This was originally intended as a brief reply to the comment by William J Murray but it sort of grew into something a little longer so I thought, since everyone else is doing it, I’d put it up here.
William J Murray:
I think that any fair reading of UD will show that the vast majority of pro-ID posters there, and certainly the moderators and subject contributors, are not “anti-science” at all, nor “sneer” at science; rather, they have what is IMO a legitimate concern over the anti-religious, anti-theist, pro-materialist agenda that many of those currently in positions of power in the institutions of science blatantly demonstrate.
I would agree that not all contributors to UD are anti-science but there is, nonetheless, a prominent strand of such thinking there. Many of the original posts mock the speculative excesses of evolutionary psyschology, for example, or seem to gloat over instances of where science has apparently got it wrong. Those occasions where the author of such comments has got it wrong themselves pass largely unremarked. The overall impression is of an anti-science advocacy site.
I will grant that there are a few contributors to UD who are critical of the perceived atheist/materialist stance of many scientists in public fora as improper because it associates science with atheism. They hold, as I do, that the most science can say on such questions is that, following Laplace, it has found no need for such hypotheses thus far. While it may be true that a majority of scientists hold atheistic views it is misleading to suggest that they are endorsed by science as a whole.
That said, my impression of UD is that the majority of contributors are critical of science because they believe it is hostile and threat to their religion. They feel that science is perceived as a source of knowledge that is more reliable and authoritative than that offered by the various faiths which is thereby undermined. One slightly amusing response is the attempt to cast science as just another religion. Those who do so seem to be oblivious to the contradiction: on the one hand, religion is presented as a way of knowing that is fully the equal of science, on the other hand, the authority of science is supposed to be undermined by calling it just another religion, implying that religion is a lesser form of knowledge and science is to be dragged down to that level. Unfortunately, much as they would like to, they can’t have it both ways
There is without doubt a very vocal group of scientists and advocates of science who believe that it does make religious beliefs untenable They highlight the harm that has been done – and is still being done – in the name of the various faiths as evidence that we would all be better off without it. My own view is that this is reactionary and most prominent in the United States. It is a response to the extreme hostility felt by many Americans towards any form of non-belief and the excessive influence of such religious beliefs on the society and politics of that country.
My own view is that it is true that, over the millennia, a great deal of blood has been spilled in the name of various religions. It is also true that huge numbers have been killed in the name of the various political ideologies, which were in some cases atheistic, that gained power in the twentieth century. I would argue that it is further true that trying to compare body counts is a pointless distraction. The real lesson to be taken is the dangers of absolutist thinking.
In spite of the posturing and boastfulness of some, we are mostly well aware of our own weakness and vulnerability. Instinctively, we crave the kind of reliable knowledge about the world in which we find ourselves that will give us a good handle on it and increase our chances of survival. We are all too easily seduced by anyone or any belief system which appears to offer such certainty, especially in times of heightened insecurity. The danger is that, once convinced of the absolute truth of such beliefs, there are some who will have no doubt that they are fully justified in doing almost anything to defend and promote such them. Thus we have the spectacle of William Lane Craig apparently feeling compelled to defend and justify the massacring of children, even though I have no doubt it is something he would never do himself, because it is something reported in his Bible as being required of believers and approved by his God.
Thus we come back to Oliver Cromwell’s impassioned plea, used as the motto for this blog:
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.
No. You would be justified in saying that you have a collection of rational beliefs. But it’s probably silly of me to expect that you can tell the difference between the two.
You say that as if “logic” or “reason” or “statistically” refer to something other than what our definitions of those terms state.
If my definition of “reason” or “logic” is “2 out of 3 coin flips”, and my beliefs are all based on winning “2 out of 3 coin flips”, then I can state (according to my definition of “reason” or logic”) that my beliefs are reasonable and logical.
You didn’t answer my question. My question is:
IF we agree to define “rational” and “reasonable” and “logical” as “winning 2 out of 3 coin flips”, AND all of my beliefs were arbited by the process of winning 2 out of 3 coin flips, THEN it would be accurate to say that my belief system is reasonable, rational, and logical – by our agreed definition .. correct?
I’ll assume your answer is that this would be correct. To continue:
IF I personally define “rational” and “reasonable” and “logical” as “winning 2 out 3 coin flips”, and all my beliefs are arbited by that process, THEN I am justified in saying that all my beliefs are rational, reasonable, and logical as per my definition of them.
Correct?
Now, my actual definitions of “logical”, “reasonable”, and “rational” are not “winning 2 out of 3 coin flips”, but rather other things entirely. Let’s call those definitions X, Y, and Z. By my definitions X, Y, and Z, my worldview/belief system is entirely logical, reasonable and rational, and atheistic and materialist views cannot be.
That may be so and I am almost convinced that you may think it is. However, have you ever persuaded anyone at all that this is so. As far as I can see, you have not even clearly set out your belief system so it seems impossible to even venture a provisional opinion on whether it makes any sense.
I am puzzled about what your comments here are intended to achieve. Don’t misunderstand me; I am all in favour of a free exchange of ideas. Ah well, carry on.
I am still interested in hearing about the sensory system of the daffodil if Madbat has time. 😉
What difference should it make to me if anyone else thought it made sense?
William J Murray,
Well, it might suggest that you were on to something! But you’re right. You shouldn’t care. I don’t think it matters one way or the other.
You’ve done it to yourself again! 🙂
By redefining the terms reason and logic out of the “this seems to make sense” category, and putting them into the statistical/mathematical “how many of these do I need” category, you have lost the ability to claim “my beliefs seem to make sense” when using your newly defined terms for reason and logic.
You can however claim your beliefs are now supported by coin tosses. 🙂
Of course I answered your question. The question you are now asking is a new question. You have added the terms *reasonable* and *logical* to the list of terms you want to be defined by *winning 2 out of 3 coin flips*. Under this new condition I can answer your new question: All of your beliefs are reasonable, rational and logical. Which is of course tripling up on saying one thing: All of your beliefs won 2 out of 3 coin flips, won 2 out of 3 coin flips, and won 2 out of 3 coin flips.
Awesome. I completely agree with you. Under these definitions, most atheistic and materialistic views I am familiar with are indeed neither. I wish you much luck with a worldview/belief system in which *logical*, *reasonable*, and *logical* are defined by X,Y and Z, respectively.
If your “worldview/belief system” is “entirely logical, reasonable and rational” only when based on your personal definitions of X, Y and Z, then how is it any more capable of generating “self-evidently, universally true moral statements” than those of atheists? Such statements cannot be true, other than in a formal sense, simply by personal fiat, even if they are decreed by a deity.
Besides, by my definitions, the claim that there can be self-evidently true moral statements is suspect and the claim that there can be universally true moral claims is untestable at this time.
In my view, evidence is data abstracted in the mind of an intelligent observer, fitted into an explanatory framework constructed by that observer and held thereby to tend to confirm the truth of that explanation. The degree of truth of an explanation is the extent to which it can be shown to correspond to that which it purports to explain. Truth in this sense, therefore, is a property of explanations not some distinct metaphysical entity. On this view, it is meaningless to talk about the truth of moral statements since they are prescriptive rather than descriptive.
As for the claim of universal applicability it is simply untestable. As yet, we do not know if there is life elsewhere in the universe, let alone whether or not it includes intelligent beings who voluntarily allow their behavior to be constrained by moral imperatives.
All we are able to observe is the behavior of the people on this little planet and that does not provide unequivocal support for the claim of universality. For example, we have the hideous case, cited on Uncommon Descent, of the Afghan girl, Bibi Aisha, who was raped, then beaten and mutilated as if she were somehow the offender rather than the victim. Presumably, the people who did this to her believed they were acting in accordance with the moral precepts of their culture even though their actions were judged to be an horrific injustice by much of the rest of the world. If there are universally true moral statements then, by definition, they should be apparent to any impartial observer, regardless of culture, and not dependent in any way on the approval of a god for their authority. The example of Bibi Aisha is evidence that this is not the case.
Seversky,
Why should I care what your view is? That’s not a rhetorical question.
These are the sort of statements that show me that theism is a roadblock to free thought and free will.
In all these sort of exchanges, references are made to an objective rulebook or code of conduct which relieves the theist of 100% responsibility for the taking of any decision in his life.
His responsibility lies only in following what is contained in the current rulebook.
The problem that arises is what does the theist do when confronted with a command to kill innocent Canaanite children?
If your theological “grounding” says yes, kill, what do you refer to now to be able to say no?
You have to rely on you and you had better be strong enough to say to the leaders of your theological tribe, “No, that is wrong”.
When they ask you to explain the “objective” basis that “allows” you to differ with them, what can you offer?
People are responsible for their own decisions.
You can’t blame something outside of yourself for the decisions you make whether in agreement or disagreement with your theology.
Why don’t you address what Seversky said **before** continuing with a new question from you?
Why do you dismiss us sometimes as if we were grade 5 students and you were our teacher?
We are your peers, not your students.
There are people commenting on this blog who clearly have experience and knowledge in their fields that outstrip the rest of us, including you and me, in their areas.
If you answer the way you have tended to up to now, your response should be somewhere along the line of, “Are those objective statements?”
I’m going to be an optimist and believe you will prove me wrong by breaking from the “kairosfocus” mentality and respond with something that corresponds to what I have written.
Toronto,
When you ask a question or make a comment that makes sense in light of my ongoing argument or positions I’ve taken, I’ll be more than happy to answer it. However, I’m not going to keep trying to correct your mischaracterizations ad infinitum.
Perhaps you’d like to field the question at hand: why should I care one bit about anything you, or anyone else, writes here?
Show me by answering Seversky’s comments ** that make sense in the light of your ongoing argument or positions you’ve taken **, instead of dismissing him.
You don’t care at all and I don’t see it changing anytime soon with the dismissive behaviour you’ve been showing.
These back-and-forths we are having is for the benefit of the readers.
It’s they who are your audience.
UprightBiped claims to have dropped in to read every now and then I’m sure he would like to see you do well.
The actual question at hand is, “When will you start paying for your questions by answering those asked of you?”
Start paying your bills.
‘I don’t know’ is the simple answer.
If you want some ultimate purpose, some absolute truth, some incontrovertible case for caring, I have none to offer. All I have are reasons that make sense to me, given the circumstances in which I believe we find ourselves. I can’t ‘ground’ those reasons in anything other than what seems the better of the choices available in any given situation.
I believe that existing, for however brief a time, is generally better than not existing. There are exceptions, of course, such as people suffering the irremediable pain of a terminal illness where there comes a point when they decide it is better to end it all. But, by and large, this is a wonderful and mysterious universe and I count myself privileged to be able to experience just this tiny part of the whole thing.
I see no persuasive reasons for believing in any of the gods that people have believed and still believe in. This does not mean that there is not something or even some one behind it all. Why there is anything at all and why it is the way it is are still profound mysteries but I find too many problems with current faiths to accept them as credible explanations.
So, if there is no deity who created us and who watches over us then all we have, for better or worse, is each other. We find comfort and even pleasure in the company of our fellows and we stand a better chance of surviving in what can be a very dangerous world if we co-operate in social groups. That means that each member of such groups should respect the wishes and interests of other if he or she wants to be treated in the same way – the Golden Rule, in other words – if such groups are to hang together. You have asked what, in a godless society, is to prevent people behaving totally selfishly even to the extent of committing rape and murder if that’s what turns them on. The simple answer, in the latter case, is what works against such behavior is all the other people who would prefer not to be raped or murdered. Even in lesser cases of selfishness, we tend to shun people who behave like that simply because most people don’t like being taken advantage of.
As I implied at the beginning, I don’t have some sort of killer argument that can cut down all the others leaving The Truth plain for all to see. If there is such a thing I don’t think anyone, least of all any of the current faiths, has a handle on it yet. All we can do is muddle along messily as best we can, making full allowance for our ignorance and fallibilities.
Seversky said:
Then there’s no reason for me to pay you any mind. since I’m “muddling along” very well.
Toronto said:
Why should I bother debating/discussing at topic with someone when they can’t provide a reason why anything they have to say would or should matter to me?
William J Murray,
I think you are posting here merely to confirm your prejudices. Maybe I’m being prejudiced but that’s the impression I get. Especially in the light of your recent comments at UD.
link to a William Murray comment at UD.
It’s up to you to decide if something matters to you, not the person speaking to you.
William J Murray,
You and other theists like kairosfocus and StephenB, seem to think there is something required external to us to allow us to function as human beings.
You’re showing the readers the weakness of a theistic worldview, not its strength.
Why should I care if you consider a theistic worldview weak?
What difference does it make if I am?
Does anyone here have a case to make that anything they have to say is worth arguing?
“You”should care that “you” have failed to show that “only theism leads to a rational coherent worldview”.
So it is your failures that you should care about, not my opinions.
If you had presented an argument even remotely rational and coherent, there are many here, including me, that would have paused and considered your position as a possibility.
Your arguments were badly formed and not connected.
Your terms did not come close to how they are commonly interpreted.
When new terms such as “feedback” were introduced to you, you simply changed their definition on the fly to whatever you felt like.
When you asked questions, we answered them.
When we asked questions, you found many ways not to answer them.
Sadly for anyone watching the debate, that was your greatest strength.
Your fallback position position was this one, where you ask questions like, “Does anyone here have a case to make that anything they have to say is worth arguing?”
Ironically, you have admitted many times, that you yourself didn’t have a case to make at all.
There has been one good point that you have managed to pull out of this, and that is that a world without theology is just as rational and coherent as the one you were promoting.
Anyone reading this simply sees another unproven rhetorical rant and lecture from a theist who won’t even commit to the premises that support his own position.
I hope you continue as you have been up to now.
It makes the case against theism that much easier to make.
William J Murray,
I certainly don’t see much value in exchanging comments with you. I’m guessing nobody else does either. The essential difference I see is that most atheists are content to be allowed to think and express their views freely. They also grant that right to everyone else.
Of course publicly expressed views are, or should be, open to challenge and refutation. I reckon religious claims made publicly should be treated like advertising. Disappointed consumers should have redress against bogus dogma! I guess the Catholic church, for example, might disagree.
I’ll take that as a “no”.
You should take it as a loss for your side.
That would matter if “failure” to make a case was being judged by something other than whatever the person saying the words subjectively feels or thinks or defines it as. If we have no assumed valid or true rules of logical argument and debate to go by, I can as easily subjectively interpret all of this to mean that not only have I made my case, but I’ve exposed everyone here as irrational, solipsistic sophists.
Why should I care about that, as long as I’m living a happy, successful life? You keep inserting commentary as if it should matter to me, while denying that it should matter to me, and denying that it has any significant value whatsoever. As far as I can tell, you and others here are just flinging feces at anyone who brings a different opinion, defending your turf for no significant reason other than that it is your turf and you enjoy flinging feces at anyone different from you.
The cases I make, whether I succeed or not, are presumed to matter and are presumed to be open to evaluation via objective, logical means. Otherwise, it’s like sitting down to play a game of chess, only my opponents refuse to play by the rules. Not winning a game of chess because others will not play by the rules is hardly something to be concerned about. I can as easily just wave my hands and claim victory if we are not going to play by rules we assume valid and binding.
And that’s really my larger point; if we don’t assume the rules of the game are valid and binding, and that the moves as defined by the rules guide us to making rational and binding conclusions towards a win that is significant and matters, there’s nothing keeping anyone from just announcing that they have won, and that the other guy has lost. If that is the case – if the game is whatever any of us subjectively invents and doesn’t even matter, there’s no reason to play. We might as well just start throwing chess pieces at each other and claim we’ve played a game of chess.
So, when I ask “what are the rules to the game you are playing”, and all I get are non-answers, and I ask “what are the stakes to the game – why should I play with you at all?” and all I get are non-answers, then tell me: why shouldn’t I just announce myself the winner and claim to have won whatever I see fit?
Hey, if terms and phrases only mean what we subjectively define or interpret them to mean, and rules of debate and valid inferences and conclusions are whatever we individually feel they are (or we can dispense with altogether and use whatever language absurdities we wish), I’ll even go farther and interpret and feel that whatever your responses are, they mean that you agree with me and accept my judgements.
See? That’s all it really takes to win a debate with subjectivists; just subjectively conclude that you’ve won, and you’ve won by the only measure they offer to judge the debate by. If they deny you’ve won, who cares? They don’t even argue that it matters if they disagree with your conclusion.
William J Murray,
Apart from the hyperbole, you haven’t really expressed an opinion that’s made enough sense for anyone here to be able to analyse it (other than being uniquely gifted at discerning moral values). Neither have you shown much interest in what anyone else might think. Just wondering? What do you think atheists should do? Do you think they are entitled to point out that religious dogma is just made-up stuff or should they just smile and nod when the evangelists pontificate as if they have a divine right to tell others how to live and where to send the money?
Until you inform me what the rules of “analysis” and evaluation are, why I should adhere to them, and tell me why any of what you say should matter to me, I will interpret this and all ensuing commentary as:
“You win, William.”
William J Murray,
This is a dialogue of the deaf. I (I don’t know if there are any others in the same boat) still have no idea what your world-view is except you (correct me if I’m wrong) are a theist but not a Christian.
If you are not interested in talking about what your world-view amounts to, then fine. But, if not, what can anyone glean from your claim that you derived it “objectively”?
If you are only interested in playing semantic games, then, carry on. And welcome to the claim of “winner”. Frankly I am at a loss to comprehend that there can be winners and losers in an effective exchange of ideas. What on Earth is the point of that?
WJM: “The cases I make, whether I succeed or not, are presumed to matter and are presumed to be open to evaluation via objective, logical means.”
This is the most hilarious comment. It comes from someone who I (and others) have engaged in arguments addressing his claims via objective, logical means. When it was pointed out that via those means – according to the way terms like *objective*, *logical*, *subjective*, *purpose*, *rational*, etc. are defined by the English speaking community – his claims are irrational and incoherent, he claimed that the English speaking community has their definitions all wrong. When subsequently asked to provide the definitions he would prefer to use instead, he has mostly provided none. It’s not hard to guess why.
and this: “when I ask “what are the rules to the game you are playing”, and all I get are non-answers”
…is even more hilarious, coming from WJM.
I am beginning to think you have some sort of dissociative issues. Looking back at the history of discussion between you and me, it’s pretty obvious who is the one consistently providing non-answers, non-clarifications, and non-definitions. But the funniest part: that makes the game you are playing pretty glaringly obvious to anybody who cares to look.
Thing is: I am not interested in playing games. I was interested in having a productive discussion. I provided the rules and definitions applicable to that discussion whenever it seemed necessary AND whenever you asked. It is simply disingenuous, absurd and sad to cry that you haven’t been informed of the *rules*, when you have been informed so many times, have either ignored them tacitly or rejected them without any justification, and have declined to provide your own when encouraged to do so upon your rejections. I am done trying to engage you in a productive discussion. You have made it glaringly obvious that you are not interested.
I just checked out WJM’s recent comment on UD that Alan kindly linked to. Excerpt (commenting on people trusting or not trusting atheists): “why should anyone trust someone [meaning any atheist] who has no objective grounding for moral or ethical behavior?”
LOL. That’s rich coming from someone who not only has no grounding whatsoever for his morality (which relies on *self-evident* statements), but also makes up his own terminology as he goes along while simultaneously keeping the meaning of that terminology as wishy-washy and secret as possible. Yeah, there’s a trustworthy chap for you…
I concluded that WJM wasn’t worth bothering with weeks ago, as soon as I recognized that Little Mister Rationally-Consistent’s argument was critically dependent on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Sure looks like WJM hasn’t gotten any more logical/rational/coherent/etc since then…
Yeah, I know. I am not sure why I thought my persistence would be fruitful. But at least we know now that, although his arguments are illogical, irrational and incoherent according to the widespread agreed-upon use of words by the English speaking community, they also have the attributes X, Y and Z!
🙂
I heartily agree with pretty much everything you said here.
madbat089,
And my apologies for not spotting your reply for more info about sensory systems in plants and thanks for the link. There was a bit of tongue-in-cheek in my request but I had forgotten my High School biology lesson on tropism and auxins. You must have come across Art Hunt who has often expressed the view that plants demonstrate evolutionary theory very clearly and are a much-neglected source of examples.
No worries – I know it’s hard to keep up with a thread that’s as long and riddled with side-branches as this one.
As a behavioral ecologist, I am totally with Art Hunt; I often regret that I couldn’t feasibly specialize in animal ecology and plant ecology at the same time; but maybe I’ll switch from behavioral ecology of corvids to the much neglected field of behavioral ecology of daffodils at some point in my career (and I mean that only half tongue-in-cheek)!
😉
That’s a stunningly accurate description of the way you have been handling language, terms, inferences and conclusions in this discussion.
Real life is not like American Idol. You don’t make your case to a panel of judges, you make them to real people, the ones you are talking to, like us for instance.
If you haven’t convinced “me” of something, then the argument you presented to “me”, was not strong enough to change “my” mind.
Clearly you have “failed” since your intention was to convince me that “only theism leads to a rational and coherent worldview”.
Alright, let’s make some rules we can all stick to.
1) You can comment as much as you like, but,if someone asks you a question, you have to answer “that actual question”, before you can ask one of your own.
2) To be fair, only one question can be asked at a time.
How’s that for a start?
That’s what you’ve been doing all along.
You have been interpreting everything “subjectively”.
“I am beginning to think you have some sort of dissociative issues.”
Unfortunately, this seems to be a very common trait among those who can’t separate their science from their theism. I don’t think it’s likely to change.
That was never my intention.
I’m still waiting for someone here to tell me why any argument they have should matter to me.
Unless you are admitting to engaging in empty rhetoric, you had “some” sort of intention when you made your “Only theism….”, claim so many weeks ago.
Your intention could only be to support your claim with arguments, which I can bear witness to, or you were supporting some other claim which runs counter to “Only theism…”, which I have seen no evidence of.
Your claim was made not only to me, but to other readers here, who countered your claims with arguments of their own, which seemed to indicate there was a debate going on about your claim that only theism leads to a coherent and rational worldview.
That’s like waiting for someone here to tell you whether you and your wife should get a divorce.
Why would you expect anyone here to know or mandate what “matters” to “you”?
You have to learn to think for yourself without using theism as a crutch or fall-guy.