and irrelevant. Not only that, I think that very few, if any, people believe in the “infinite value” of human life. If that were the case, one life could never knowingly be taken for another or any other consequence, which is a position that I would deem immoral. I believe that there is a time to kill and a time to die. I'd also argue that we put a dollar amount on human life and suffering every day, and it's not nearly as high as we would hope. I see no significant flaw in Peter Sellers' estimation that for every $300 dollars spent frivolously in our country, we have effectively committed murder. Someone is dead who wouldn't be if not for our extreme greed. There are countless examples where we could easily demonstrate the degree to which we're concerned (or, more often, not concerned) with human life, including yourself and other Christians.BrownPantherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750551800698927926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-84835049000966978372010-07-06T10:45:33.843-07:002010-07-06T10:45:33.843-07:00Guys:
I see Cliff's "infinite Value"...Guys:<br /><br />I see Cliff's "infinite Value" not as a statement of extent (immeasurable may be better). I think the choice comes down to deciding whether a human being has an *intrinsic value* or *utility value* and <b>upon what basis</b>. I am convinced that our society has been moving away from the intrinsic view toward the utility view, and our morality has been following.<br /><br />One result has been a drift away from seeing natural rights as inviolable, toward the idea that rights are only those defined and granted by government. Rights that are seen as "endowed by their Creator" are many and stable, while those that are granted are few and changeable. The former says "you are free except in these few areas", while the latter states by implication "You are free in [only] these areas...until conditions change."Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-80909546749846800172010-07-06T09:28:34.844-07:002010-07-06T09:28:34.844-07:00... or perhaps you welcome those consequences, as ...... or perhaps you welcome those consequences, as the natural extension of evolutionary development?Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-70904033547870237542010-07-06T09:19:46.585-07:002010-07-06T09:19:46.585-07:00Tom,
"How can something have 'infinite v...Tom,<br /><br /><i>"How can something have 'infinite value'? The phrase seems meaningless when taken literally."</i><br /><br />I suppose that depends on which dictionary definition of infinite you are using. While "infinite" can mean something like eternally expansive, it can also simply mean "immeasurable" or even "very great". <br /><br />Unlike you and Brown, I have no problem with any dictionary meaning of the phrase. But I can live happily with those later two definitions. Does that help?<br /><br />And if so, as I have asked Brown Panther, could you elaborate on what you consider the "finite" value of humans? <br /><br />One reason I favor the use of "infinite value" is that it implies invariability. Does your view of finite value include variability? And if not, how do you lock that out, and prevent the ghastly consequences of unequal human values?Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-63841718526236522692010-07-06T08:54:45.730-07:002010-07-06T08:54:45.730-07:00Brown Panther,
Just a couple of comments:
• on f...Brown Panther,<br /><br />Just a couple of comments:<br /><br />• <i>on futility:</i><br /><br />So, you would concur that we are "chance chemical assemblages moving through an ultimately inconsequential universe"?<br /><br />If you cannot see the futility of the human experience in a materialistic reality, you merely haven’t stepped back far enough.<br /><br />• <i>on the value of the human being:</i><br /><br />You object to “infinite value”, and monetary valuation is “inappropriate”, yet you offer no calculus for human worth, other than to say it’s “complex”. Okay, I’m ready; lay out your complex understanding. Infinite simply means, not finite. It must then be your view that the value of the human being is finite, which is another way of saying that it is measurable. Please measure it, and report back. This question is vitally important. You want mankind freed from what you consider an artificial valuation based upon religious conviction, and concepts like eternal justice. With what will you replace that? Do you really trust man to self-police? Are you not frightened by Huxley? On what basis of judgment might future man determine a humanistic valuation to be superior to a pragmatic statist valuation? I trust <i>your</i> enlightened sense of morality. But, like it or not, you are steeped in Christian principle. Who decides the huge moral and ethical questions of the future after we have removed any appeal to an external, higher-than-man moral law?<br /><br />Imperfect as we may be, our nation was founded in a set of principles based squarely upon external divine moral law. Individual human rights were considered inalienable precisely because those rights were God given. It is not that I fear some future megalomaniac; the fact is there will be another Hitler, another Pol Pot, or Stalin. My fear is that future man will lack any real basis for judging, we will lack a moral rational for interdiction. By what right will the enlightened moral sensibilities of your idealized secular humanist justify interfering? <br /><br />But my convictions about the infinite value of the human being has less to do with states and mores and the application of natural law. Those are the by-products. My sense of extreme human worth comes from my consideration of people, of you, for instance. I see profound and immeasurable value as being intrinsic to individual, unique human beings. As I ponder the people I know, I cannot escape from the powerful notion of <i>imago dei</i> that pervades humankind. It is not merely fear of the consequences of devaluing humans to high-functioning mammals that drives “infinite value”; it is my reflection upon the nature of people.Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-51072749791858726562010-07-05T19:36:44.283-07:002010-07-05T19:36:44.283-07:00"You say such a being is irrelevant. I say th..."You say such a being is irrelevant. I say that if this be true, nothing could be more relevant!"<br />Sounds nice on its surface, but, again, I argue that we so long as we lack perceptual access to it, even if it exists, it's irrelevant. Our imaginations can conceive of countless possibilities that MAY be true and influence every aspect of our lives, but that doesn't mean they are or should be relevant to our lives in any way as far as the individual is concerned . We may accept the theory of relativity now, but if someone in the first century made claims about the fabric of space-time or the speed of light without the proper observations and reasoning, it would be foolish despite its truth. <br />"Absolutely! (although I will admit those are my words. I did not frame it as a verbatim quote). What part of that statement do you disagree with?"<br />The "futilely" part. <br />"I’m a little perplexed that you are not familiar with the notion that human beings have infinite value. Particularly with your background in theology."<br />Okay, I have to admit that I was familiar with the term. I've always understood it to be an ill-conceived, gross oversimplification of the concepts of "value," particularly concerning human morality. I wanted to see what meaning you ascribed. I maintain that the concept of "human value" is more complex than you represent, that the application of monetary metaphors is inappropriate, and that such an oversimplification is counterproductive to our understanding of our perception of human value.<br />"Nietzsche understood that, like it or not, we have nothing to replace the moral imperatives implicit in Christianity. When Christianity goes away (as he insisted it must) the infinite value of each human (based on the imago dei) goes with it."<br />I agree that Nietzsche may have MISunderstood the case to be such. I believe nearly absolutely both that we do have not only the equivalent moral imperatives in place and that it's not something that needs "replacing." Such "moral imperatives" seem to have existed long before Western monotheisms, within monotheisms, and will likely continue after. I see no reason why secular humanism would necessarily not improve social moral hygiene (although it won't necessarily improve it either) in the same way that many philosophies throughout history have demonstrated, in my opinion, higher orders of moral imperatives than Christianity has. In fact, I believe secular humanism holds the highest potential. I could go on and on about Hart's arguments specifically, but a comprehensive critique of both his solid and hypocritical, fallacious, and selective reasoning would require a book in itself.<br /> "Are you prepared to assign a "sub-infinite" value?"<br />Yes. I feel to be so prepared is a part of abandoning an oversimplified black-and-white world of right and wrong in order to find the ideal way to live a good life and I think that every advance in moral philosophy required just this kind of preparation.BrownPantherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750551800698927926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-42610553144170985312010-07-05T19:09:59.905-07:002010-07-05T19:09:59.905-07:00Okay, I'll bite. I would say that every human ...Okay, I'll bite. I would say that every human life has sub-infinite value. How can something have "infinite value"? The phrase seems meaningless when taken literally.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462218340570164741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-84869628193931595632010-07-05T18:09:26.038-07:002010-07-05T18:09:26.038-07:00“I would very much like to know what constitutes ‘...<i>“I would very much like to know what constitutes ‘infinite value.’ I’m not familiar with that idea.”</i><br /><br />I’m a little perplexed that you are not familiar with the notion that human beings have infinite value. Particularly with your background in theology. That each human being has “infinite value” is a distinctly Roman Catholic idea. A few quotes:<br /> <br />“The human person, created in the image of God and called to progress toward the divine likeness, is unique and of infinite value,” (Fr. John Breck, professor at the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris)<br /><br />“... absolute respect [is] due to human life and to the infinite value of the human person, that is not tied to one’s external features or on the ability to relate to other members of society.” (Pope John Paul II)<br /><br />“Both the OId Testament relationship of covenant and the New Testament relationship of infinite, self-giving love indicate that God’s unwavering love of the people God created endows them with infinite value.” (<i>Catholic Higher Education: a Culture in Crisis</i> By Melanie M. Morey, John J. Piderit)<br /><br />It is the basis of Catholic resistance to abortion and biomedical experimentation. But, more important to our discussion, the concept of infinite value, which I will contend is a derivative of Christianity, has profoundly influenced Western culture, and has impacted even “Enlightenment” thinking and “secular” humanism (a relationship Hart characterizes as “parasitic”). <br /><br />Even though he despised Christianity, Nietzsche recognized how it undergirded our shared cultural values, and feared its demise. Hart writes:<br /><br />“... Nietzsche was a prophetic figure precisely because he, almost alone among Christianity’s enemies, understood the implications of Christianity’s withdrawal from the culture it had haunted for so many centuries. He understood that the effort to cast off Christian faith while retaining the best and most beloved elements of Christian morality was doomed to defeat ...” (Atheist Delusions, p. 238)<br /><br />Nietzsche understood that, like it or not, we have nothing to replace the moral imperatives implicit in Christianity. When Christianity goes away (as he insisted it must) the infinite value of each human (based on the <i>imago dei</i>) goes with it. Get ready for Huxley’s brave new world.<br /><br />Have your years of philosophical materialism actually erased the notion of infinite value? If the value of human life is not infinite, it means we can place a dollar value upon life. Are you prepared to assign a "sub-infinite" value?Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-14524122631310261412010-07-05T17:42:53.028-07:002010-07-05T17:42:53.028-07:00Brown Panther,
I cannot pick up every thread of o...Brown Panther,<br /><br />I cannot pick up every thread of our discussion. But a few of your questions warrant answers ...<br /><br /><i>"I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who believes we’re 'chance chemical assemblages moving futilely through an ultimately inconsequential universe.' Have you?"</i><br /><br />Absolutely! (although I will admit those are my words. I did not frame it as a verbatim quote). What part of that statement do you disagree with?Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-31770881009047821152010-07-04T21:33:30.468-07:002010-07-04T21:33:30.468-07:00Brown Panther,
“I do maintain that anything outsi...Brown Panther,<br /><br /><i>“I do maintain that anything outside of ‘this’ is ... irrelevant to any modern human's life”</i><br /><br />Okay. I accept your view as more appropriately nuanced, and less presumptive. Sagan’s (and other’s) certainty about a negative (which logic tells us is impossible to prove) has always struck me as overreaching, a polemical tactic that in the end typically only serves to weaken’s one’s position. I should know! <br /><br />So, are you a materialist? Now there’s a telling question, and one that only you can answer. Either you believe that the material world is all there is, or you don’t. If you don’t you either know there is some metaphysical reality, or you allow that there <i>may</i> exist some metaphysical reality. I presume this last statement fits you best.<br /><br />But here’s the rub: the last statement defines me, too. Yes, I may attach a greater likelihood to a metaphysical reality ... even approaching certainty. But in the end, you and I both allow for the <i>possibility</i> of the metaphysical. The difference between us is that you doubt so strongly that you could ever perceive the metaphysical that you have laid down the search. For me, the mere possibility is enough to justify a lifelong search: the possibility that this is not all there is, that ultimate justice may one day be served, that suffering may not be in vain, that human life is not merely an expendable commodity, that the universe is teleological ... the vibrant hope these possibilities inspire in me is more than sufficient to justify that search. Billions of our co-journeyers, including myself, testify to having gained much experiential confirmation for these possibilities. My theism, as stated in an earlier post, is driven by a choice. Atheism, too, comes down to a choice ... particularly for one who grants the possibility.<br /><br />Say an intelligent, purposeful creator has in fact designed this cosmos with purpose, a possibility I presume your view allows. You say such a being is irrelevant. I say that if this be true, nothing could be more relevant!Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-28086722168115850782010-07-04T16:37:04.427-07:002010-07-04T16:37:04.427-07:00Jesus spoke often of assessing truth claims by the...Jesus spoke often of assessing truth claims by the fruit that follows. Anyone care to marshall some data indicating that the fruit of atheism in these arenas even comes close to the fruit of theism?<br />A question concerning the "fruit of atheism" is silly to begin with. It describes the absence of a quality, it doesn't ascribe one. What is the fruit of nothing? It's an irrelevant question. Again, I'd like to know how you assess the fruit of theism and whether or not you apply consistent criteria to both positive and negative effects. I, like you, get frustrated when people ascribe the actions of some Christians (the nigh-complete holocaust of the Americas, the crusades, witch hunts, hate crimes of various sorts in the name of Christianity, etc., etc.) to Christianity or theism as a philosophy. I'd like to make sure we're not applying that same erroneous reasoning and over-simplification to the alleged positive effects of theismBrownPantherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750551800698927926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-37297348927935605862010-07-04T16:30:29.056-07:002010-07-04T16:30:29.056-07:00But for me, it is telling to look around the world...But for me, it is telling to look around the world today, and see who is doing the great bulk of this type of work. Which philosophical system has shown itself to be the greater motivator for charitable giving, charitable work, alleviation of suffering, carrying forth the torch of justice?<br />You ask if we have a basis for comparing the fruits of different philosophies. I would answer no. Culture, philosophy, and the individual enjoy a far too complex dynamic. I have no clue how you could begin to isolate factors like that with any kind of precision. A few days back we were discussing the importance of methodology in research in order to gather accurate data. I would be especially curious to know where you've gotten yours concerning "who is doing the great bulk of the work." Are you stating simply that theists are doing most of it, that they would not be doing it but for their theism, that they do more proportionally to their numbers and resources, etc., etc. I'm afraid it's not as self-evident to me as it is to you. I think it would be difficult enough to accurately ascertain the number of theists v. atheists in the population in general, MUCH less connect that philosophy's direct effect on their actions. I didn't know anyone had figured out a way to do that. If you have, it would be absurdly useful to share.BrownPantherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750551800698927926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-28599123568616995272010-07-04T16:21:00.883-07:002010-07-04T16:21:00.883-07:00“The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever wil...“The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”<br />I stand corrected by the responses to this. I assume a more nuanced reading of this idea, which is probably one assumption too much. I understand this to mean, when typically uttered, "if there's anything outside of this, we don't have perceptual access to and is therefore irrelevant." Because that's where I stand, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, self-project, or just assume that it's slightly more nuanced than "this is all there is." I do maintain that anything outside of "this" is as irrelevant to any modern human's life and philosophy as Rembrandt's distant relation's painting that was lost to history. It may have been the greatest work ever put to canvas but it can't be recovered. As a materialist, I simply say that I have no clue if said painting ever existed or what it looks like and it would be silly to guess at it's image and alter my view of art accordingly.<br />That is, of course, if I am a materialist. By qualifying the "this is all there is" wikipedia definition the way that I do, would you say I'm not a materialist? How would you describe this slightly different view?BrownPantherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750551800698927926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-27425529312075744322010-07-04T10:21:46.232-07:002010-07-04T10:21:46.232-07:00“I’ve never heard anyone make the claim that this ...“I’ve never heard anyone make the claim that this is all there is here.”<br />Carl Sagan said, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” Does that qualify or am I misunderstanding something here?Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-58869955661199982802010-07-03T20:39:42.471-07:002010-07-03T20:39:42.471-07:00Rich asked,
You are comfortable being part of the ...Rich asked,<br /><i>You are comfortable being part of the process of evolution?</i><br /><br />Yes. It is the process that gave rise to my life.<br /><br /><i>...[With your view, any] meaning I can conjure up will die with me, whether or not it was personally satisfying.</i><br /><br />This would only be true if we lived in a vacuum. I assume things I find meaningful will transmit to my associates and my children to varying degrees. Even now it looks like we're engaged in a conversation that is affecting you! At least your time! ;-)<br /><br /><i>And what good is it to say that you are serving evolution (which is a man-made model) by removing the very tools (competition, struggle, disease, etc.) that evolution has used to get us here? </i><br /><br />Unlike Dawkins, I do not think we can sidestep evolution. We can only modulate it. Our means of helping otherwise childless parents twenty years ago to have children today may promote deleterious genes' survival in our gene pool. Our ability to provide 20/20 vision to nearly anyone is probably making the average human's eyesight worse -- all those nearsighted people who were at a reproductive disadvantage are no longer so disadvantaged. Our ability to cure symptoms via antibiotics only breeds nastier organisms when misused. I'm not saying that we should be taking other steps. What I'm saying is evolution is always with us and we may very well take one step forward and two steps back as we muck with what might be more "historically natural", but all we can do is modulate the process.<br /><br />With respect to it being a man-made model, I don't get your point. E=mc^2 is a man-made model. Putting equations down and finding formulas that fit natural phenomenon is not an anti-theist thing to do.<br /><br /><i>"Evolution has used..." Hmm... That sounds like evolution has a mind and a goal in sight.</i><br /><br />I cringe every time I hear this phrase by evolutionary biologists because it does sound like evolution has a directed goal. It doesn't, and I try to be careful not to say such things. So please, tell me where I said this.<br /><br />But back to my appreciation for evolution. Helen Keller believed in Christ so we can argue that the senses are meaningless when it comes to accepting Christ. Nevertheless, I find life more fulfilling by being able to hear and see, don't you?<br /><br />Now, onto transcendence. What is so unspecial or unremarkable in your life that you need to supplement with magic? And as an evolutionary creationist, do you think other animals had this transcendence? If so, how does it manifest itself? If not, why the discrepancy between us and other critters?Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462218340570164741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-20423673967219664522010-07-03T09:28:22.235-07:002010-07-03T09:28:22.235-07:00Do we have any basis for comparing the fruit of th...Do we have any basis for comparing the fruit of the philosophies of secularism (or materialism, or atheism) against the fruit of theism? History is filled with data. But we need not delve into history. A cursory examination of current affairs is sufficient!<br /><br />My atheist friends have spoken of the power of our evolutionary development to cancel out much sickness and pain. Atheists, searching for meaning and purpose for life, often speak of leaving this world a better place than when we arrived. When I ask about the meaning of suffering, my atheists friends answer, in part, that we can strive to alleviate it wherever we see it, and that this is a noble purpose. When I speak of pervasive injustice, past and present, my atheist friends say we ought to address injustice, that it is up to us to right the tables of injustice. And of course, I agree with every one of these noble endeavors, and will lock arms with any person of any theistic persuasion to work toward these ends!<br /><br />But for me, it is telling to look around the world today, and see who is doing the great bulk of this type of work. Which philosophical system has shown itself to be the greater motivator for charitable giving, charitable work, alleviation of suffering, carrying forth the torch of justice? <br /><br />Jesus spoke often of assessing truth claims by the fruit that follows. Anyone care to marshall some data indicating that the fruit of atheism in these arenas even comes close to the fruit of theism?Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-1422617255012705962010-07-03T09:04:32.952-07:002010-07-03T09:04:32.952-07:00I should try to clarify this sticking point about ...I should try to clarify this sticking point about philosophical nihilism, verses practical life fulfillment.<br /><br />I do not doubt that atheists, many of them at least, establish meaning for their own lives, strive to live consistent with the ethic they derive from that meaning, and live fulfilled lives.<br /><br />When I state my opinion that atheism leads inevitably to nihilism, I have in mind the philosophical fruit of atheism, fruit which may not appear in a single lifetime or a generation, but which will certainly set, grow, and ripen over time. You are free to disagree. But I maintain that Nietzsche, arguably the most brilliant spokesperson for secular philosophy of recent history, understood this. And the case appears, from my perspective, to be prima facie.<br /><br />So, my atheist friends, you may stop trying to convince me that you are happy, fulfilled, and that you are not despairing! I'm happy for you. Genuinely. And I do not doubt it is true.<br /><br />Rather, examine with me the fruit of materialism. Philosophy has consequences, if not immediately felt by individuals, then manifesting itself in more broadly in cultures.Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.com