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.
Why are you here, if an exchange of views and arguments does not matter to you? As far as I can tell, that’s the only purpose of this blog.
Certainly I had an intention. It wasn’t to convince you or anyone else here.
No, it’s like asking someone who is arguing that my wife and I should get a divorce why their opinion should matter to me.
You are already arguing for your views; I’m asking you why your views should matter to me. Is there a potential downside to simply ignoring everything you have to say, and dismissing everything you write as empty, meaningless drivel?
I didn’t say such exchanges didn’t matter; I asked why – in your opinion – your arguments should matter to me.
IOW, if I’m wrong, and you’re right .. so what? What’s the downside to me keeping my views intact and simply dismissing your views? Is there any downside?
If we’re just here exchanging views … okay, we’ve exchanged them. So?
There is no higher authority as to what matters to “you” , than you.
Not even theism can provide you with answers as to what ultimately matters to you since you have shown you are above the level of theism, i.e., you “decide” whether you will be a theist and you choose a theology.
Not even your god outranks you here as “you decide” whether your god should be followed.
You exist as a subjective entity that cannot “experience consciousness outside of itself”.
As Toronto says, you’re a free agent, William. It applies to us all. But we evolved as social animals and I, for one, enjoy the interplay of ideas for its own sake. If you feel we have not been very receptive to some of your comments, you should try posting at Pharyngula!
I didn’t say there was a higher authority, I asked why you think what you have to say should matter to me. If you don’t think that what you say should matter to me in some way, why even bring it up?
The only reason I ever argue with people or challenge their views is if I think it matters – as in, if they are wrong, it will probably cause negative consequences for them, me, or others, and if what we are arguing can be presumed to be objectively arbited via logic towards truthful statements. I don’t see the point in arguing otherwise.
The lack of responses here as to why anything anyone argues here should matter to me indicates that those arguing here don’t believe anything they argue really matters at all – that they are just arguing for the sake of arguing, which essentially nothing but sophistry.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not I “feel” you have been receptive, or whether or not we are social animals and free agents. The question is: do you think anything you argue should matter to me? If not, why bother as if it matters whether or not I’m right or wrong about my views? Why tell me I’m wrong about something, if it doesn’t matter if I’m right or wrong? and if there is no presumably objective means by which to make that determination?
As far as I’m concerned, those interacting with me have been revealed (not that any of you care) as engaging in pure sophistry just for the sake of arguing about things you ultimately don’t think should matter to anyone and about which you don’t even believe can be arbited in any presumably objective manner.
IOW, your arguments are presented as nothing more than meaningless nonsense you employ for no use other than your own enjoyment. Until someone can tell me why anything they say should matter to me, there’s no reason to interact about such subjects as if they matter.
If I want to “socialize”, I talk about things and exchange ideas about things without the perspective that any of it really matters other than pleasant human interaction. For instance, I don’t argue who the better singer is on American Idol, I just state who I like and accept that others like other people. Or, if I’m talking about art, I don’t argue as if “what we consider good art” matters in any meaningful sense, so I don’t tell people they are “wrong” or that their views are “illogical”. Who cares?
Why would I say, “No, you’re wrong, Game of Thrones is the best show on TV, and you can’t empirically prove otherwise” when it’s just a matter of personal taste and subjective opinion? What does it harm anything, what are the negative consequences if my friend believes Glee is the best show on TV?
Do you want to just socialize? I’m a graphic arts / print design professional, my favorite shows are Justified, Blue Bloods & Fringe. I enjoy painting on canvas, playing pool (I have a table upstairs) and online video games in my spare time. I’ve been happily married for 21 years (it’s the 3rd marriage for both of us), have 6 children and 12 grandchildren. We take care of my elderly mother who moved in with us 6 years ago. I have two published philosophy books, My wife and I have a pet pekingese. I’m a fiscal conservative, a foreign policy hawk (nearly to the point of being an Imperialist) and a social libertarian. My favorite foods are, unfortunately, largely things my digestive system can no longer tolerate.
These are the kinds of things I talk about and ask others about when I’m socializing, and I do so in a non-competitive way, non-confrontational, non-judgmental way.
But, in a debate where one is arguing about whether or not ideas are true or valid, for me, (1) there must be a reason why it matters if such views are true or valid, and (2) there must be a presumably objective means by which to determine if one is right or wrong. Otherwise, I would be engaging in sophistry – arguing just for the sake of arguing and confounding and frustrating others – and I consider that sort of behavior not social, but anti-social. I don’t tolerate such drama-prone activity in my life.
Because it may matter to someone reading this blog, sitting on the fence and wondering whether theism results in a rational and coherent worldview.
That’s what we have been saying to you over the course of this whole debate.
1) “Explicitly” we have said you are wrong.
2) “Implicitly” we have said there will be negative consequences by assuming your claims of “cast in stone” objective truths or that there is a “common purpose for all humans”.
One of the points we are arguing “against” is your claim that there are some sort of “objective” truths or standards that exist outside of us.
Why would we then accept these assertions of yours as a prerequisite for arguing “our” side?
If a singer refuses to preface every song with a reason why they’ve chosen to sing it, does that mean the song is not worth listening to?
The lack of responses to the question, “Why do we argue”, doesn’t change the weight of the arguments we’ve made against your claim, that “Only theism leads to a rational and coherent worldview”.
What does “wrong” mean here? By “wrong” do you mean you just happen to disagree with me, like we might happen to disagree about what TV show is the best? Or, wrong according to some means of evaluation, comparison or judgement? If the latter, what means of evaluation, comparison or judgement indicates I am wrong?
What are the negative consequences if I am wrong?
No, by wrong here I mean you have cheated on me with another woman, as in, “He wronged his loyal wife of 29 years”.
If for some reason you doubt that is what I meant by the word wrong in this case, then your reasoning is very good, to the point that I believe you know exactly how I use this word in the context of our ongoing debate.
Look at the first line of the comment you are replying to.
I would want that reader to see how badly formed your arguments are when looked at rationally.
Losing one’s free will is a negative consequence of your particular version of a “theistic worldview.”
…to the point that I believe you know exactly how I use this word in the context of our ongoing debate.
I assumed a lot of things about how and why others here argued, and I have reached the conclusion that I have been completely wrong in those assumptions (at least concerning the people here), which is why I am asking. I don’t know how you are using the term “wrong”, so please provide me with an answer.
What do you mean here by “rationally”? Again, I assumed it meant “according to the rules of logic”, but I don’t think that is what you mean.
Well, there’s a whole host of terms that need clarifying. What do you mean by “free will”? What do you mean by “losing”? And, why is it a negative thing to lose one’s free will?
It appeared to me from your earlier posts that it mattered to you whether your views are rational, consistent, and coherent. That usually means that someone’s argument pointing out that they are not would also matter to you. It appears my initial impression was wrong.
That’s hard to answer without a clear understanding of what you mean by “do”.
Hear ye, hear ye!
WJM has changed his mind: he no longer defines *rational* as *X* (or was it *Y* or *Z*, it’s hard to keep track…), he now defines it as *according to the rules of logic*.
Let’s see:
His premise, whether discussed for hypothetical or practical purposes, is irrational (lacking logical connection and valid logical judgment) because it is based on the assumption that he is privileged, over people that disagree with him, to know a particular statement to be true, in the absence of any evidence, reason, or justification that this particular statement could be true, that he could be privileged, or that he could be capable of knowing either of these things.
Yup. Still irrational. According to his own use of the word (which for once, is in pretty good accordance with the use and definition by the English speaking community).
I’m still waiting for you to explain why, if no one’s argument matters to you, you decided to respond to the blog post in the first place.
Squid ink.
Since your characterization of my position is entirely erroneous, then you haven’t demonstrated my argument irrational. It isn’t predicated on the assumption that I am privileged or that we know any particular statements to be true.
I never said no one’s argument matters to me. I asked why their argument should matter to me.
I only “defined” rational as X as part of a hypothetical argument in response to your argument portraying concepts such as logic as “whatever we define them to be” – just arbitrary rules and definitions we make up and decide to follow without the premise that they are assumed to refer to objective, or objectively valid commodities.
If logic (or “rationality”) is only what we arbitrarily assign to it, I can arbitrarily assign it to anything I wish. It is only if we agree to assume (not “know”) that the term logic refers to a commodity independent of our individual, subjective definitions and interpretation can an argument between people on the basis of logic-as-arbiter be meaningful.
You didn’t answer my questions above. I’ll restate them in full with contextual quotes:
Please tell me what you mean by “rationally”.
Are we agreeing that “rationally” means “logical”, and that “logical” means something independent of our own personal definition or interpretation – i.e., a set of rules of thinking, induction, deduction, abduction, sound premises, inferences, and conclusions that do not employ logical fallacies?
Well, there’s a whole host of terms that need clarifying. What do you mean by “free will”? What do you mean by “losing”? And, why is it a negative thing to lose one’s free will?
These terms aren’t the issue, the issue is your premises.
Logic does not exist outside of us.
We created logic just as we created math.
All humans do not have the same common purpose.
Why would anyone accept a worldview based on these premises if the premises themselves aren’t valid?
It’s one thing to say, “What if they were valid?”, but are they?
William J Murray,
This should read, “Why would anyone accept a worldview based on **your** premises if the premises themselves aren’t valid?”
The premises I **listed** are counter to yours and clearly mine.
That’s not something anyone else should be expected to tell you. Remember, it’s all subjective. Only YOU can determine what matters to you. And obviously, the arguments do matter to you since you’re here.
And as long as you’re here spouting nonsequiters and unsupportable premises, people are going to respond.
For me, that’s the essential point, William. Think what you want. Your private thoughts are your own business. Your published comments are open to challenge. As are everyone else’s.
If it’s all subjective, then I subjectively interpret your commentary as “You win, William.”
I don’t really consider ad hominem, straw man and other logical fallacies a challenge, other than perhaps to my patience.
All along, you’ve accepted your own premises subjectively.
You’ve agreed that you cannot prove your premises as being true, but “you” have accepted their validity to support “your” own arguments.
You have not brought any measure of objectivity to the table in support of your claim that “Only theism leads to a rational and coherent worldview”.
My subjective interpretation:
“You win, William. You’re right, and we all know it.”
William J Murray,
My subjective interpretation:
“I, William J Murray, concede this debate to the atheists.
I apologize to theists everywhere, especially William Lane Craig, StephenB and kairosfocus.”
You’re certainly entitled to do that, if you think it gains you anything. Personally, I don’t look at this as a competition, but rather as a way to enhance my understanding and push my own conceptual boundaries. YMMV.
That you repeatedly reveal that you see this as something you have to “win” explains a lot about your rhetorical slipperiness. Instead of wanting an honest exchange, it appears you’re merely looking to score some kind of points in a game that only you are playing.
And that’s exactly my point. Holding that “everything is subjective” line (as opposed to the assumption that we are attempting to mutually interpret commodities assumed to be objective) leads to what I call the solipsist’s impasse; there’s no reason or assumed means to escape subjectivism, which brings all arguments down to the level of rhetoric and appeals to emotion.
Arguments must assume that some objective commodities exist, and must assume that our arguments can utilize an objective methodology, or else we both start and end at “I win”.
If in a proper debate I’m entitled to simply subjectively interpret everything the way I wish without reference to commodities assumed to be objectively valid, then I can also interpret that it gains me whatever I wish.
You see, the you phrase your argument is to avoid directly referencing any objective values (and even denying they exist), but every bit of your subtext directly implies such values exist. Why argue unless one assumes it objectively matters? Are you engaged in sophistry?
How can one argue (outside of rhetoric and emotional appeals) without any objective values for comparison by which to evaluate each argument? Where is the conclusion drawn from? If it is all subjective, then my subjective conclusion that “I win” and “all of you admit it” is as valid, and as meaningful, and as correct as any. My further (hypothetical) subjective interpretation that it gains me “everything” or that it makes me obviously a better, more successful and rational person than those that disagree is as valid as any other conclusion “if it is all subjective”, as you said.
So? If it is all subjective, this view of yours cannot be any better than mine because there is no objective value by which to compare, leaving your commentary nothing but rhetoric.
I’m not the one making a case that all arguments and interpretations are ultimately nothing more than subjectivist rhetoric. You’re confusing my extrapolations of the subjectivist positions of others for my actual position. I’m the one arguing that logic must be assumed as an objectively valid discernment commodity (or something must be so accepted) in order to escape the solipsist’s impasse.
Claiming that “everything is subjective” makes everything rhetorical. I’m just showing the necessary logical end for such thinking. Objecting to a subjective interpretation after saying “everything is subjective” and implying that those who come to subjective conclusions you dislike are “slippery” and dishonest shows your hypocrisy. If “everything is subjective”, my subjective interpretations must be accepted as valid, non-slippery, and as honest as yours because they can only be evaluated by our own individual, subjective view.
So? Under subjectivism, everyone is always playing their own individual game, and are as honest as they think they are. Here you are calling me out for simply employing the rule you yourself imposed, “everything is subjective”.
I guess “everything is subjective” only up to a certain point, eh? Then, when other people’s subjective views and interpretations differ enough from yours, it’s time to start the ad hominem.
Perhaps one of you can tell me how an argument held under the “everything is subjective” perspective can get beyond the solipsist’s impasse? If there is no commodity or value that you assert I should accept as objectively binding in regards to evaluating the argument and reaching a conclusion, why on earth should I pay attention to your solipsist sophistry? Why shouldn’t I just interpret your words as nonsense and conclude my position as superior in every meaningful way?
If you were to hold true to your subjectivist maxim, your response to my interpretations and conclusions should be: “That view is as good, as warranted, and as sound as any other, mine included.”
Right?
Just as we have defined math or logic, we define the “objective” reality outside of us.
This “objective” world changes every now and then as it did when the physics of Einstein ran into those of Newton.
Did the “objective” reality change?
No, just our interpretation of it.
There will be a “common purpose for humans” as seen by Christians and a “common purpose for humans” as seen by another theology.
Which is objectively true?
And that’s your problem, that every theology is subjective to begin with.
How could any one brand of theism lead to an “objective” truth of any kind?
How can you possibly know or assume an objective world exists outside of your subjective sensation and interpretion of it, and that it “didn’t change”, if all you can experience are subjective impressions and thoughts about things?
You keep implying that an objective commodity exists that you can access it or “know” what it does and doesn’t do, but if “everything is subjective”, you cannot make any statements about supposedly “objective” commodities unless you simply assume they are “objective”. You also assume they exist outside of your subjective views and senses and also “don’t change” just because your interpretation of “it” changes.
This is what I mean by the subtext; you overtly and subtly must refer to and implicate some assumed objective commodity/value that you assume exists outside of your subjective interpretations. You blatantly just did that very thing.
Exactly, which means it is our “interpretation” of it we refer to when we say “objective”, not “it”.
The “obective” reality that exists between “subjective” humans didn’t change, but we now think “it” is different than yesterday when Newton was describing “it” instead of Einstein.
“It” did not change at the instant Einstein’s “subjective” view of “it” came into his mind, only the interpretation changed.
Logic, math, and physics are inventions of “subjective” humans to describe “it”.
***************************************
But you are drawing us away from your premises which are an extension of “it”.
One of your claims is that the “rules of logic” exist outside of us just like “it” does.
There is no evidence of that at all, but we do have evidence of “people” slowly building on each others experiences to where we have the process of logic we follow today.
There is also no evidence of a “common purpose for all humans” that exists in the realm of “it”.
Here you are saying that “objective” reality and “our interpretation of it” are two different things, because “objective” reality didn’t change, but our interpretation of it did:
…. which means it is our “interpretation” of it we refer to when we say “objective”, not “it”, which you verify when you said:
It seems you are now saying there are two interpretations; one that does change, and one that doesn’t; that there is an “it” that we interpret as objective, and then we interpret that interpretation (an objective universe) differently.
Then you say:
But you said “it” was the thing that actually exists, not the “objective” interpretation that is then interpreted into different theories. How can you know “it” doesn’t change?
Perhaps you can clarify your position by answering a few questions:
(1) Can anyone prove that anything objectively exists?
(2) What is it exactly that you are saying doesn’t change?
(3) If you are saying the thing itself doesn’t change, how can you know that, since all you have are subjective interpretations of it?
(4) If it is “the interpretation that it is objective” that doesn’t change, how is it that not everyone holds that interpretation?
Actually, what I think really happened is that you realized you blatantly referred to an assumed objective commodity – the objective reality outside our senses – by claiming it did not change (as if you could have knowledge about an objectively existent commodity) and are now just piling up nonsense to avoid having to fess up to your mistake and agree that we must posit objective commodities and values whether we can prove them or not.
I guess it’s interpretations of interpretations that change, but not interpretations.
Heh.
William J Murray,
———————————————
** A Primer On “It” **
———————————————
1) The universe consists of matter.
2) We are human beings made of matter.
3) The matter in the universe, that does not consist of human beings, **is** the thing we have been referring to as the objective “it”.
4) The “rules of logic” are the result of thinking humans, and therefore, not part of “it”.
5) Humans, who are “subjective” little islands in the vast sea we know as “it”, try to make sense of “it”.
6) Sometimes, a group of humans will agree on an interpretation of “it”, an interpretation that will be changed by a different group of humans, a hundred years later.
7) None of that has any bearing on your “extension” of “it”, that sees subjective human interpretations such as the laws of physics, rules of logic and “common purpose for all humans”, actually residing in the domain of “it”, instead of humanity where those “interpretations” were born.
8) To claim that subjective human interpretations of “it”, **originated** in “it”, is not “rational”.
9) And finally, “rationality” also originated with humans, not “it”.
I have no idea why that smiley face is there instead of an 8).
Yes, it is. I clearly demonstrated this earlier, and you never disagreed with me. If you want to show that my characterization of your position is erroneous, you need to show me where I am wrong in the comment I made relating to this statement on December1, 1:43 am.
No, and I don’t see from parsing anything I have written, how you could come up with that response.
I described in my previous post, so that there would be no confusion, where that line between humans and “it” is.
Humans subjectively interpret the world around them, i.e, the world that doesn’t consist of that particular human.
There is nothing difficult about this at all.
Newton and Einstein, two humans, describing the world around them, both with subjective and differing opinions, and both with an interpretation that is valid for their use.
Whatever form the “universe outside of myself” actually is, I can only go with what seems valid to me, which rules out worldviews that claim “human” inventions, such as the “rules of logic”, can even exist outside of humanity.
Well, you responded to your own distorted caricature of my argument, not to my actual argument. My actual argument was that we need to AGREE on definitions and meanings of words in order to come to conclusions that are MEANINGFUL to BOTH of us. You have blatantly ignored this actual argument of mine. But that does not surprise me any longer, since a productive discussion with people here is clearly not your intention.
All your talk about *objective commodities* is still meaningless drivel, since you have rejected the definition that I use for this word, and refused to clarify how YOU actually use the word.
Your claim that we can only have a meaningful discussion if we agree that whatever term has some vaguely defined quality (*objective*) about it that we can’t even assess, is a naked assertion of yours that lacks any supporting justification or evidence. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that people like Toronto, Alam, Seversky, and myself have lots of discussions that are meaningful to us in the absence of any such nebulous *objective commodity* requirement.
That’s because the quotes you reference in those questions are not mine, and thus the questions are not for me. The least you could do is pay attention to who says what in this discussion.
And re: not answering questions: I have at least a dozen open questions to you in this thread alone.
I wasn’t aware this was a “proper debate”. I see it as a group of individuals commenting on statements you have made, and trying to see whether there is real-world validity to them, with you attempting either to clarify or obfuscate your meaning — I’m not sure which.
Oh, I’m not about to deny that objective values exist — obviously i didn’t make my own intent too clear. What I’m pointing out is that there is no objective viewpoint in your line of argument here, whether or not you claim that there is one. Your motivations for participating are subjective, your choice of examples is subjective, and your very assumptions are subjective: by which you intend to illustrate that there is some objective argument for Intelligent Design?
Indeed. Which makes your demand that others supply you with reasons for considering their arguments all the more nonsensical, since you’ve provided no objective measure by which they are to be evaluated.
And here’s where you fail. You are insisting that the objectivity of your position be assumed when you supply arbitrarily chosen premises that can’t be subjected to any objective testing or analysis and then try to argue that they represent something in reality. You’re about as deeply subjective as one can be in this whole exchange, and apparently everyone can see it but you. That’s why you don’t seem to be convincing anyone, IMO.
“Everything is subjective” in this case was not an existential global generalization, but an observation of your interaction with the others in this discussion. While claiming an objective argument, you carefully exclude any means by which others can test your propositions. You’ve got a nice Aristotelian approach here, asserting reality through naked logic, and dismissing any empirical approach.
That’s the main reason I chimed into this discussion, which others were handling quite well without me. You kept asserting these premises, and insisting others accept your conclusions based on them, without examining them at all for validity.
You don’t even know what this argument is about. This argument has nothing to do with intelligent design.
I’ve never claimed my views, opinions, or arguments are “objective” (in fact, I’ve agreed that everything that comes in and issues forth from the individual is subjective in nature), nor have I claimed my premises “must be assumed” as objective (in fact, I’ve stated several times exactly the opposite, that one can assume any premise they wish whether it leads to a rational worldview or not), except to maintain a logically coherent and consistent worldview that doesn’t degrade into subjectivism and turn every argument into a case of solipsist’s impasse.
My argument has never been that objective commodities actually exist, or that we can prove they exist, nor have I claimed they exist. My argument, which has been unwittingly shown valid countless times by many individuals addressing the argument here, is that whether we know it or not, and whether we admit it or not. we must assume that some objective commodities exist, and that we must assume that we can discern presumably true statements about those objective commodities, or else our arguments are stuck in pure subjectivism and cannot get past the solipsist’s impasse.
This means we must assume at least two things; first, that some kind of objectively real and existent features to existence/reality/the universe exist that we are each subjectively examining; second, that we have access to some kind of objective capacity/means of determining the difference between what is objective and what is subjective and which can discern establish and discern what are true (assumed to be objectively valid) statements about that (assumed) objective reality.
Note that this is exactly what Toronto does when he says:
How can Toronto claim to know such things, when he also asserts that his only way of coming to such conclusions is via a purely subjective process? Answer: he cannot. He keeps making statements about what objective reality is, and what “logic” and “rationality are, while simultaneously insisting he has no means whatsoever to access or figure out what those things are, but only to come up with what “seems” to him, in his purely subjective state, to be right. If I disagree, we are at the solipsist’s impasse, with no objective means or presumed objective method for discerning which of us is (provisionally) correct.
If we do not assume such an objective reality exists, then we are stuck at subjectivism and the solipsist’s impasse. If we do not assume that we have the capacity to discern objectively valid statements about that assumed reality, we are again stuck in subjectivism and the solipsist’s impasse.
Therefore, if we wish to render anything other than rhetorical arguments that cannot get beyond the solipsist’s impasse, the latter assumption – that we have a capacity/means (capacity doesn’t mean it is always used correctly) for determining what we assume to be objectively true statements about reality (even though we hold them as provisional because we cannot know them to be objectively true) – must contain two aspects; libertarian free will, and a mental method of arbitration that is not purely subjective.
If our mind is doing the evaluation of information and attempting to reach provisionally valid (true) conclusions about an assumed objective reality, what is it using to conduct that evaluation? How is it checking for errors of thought and guarding against false, subjective interpretation? If we assume that the only commodities the mind has are subjective commodities, then even our error checking and evaluation procedures are subjective. To escape mental subjectivism, we must posit that mind has objective features that can properly used to discern (provisionally) true statements about reality.
Further, if the “self” is also just a subjective commodity with no objective grounding whatsoever, and further, if we do not have the free will capacity to supervene on our biology-produced thoughts if they are in error, then we are again unable to get past subjectivism and the solipsist’s impasse.
I’m not arguing that any of the above is factually the case; we could all be Boltzmann Brains floating in space and imagining all of this. Reality could have been generated 15 minutes ago.
My argument is that some things must be assumed, and assumed without proof (because discerning “proof” is itself a mental process), or else there’s simply no way (logically) to get past the solipsist’s impasse.
This argument is valid for any commodity which we wish to get past the solipsist’s impasse (or in the case of individual sub-features, the subjectivist impasse), including morality. If morality is purely subjective, then all things are moral, depending on the individual – including torturing children for fun. If one agrees that it is objectively (self-evidently) true that torturing children for fun is immoral, then morality must refer to some presumably objective commodity.
My premises are not arbitrary; they are necessary to get past subjectivism and the solipsist’s impasse. That is the whole argument here; which premises are necessary to avoid the collapse of a worldview into pure subjectivism? Unless one is willing to accept the solipsist’s impasse in every argument, certain premises must be accepted as valid and binding.
Which makes your demand that others supply you with reasons for considering their arguments all the more nonsensical, since you’ve provided no objective measure by which they are to be evaluated.
You missed the whole point of that challenge; it had nothing to do with how I would actually consider their arguments, but rather it was about why they were tendering arguments in the first place, to demonstrate the inanity of making arguments as if they matter and as if they address some objective reality that we can reach true conclusions about when their own position denies such reasons and cannot even come up with a reason why their arguments should matter – to me, to them, to anyones.
If everything is subjective, including our interpretation of the results of beliefs systems, and there is no objective means to evaluate anything because logic and reason are also subjective, then all of their argument are moot. They cannot “mean” anything more than rhetorical sniping for personal pleasure.
It’s not “why should your arguments matter to William“, but “why should your arguments matter to anyone“, if it is all subjective, and you’re not even claiming that your arguments are made with an (presumably) objectively valid method or even refer to (presumably) objectively binding commodities with objective consequences?
You’re either engaged in an argument you find meaningful and significant in some way for some reason, or you are engaged in sophistry. If you believe your argument actually means something and that it should matter to others (including me), then tell me why you think your argument matters, and how it matters. Does it refer to any commodities that are binding on me? Will ignoring your argument result in any necessary consequence? Will I gain a better understanding of anything (presumably) objectively valid or true by listening to it?
Otherwise, I will conclude you are just engaging in sophistry.
This:
Should be blockquoted above.
You forgot number 3:
3) The matter in the universe, that does not consist of human beings, **is** the thing we have been referring to as the objective “it”.
Point number 3 above, is the pivotal point of this whole debate. “It” was the term I used to define “objective reality”.
If “objective reality” is viewed as above, it seems possible to actually explore and try to define it, since the thing that is exploring the matter that exists outside us, is also matter, and that is we human beings.
For instance if I’m sitting at a table, I can touch it and think, “This table is made of stone”.
If I ask someone else at the table to touch it and give me their opinion, They may say, “This table is made of marble”.
Our subjective opinions differ, but we are close to agreement on this particular “objective reality”.
Our previous experiences with “objective reality”, using our own senses, led us to an interpretation that we seem to agree is rational.
—————————————————————————————–
This however is **not** what William means by “objective reality”.
His “objective reality” contains “philosophical concepts” such as a “common purpose for all humans” and scientific processes such as the “rules of logic”.
While a Christian and a Hindu can sit at a table and agree that it’s made out of some kind of stone, the chances of them agreeing on a “common purpose for all mankind”, is about nil, surely way beyond ID’s UPB.
If William’s version of “objective reality” existed, the two theologists at the table should have converged on a very close approximation of it, but so far, no different groups of theists seem to be able to do this.
The reason for this, is that concepts such as the “rules of logic”, are our thoughts that have leaked out of our subjective selves and reached across space/time to be interpreted by other humans, then verified or modified and reflected back.
We can actually validate this with historical references to trace those of us who originated any particular concept and see how that concept evolved.
William’s version of “objective reality” doesn’t exist as demonstrated by the fact that there are hundreds of competing theologies who don’t agree on very basic things such as “moral codes”.
He says, once again directly implicating that he knows something not only about the objective universe, but also about my mind and can “actually” find out true historical facts, and that we are using a mutually valid means of evaluating input to reach binding conclusions about that information.
It is odd that subjectivists cannot see that when they make such arguments, they are employing non-subjectivist premises, implications and methods.
None of your argument means anything or matters unless you assume (1) an objective reality exists (because the guy sitting next to you agreeing with you can be in your mind), and (2) we have the capacity (if fallible) to discern true statements about that reality (or else we could just be spouting delusional nonsense and believing we are making sense).
Without those assumptions, you can’t even get off the ground. Without assuming the guy next to you is more than just a figment of your imagination, and without assuming that you have some capacity to discern true statements, there is no “this table is made of stone”. There’s no reason to say it, and no reason to ask the guy next to you what he thinks it is made of. There’s no reason, really, to do or say anything if all you are involved with is an internal delusion, because nothing you say or do really matters.
Whether your mind is material or not, you must still assume it has the capacity to discern provisionally, presumably true statements about an objective reality. You’ve done exactly that in every post you’ve made.
The question then becomes, what other premises are necessary, or conclusions can be drawn, if we begin with those two premises – (1) an objective reality exists, and (2) we have the capacity to discern true statements about that reality.
The other premises that must exist (if we accept those first two) is that humans must have libertarian free will to some degree (or else we are susceptible to just being programmed by biology & physics to believe nonsense), and we must have a method that is valid and binding for use in evaluating claims about objective reality.
If I can pick one set of rules and you can pick another when it comes to evaluating such claims, we are back at the subjectivist impasse.
And none of you can make a case otherwise that doesn’t stall out at the subjectivist/solipsist impasse.
And then on we go to other necessary premises and conclusions, but this is where it must start.
What I know about your mind is based on what you yourself have told me.
Toronto to William: “Do you see that brick on the table?”
William to Toronto: “Yeah, but it’s not real, it’s plastic.”
Note that both have used their personal senses and their subjective interpretation of the sensory input they received, to make a statement about “objective reality”.
William to Toronto: “Do you see that common purpose for all humans”.
Toronto to William:”No, what are you talking about?”
Note that William is not talking about the same “objective reality” that Toronto was.
He is instead discussing human-originated concepts and claiming they exist outside of us, in that area of matter that is **not** human and where things like bricks exist.
William J Murray,
Try to address the following.
While a Christian and a Hindu can sit at a table and agree that it’s made out of some kind of stone, the chances of them agreeing on a “common purpose for all mankind”, is about nil, surely way beyond ID’s UPB.
If William’s version of “objective reality” existed, the two theologists at the table should have converged on a very close approximation of it, but so far, no different groups of theists seem to be able to do this.
Except that I and others have shown repeatedly that your premises are incoherent and irrational in several respects.
Except that I and others here don’t mean by objective what you mean by it, and we still don’t know what you mean by *objective*, thus this argument is meaningless.
I never disagreed with this viewpoint – except that true means *assumed to be objectively valid* or that reality is *assumed to be objective*. Under my understanding of *objectivity*, true simply means objectively valid, and reality is what I call the entirety of objective facts (a reminder: by objective facts I mean facts that can be observed by any qualified person that cares to look and that all subjective observers can agree upon).
What a bizarre concept. Of course our error checking and evaluation procedures are subjective. But they are not arbitrary.
So, under your proposed system, how do you discern which features of your mind are *objective*, so that you can use those *objective features* for checking the errors of the *subjective features*? Because without clear criteria to tell these two classes of mental features apart, your proposed method for *checking for errors of thought and guarding against false, subjective interpretation* isn’t getting off the ground. At all.
So far, you haven’t gotten past any impasse. In fact, you have created an extra layer of impasse – see above.
As far as we know, some core concepts of morality do indeed refer to a set of widely shared rules and mechanisms. Which means morality is non-arbitrary, and it can be studied objectively (according to the way I use the word). But none of this has anything to do with self-evidence.
Uh, no. Your premises are incoherent, irrational, and so far you have utterly failed to show how they are supposed to get past any impasse.
This is really funny. Nobody here has ever claimed that their arguments don’t matter. And nothing I have ever said could be parsed to mean that I don’t think my arguments address objective reality and meaningful conclusions about that reality (according to what I mean by those words – because, and I’ll keep repeating it: we still don’t know what you mean by them).
You don’t seem to understand that your assumption that something matters does not make it matter outside of that assumption. You seem to think that subjectively assuming that something matters somehow makes it matter more than subjectively perceiving that it matters. I see absolutely no justification for that. You try to justify your statements by ungrounded assumptions about some unverifiable entity that you call truth, whereas I and others in this discussion justify our statements by provisional, objective truths (according to my use of these terms), as far as we can subjectively discern them. And that’s the only reference frame in which those statements matter, because it is the only reference frame we have.
It is completely irrelevant to *what matters* in the discussion between you and me whether I call the world (i.e. the reference frame) where you and the discussion between you and me exist *reality* or *Nirwana* or *loony bin* or *mind*. Within the world that my senses tell me about, you are a person that is separate from me. Things that I say and do and perceive have consequences for me (i.e. matter to me), and some things that you say and do have consequences for me (matter to me). And if you say that something matters to you, I usually take your word for it, unless what you say is at odds with other experiences of mine in that same world. This is the reality I observe and the rules I discern about this reality, and they do not change with assumptions about some *assumed* outside reference frame that is unaccessible to me, because they operate WITHIN that reality (i.e. the only available reference frame).