Friday, July 01, 2011

Becoming as rational as we think we are


G. K. Chesterton once said that the "whole modern world is at war with reason." "The tower," he added, "already reels." In what sense can this be true? When we think of ourselves in all of our modern glory—unadulterated by the myths and superstitions of the past, don't we think of ourselves as more informed, more enlightened, more rational than we have ever been? Indeed we do, but is it due to the fact that we are, or the less sanguine fact that we understand less than ever before what reason is and how we have deviated from it?

Perhaps the chief reason we consider ourselves rational is our mastery of technology. When Jesus spoke of moving mountains, he was speaking of a thing quite impossible for his hearers. For us, however, it is not only not impossible, but not uncommon. We dynamite through mountains to make way for roads, and lay them waste in our search for coal. We can even transform them into islands by the simple expedient of damning a river and making a valley into a lake.

Science looms large in our view of ourselves. We are like Marlowe’s Faust in the German legend who lusts for power over nature and, after selling his soul for knowledge, accounts himself a god:

Be thou on earth as Jove is in the sky,
Lord and commander of these elements.

Faust, a scholar and alchemist, is encouraged by the magician Cornelius to study the magical arts—“to be renown'd”:

And more frequented for this mystery
Than heretofore the Delphian oracle.

Like Faust, we mistake power for knowledge, and knowledge for wisdom.

In fact, magic provides an interesting comparison to modern science. Despite the disdain with which the modern scientist views the magician of old, there is a serious question whether he is really so different after all. Both concern themselves with power—most particularly, the power over nature. The modern scientist would like to say that the tools of magic were irrational while the scientist's are rational.

But is this true?

Before the advent of reason, there were the gods. Mythology, which interpreted the world on the basis of the imagination, provided men with their explanations of the world. Then came the philosophers with their rational account of reality, based upon the intellect. The mythical and the rational accounts of the world were consolidated in the Christian worldview, which was at once both religious and reasonable, and which reached its zenith in works like St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica during the middle ages.

But then came science.

The science of the 18th century proposed to dispense with the need for spiritual and imaginative theories of things, and sought to explain the world on the basis of rational principles—or at least empirical ones. It came with a new method—two methods, in fact. The first was mathematics, and the second empirical investigation. By these two mechanisms, they would interpret the world.

The new science pictured the world through a new analogy. Before Galileo and Isaac Newton, the world was seen as like an organism. It would now be seen as like a machine. We—and many scientists in the natural sciences—still think of nature in terms of Newton’s mechanistic view of the world. One particle acts on another particle and that particle affects another and so on. What most people do not know is that this view of the world was utterly destroyed by 20th century physics.

“The physics that came of age in the seventeenth century,” says Philosopher Joe Sachs, his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics:

and seemed to have answered all the large questions by the nineteenth, is limping toward the end of the twentieth century in some confusion. Mathematics and technology have coped with all the crises of this century, but the picture of the world that underlay them has fallen apart.

The most successful school of science ever devised is quantum theory. “No one,” said the late physicist Roger S. Jones, “has ever made a measurement that quantum theory could not correctly predict.” No other scientific discipline can boast as much. But quantum theory, far from providing us with a rational account of nature, has actually undermined it. Quantum theory is not just a scientific theory; it is a theory about science. It is, says Jones, in his Physics for the Rest of Us, “a radically new conception of science.” Far from giving us certainty about nature, it has given us the opposite: Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is, in fact, “the very cornerstone of the quantum theory’s foundation.”

The chief question leading to the development of quantum mechanics historically was the question of the composition of light. Light was originally seen as made up of particles. But experiments in the early 20th century led some scientists to conclude that light was not made up of particles at all, but of waves. The problem facing physicists in the early days of quantum theory was that the two theories were completely inconsistent: light could not be made up of both particles and waves—logically, it was one or the other. How did they settle this question?

Their answer consisted of saying that light is now seen as being made up of “photons.” But what is a photon? A photon is a “wave-particle”! But if light cannot be both waves and particles, then how can it be a wave-particle? The answer, said Neils Bohr, the pioneer of quantum theory, lay in the principle of “Complementarity.” “This principles states,” says Jones:

that our descriptions of the micro-world present mutually exclusive views that are inconsistent with each other but which are complementary. The different views complement each other in the sense that all views are needed to form a complete picture.

In other words, there is no answer. The principle of Complementary is just a nice-sounding way of saying that nature is at bottom irrational—at least according to quantum theorists. More surprising still, however, is that physicists do not deny this. In fact, the principle of Complementarity is their way of embracing it.

After having helped to birth it, Albert Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to fend off quantum theory because he saw its irrational implications. “I know enough about the fundamental structure of the world to know that some things cannot happen,” he said. But quantum theory proved that those can happen. The man who had proved that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light was faced with the quantum discovery that the observation of one particle at one end of the universe could have an instantaneous effect on another particle at another end of the universe. Einstein couldn’t accept it; but at the same time he couldn’t deny it. He called it “spooky actions at a distance.”

The occult forces science thought it had dispensed with in the 18th century reasserted themselves in the 20th with a vengeance. “The progress of science has now reached a turning point,” said philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead. “the stable foundations of physics have broken up … The old foundations of scientific thought are becoming unintelligible.” Quantum theory, mathematical science's greatest achievement, can only predict; it can no longer explain.
There is a sense in which the new magic of quantum physics is worse than the old magic of the astrologers and the alchemists. At least the old magic thought that the way to master the world was to understand the elements—to know what things are. Faust would “canvass every quiddity thereof” in his quest for power. But modern science has given up on canvassing the quiddity— the “whatness”—of things.
“Quantum theory denies that phenomena have any inner reality,” says Jones:
It provides answers only for the results of actual experimental observations, and it tells us nothing about what happens between our observations … Quantum theory provides us with remarkably accurate quantitative predictions of atomic phenomena, but it denies us any picture of the inner workings of nature.
Science, in other words, has given up on the idea of reality—because is cannot provide a rational account of it. It has dispensed with the whatness, the “quiddity,” of things in the interest of simply gaining predictive control over it. “It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is,” said Neils Bohr. “Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”
Quantum theory has proved many things, and one of the things it has proved is that science cannot provide man with a rational account of nature. The gods of ancient man were arbitrary and capricious, but, with the advent of Christianity, these were replaced by a rational God. Not content with that, however, man took his place during the Enlightenment as the highest of beings, only, in short order, to use his own power to displace himself, with nature as the highest of all things—and now nature itself has turned out to be arbitrary and capricious, and so man is back where he started.
The scientific project of explaining the world in rational terms is effectively over, and the question we must now face is what view of the world can take its place.
We will never find a rational account of the world in what has come to be called the “Age of Reason”—the scientific age. We will find it only in the Age of Faith. The most thoroughly rational period of history, ironically, was the Christian middle ages. It was an age which had taken account of the philosophical discoveries of the ancients, and had incorporated those discoveries in a larger Christian worldview.
Whitehead, in his great analysis of modern science, Science and the Modern World, pointed out that it was only in a Christian civilization that the original goal of science—to explain the world in rational terms—could have come about in the first place:
When we compare this tone of thought in Europe with the attitude of other civilizations when left to themselves, there seems but one source for its origin. It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher.
Part of the faith exercised by classical thinkers in general and the great medieval Christian thinkers in particular, was a faith in the order of the cosmos. “Faith in reason,” says Whitehead, “is the trust that the ultimate natures of things lie together in a harmony which excludes mere arbitrariness. It is the faith that at the base of things we shall not find mere arbitrary mystery.”

Christianity is often thought of as a religion of faith, and indeed it is. But it is a faith in a rational God, a rational universe—and a rational man.

In the New Testament, God is himself identified with reason: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God," says the writer of the Gospel of John. The term translated "Word" meant much more than that in the original Greek. The Greek word logos not only meant speech or discourse, but thought or reason. To some it was also a reference to the animating and ordering principle of the universe. One scholar goes so far as to say that the verse could just as easily have been rendered, "In the beginning was the Logic and the Logic was with God and the Logic was God." It may sound awkward, but it is not without justification.

There are some who believe that the rational tendency in Christianity was some sort of syncretistic imposition on an earlier, theologically purer form of Christianity. There is a whole school of thought among evangelicals, in fact, that tries to ferret out the Greek influences on Christianity in order to cleanse the faith of these alien elements. But the rational element, later developed by Greek thinkers, was there from the very beginning.

Whatever you believe about the chronological order in which God created the world, there is one thing undeniable about the creation account in Genesis: it is logical. And part of the rational aspect of the creation account is its clear hierarchy: it begins at the bottom of things, so to speak, and moves to the highest created thing: man. “What stands out,” says Leon Kass in The Beginning of Wisdom, his great commentary on the Book of Genesis, is the "utterly logical and intelligible structure of the entire account":

The main principles at work in the creation are place, separation, motion, and life, but especially separation and motion. Places are regions necessary for the placement of separated kinds of beings and backgrounds for the detection of their motion, whereas life may be looked at—at least at a first glance—as a higher and more independent kind of motion. Further, one can treat locomotion as a more advanced kind of separation, in which a distinct being already separated from others also separates itself from place. Thus, we could say that the fundamental principle through with the world was created is separation. Creation is the bringing of order out of chaos largely through acts of separation, division, distinction.

Kass points out that the word "divide" or "separate" appears explicitly five times in the creation account.

In the old Aristotelian logic (not the modern logic of the mathematicians), defining and dividing or classifying are essential elements. God employs a series of consistent divisions in his ordering of the world. Kass points to the observation of the philosopher Leo Strauss:

[From] the principle of separation, light [which allows discernment and distinction]; via something which separates, heaven; to something which is separated, earth and sea; to things which are productive of separated things, trees, for example; then things which can separate themselves from their courses, brutes; and finally, a being which can separate itself from its way, the right way.

Why is it that plants are introduced in the creation account before the sun? Plants are dependent upon its light. In a logical ordering, this makes complete sense: the division between those things which do and do not inhabit regional space is more fundamental than the division between those things that have and do not have the ability of local motion, as the accompanying chart demonstrates.

This rational universe created by a rational God is also productive of a rational creature: man. “In the cosmology of Genesis,” says Kass, “human beings clearly stand at the peak of the creatures.” Under the Darwinian view, which is purely mechanistic, this cannot be. Darwin, as Jacques Barzun points out, wrote a note to himself in his notebooks: “Never use higher or lower.” “Insofar as evolutionary theory offers any standard for higher and lower,," says Kass, "that standard could only be a standard of success, namely, most surviving offspring—in which case, at least in Chicago, the cockroach would be the highest being.”

Man is not only the end of creation insofar as he stands at its termination; he is also the end of creation as being its goal. “Man is the ultimate work of creation,” says Kass, “he is the last of the creatures listed in hierarchical order, and once he appears, the work of creation is complete.” Unlike all the other animals, he bears the image of the Creator himself. He is like God, but he is not himself a god. He is like God to the extent that he “exercises speech and reason, freedom in doing and making, and the power of contemplation, judgment, and care.”

The cost of bowing to the new scientific theories that posit an irrational world is not only a rational cosmos, but a rational man. But do we need to give up our own rationality for the sake of the newest scientific theories? In asking us to accept belief such as the Principle of Complementarity, however, that is what we are being asked to do.

It was this classical view of an orderly world—a world which was conceived in order and which retains its hierarchical structure—that informed the thought of the early scientists. It is, in a strange historical turn, what the reigning theory in physics now asks us to abandon. Philosophers like Whitehead and R. G. Collingwood—and Joe Sachs—have proposed that the only alternative is to return to the classical view of the world which expressed itself in classical philosophers like Aristotle—and which was implicit in the Book of Genesis.

“O, something soundeth in mine ears,” says Faust to himself. “’Abjure this magic, turn to God again!’”

58 comments:

Singring said...

'In other words, there is no answer.'

Why do you need an answer, Martin?

Martin Cothran said...

Because I am a human being.

KyCobb said...

You have conceded that science is accurate, so why abandon it for something else just to inflate your self-worth? People, for the most part, aren't rational. They are emotional, biased and rationalizing. That's why science depends on the repeatability of observations; because even scientists can't be trusted.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "accurate." If you mean it predicts correctly, then it is accurate. If you mean that it tells us accurately what the world is like, then that is another story.

The whole significance of the Copenhagen Interpretation is that it drives a wedge between the idea of predictability and the idea of explanatory power.

Singring said...

'Because I am a human being.'

Then what is your explanation for God's existence?

Singring said...

'The whole significance of the Copenhagen Interpretation is that it drives a wedge between the idea of predictability and the idea of explanatory power.'

...on the quantum scale. Quantum effects have so far not been observed above the atomic level. So I am somewhat puzzled why the problems that you see (but that many other's don't) on the quantum scale lead you to question the rationality of all of science.

Moreover, if you accept the observations of quantum theory as you seem to do most emphatically since most of your post is built on them, then why do you still insist that classical logic of the kind Aquinas and Aristotle ostensibly used to come up with their 'explanations' for the universe is valid?

Something has to give here, Martin. Quantum theory flatly contradicts causality and other precepts of classical philosophy and logic as you yourself emphasize repeatedly in above post.

So why do you reject the simple conclusion that the empirical evidence suggests - i.e. that a photon is both a particle and a wave - and instead stick with classical logic and philosophy as somehow superior and more 'rational' when in fact they are invalidated by the data?

Maybe it would be opportune for me to quote Lawrence Krauss again at this juncture:

'The universe is flat. It has zero total energy and it could have begun from nothing. And I've written a piece although of course I've gotten a lot of hate mail saying that in my mind this answers that crazy question that religious people are always throwing out which is: Why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is - there had to be! If you have nothing in quantum mechanics you'll always get something. It's that simple. It doesn't convince any of those people, but its true.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

So how is it that you champion quantum theory and its conclusions when you are trying to illustrate the limitations you apparently see in science, and I quote:

'The most successful school of science ever devised is quantum theory. “No one,” said the late physicist Roger S. Jones, “has ever made a measurement that quantum theory could not correctly predict.” No other scientific discipline can boast as much.'

...but then turn around and ignore or outright reject and dismiss the conclusions it presents?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"If you mean that it tells us accurately what the world is like, then that is another story."

The evidence says your belief that man is a created, rational being isn't an accurate description of what the world is like.

"The whole significance of the Copenhagen Interpretation is that it drives a wedge between the idea of predictability and the idea of explanatory power."

Though that's not the only interpretation of QM.

Martin Cothran said...

Then what is your explanation for God's existence?

What does that have to do with the point of the post?

Martin Cothran said...

Quantum effects have so far not been observed above the atomic level. So I am somewhat puzzled why the problems that you see (but that many other's don't) on the quantum scale lead you to question the rationality of all of science.

Weren't you the one who said that, according to quantum theory, squirrels could pop into existence?

Martin Cothran said...

Moreover, if you accept the observations of quantum theory as you seem to do most emphatically since most of your post is built on them, then why do you still insist that classical logic of the kind Aquinas and Aristotle ostensibly used to come up with their 'explanations' for the universe is valid?

Because I make a distinction between a theory's power of prediction and its explanatory force.

Singring said...

'What does that have to do with the point of the post?'

You are obviously very dissatisfied with the fact that quantum theory as yet has no explanation for why a photon behaves like both a particle and a wave or what it does in between observations. You think that this is irrational and ask us to turn to God as a rational explanation instead.

So then I must assume that you in fact have an explanation for why God is the way he is and what he does at every instant.

If I am to accept your request to turn to God, I would like to have that explanation.

Singring said...

'Weren't you the one who said that, according to quantum theory, squirrels could pop into existence?'

Sure.

But we have never observed it - it is a possibility of such remote likelihood that it needn't concern us when we apply logic and causality to everyday occurrences and objects.

So why should I be troubled by quantum effects when I investigate population dynamics in squirrels, for example?

Singring said...

'Because I make a distinction between a theory's power of prediction and its explanatory force.'

A-ha: So you prefer ideas that have explanatory force over those that have predictive power.

First of all, just because you don't like the explanations quantum theory provides doesn't mean it doesn't provide any. That much should be obvious.

Furthermore, I will submit that any good theory should have aspects of both explanatory force and predictive power. Even if your theory has all the explanatory power in the world, if it does not make any predictions whatsoever that can be tested against empirical evidence - which is the exactly the case with Aristotel's fancyful 'causes' - then it is not only worthless, but only as true as any of the million gaziollion other theories with great explanatory force I can come up with.

I urge you to think about such things for a few seconds before you post them, because sometimes I wonder if you are even aware of the intellectual consequences your statements have were they to actually be applied.

For example, if you want to give explanatory force precedence over or divorce it from predictive power, then you would have to accept that the following theory is probably correct:

Diseases are the result of little invisible pixies going about sprinkling different kinds of fairy dust into people's bodies, that then cause the various diseases.

Or how about this theory: All diseases have been genetically implanted in us by aliens and we get sick whenever one of them loses his favourite video game - which then triggers the disease in our genome to be activated.

There - both of the theories I have provided are perfectly adequate explanations for every single disease ever discovered by man.

According to you, because they both have explanatory force, they are perfectly valid, or so I take it? In fact, both of these theories would take precedence over the germ theory of disease and the theories about genetic diseases that we currently accept as true because they would account for all of those diseases for which we have no scientific explanation as to their source as yet.

Do you think either of the two theories are true? If not, why not? Or maybe one is more true than the other? How would you decide that in fact the germ theory is the correct one?

Singring said...

Martin, I see you have added a nice little hierarchical diagram to your post, I assume in an attempt to illustrate the logical hierarchy you see in the creation account.

I just felt it necessary to point out (as I have pointed out to Thomas before) that in fact many plants do have 'local motion' and that many animals do not have 'local motion'.

I think featuring a diagram that wouldn't even pass muster in a primary school biology class somewhat undercuts your efforts at presenting a convincing argument.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb:

The evidence says your belief that man is a created, rational being isn't an accurate description of what the world is like.

How?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

So you prefer ideas that have explanatory force over those that have predictive power.

No: I prefer explanatory systems that have explanatory force over explanatory systems that do not.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring:

First of all, just because you don't like the explanations quantum theory provides doesn't mean it doesn't provide any. That much should be obvious.

First of all, quantum theory doesn't purport to provide explanations at all according to the Copenhagen school, which is the original, orthodox, and apparently still dominant interpretation of quantum theory. That was one of the points of the post.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

The genetic, biological and fossil evidence all support the theory that homo sapiens evolved from common ancestors with other organisms in an ad hoc fashion.

Singring said...

'No: I prefer explanatory systems that have explanatory force over explanatory systems that do not.'

1.) How do Aristotle's four causes or anything in Aquinas Summa explain why a photon is both a particle and a wave? For that matter, how do they explain why atoms consist of protons, neutrons and electrons? How do they explain why a water molecule consists of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms?

2.) The theories I presented as to the origin of disease had great explanatory force. Do you accept them over the germ theory of disease that has less explanatory force? If not, why?

'First of all, quantum theory doesn't purport to provide explanations at all according to the Copenhagen school...'

Of course it does. Even if you only reduce QT to the mathematical equations that predict experimental results, those formulae explain why we see interference waves when we send photons through double slits unobserved and why we see two distinct lines if we send them through while we observe them.

What the fomulae of course do not explain is why they are the way they are. Quantum theory does not explain why photons behave like waves and particles - and that is a fair criticism.

Though then, as I asked you in my previous posts (and maybe you could dignify me with an answer this time), why does that present a problem for you when this God you posit as the foundation of your rational universe has no explanation as to whyhe exists or is the way he is either? You can't have it both ways.

Either way, the chain of explanations abruptly ends - either at the quantum level or at God.

So why do you choose the explanation that has no predictive power over the one that has lots of it (according to yourself) if they both ultimately lack explanatory force?

Lee said...

> The genetic, biological and fossil evidence all support the theory that homo sapiens evolved from common ancestors with other organisms in an ad hoc fashion.

Perhaps the same way that random mutation plus natural selection created a Toyota Prius from Conestoga wagons.

Singring said...

'Perhaps the same way that random mutation plus natural selection created a Toyota Prius from Conestoga wagons.'

Cars and wagons do not reproduce, nor do they have DNA that can mutate.

Any other enlightening comparisons?

Lee said...

Just goes to show that not all evolution is through random, unguided processes.

Singring said...

'Just goes to show that not all evolution is through random, unguided processes.'

Sure, if you want to define evolution generally as change over time. But how does it follow that human evolution was not through random, unguided processes?

Lee said...

> Sure, if you want to define evolution generally as change over time. But how does it follow that human evolution was not through random, unguided processes?

That it was, is simply assumed.

Singring said...

'That it was, is simply assumed.'

If you mean that it is 'assumed' in the same way that gravity or relativity or electromagnetism or quantum theory or the germ theory of disease is 'assumed'. then yes, it is 'assumed'.

If you mean 'assumed' as in 'I didn't get new batteries for the remote because I assumed you would get them, honey', then I will simply have to 'assume' that you have never attended a biology class or cracked a biology book in your life. Which would be a crying shame, especially if you are going to base your life's beliefs on such ignorance.

Lee said...

> If you mean that it is 'assumed' in the same way that gravity or relativity or electromagnetism or quantum theory or the germ theory of disease is 'assumed'. then yes, it is 'assumed'.

Show me how the (assumed) non-participation of a guiding hand in evolution is observable and measurable in the same sense that gravity and electromagnetism is observable and measurable.

Singring said...

'Show me how the (assumed) non-participation of a guiding hand in evolution is observable and measurable in the same sense that gravity and electromagnetism is observable and measurable.'

Ah yes, ye old burden of proof switcheroo. I'm not making any claims about guiding hands, you are. All I am saying is that random mutation and natural selection are perfectly adequate explanations for the observed data and we need not posit any additional factors to make the hypothesis fit the data.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, Lee.

Or do you also believe that invisible aliens live under your bed?

Lee said...

> Ah yes, ye old burden of proof switcheroo. I'm not making any claims about guiding hands, you are.

I pointed out that the part of evolution that assumes the absence of a guiding hand is just that, an assumption. You said it was assumed in the same sense that gravity and electromagnetism are assumed. I responded that we can directly observe and test gravity and electromagnetism.

Does it not therefore follow from your statements that you can test and observe the absence of a guiding hand in evolution? If not, how not?

Singring said...

'You said it was assumed in the same sense that gravity and electromagnetism are assumed.'

Lee, check your own posts. This is the one I responded to when I mentioned electromagnetism etc.:

"> Sure, if you want to define evolution generally as change over time. But how does it follow that human evolution was not through random, unguided processes?"

That it was, is simply assumed."

So you see, you claimed that human evolution through random, unguided porcesses was assumed - whether a guiding hand was involved was not the issue.

In response, I pointed out other scientific explanations which are also 'assumed'.

Then you pulled the switcheroo and suddenly pretended that I had claimed the absence of a guiding hand was 'assumed', as if that had been the claim I was responding to. This is, of course, not the case.

You can make all kinds of 'assumptions' in addition to evolution as the explanation for humans, for example, but it will absolutely nothing to the explanation evolution already provides and in some ways will actually confound it.

If you turn the key in your car ignition and the car starts, it is perfectly sufficient to 'assume' that the turning of the key closed a circuit, which allowed the flow of charge from teh battery to the starter and the spark plugs, which then caused the motor to ignite. Positing a 'guiding hand' at some stage in the process - for example as an intitator of sparks in the cylinders - in not necessary to explain why your motor started, adds nothing to the explanation you already have and in fact causes a problem because now we have to wonder where this invisible, undetectable, nebulous 'guiding hand' supposedly came from and how exactly it intervened.

If you want to insist that it is there, it is your job to provide some credible evidence or good reasons for me to accept this proposition, not up to me to disprove it - just as it is not your responsibility to disprove that there are invisible aliens living under your bed.

Lee said...

Singring: with all of your handwaving and bringing forth distracting nonsense, it's hard to tell at this point what you are affirming or denying.

You said that this 'assumption' (your scare quotes) is like other assumptions we make, e.g., about gravity and electromagnetism. But gravity and electromagnetism are things we can directly observe and test. In other words, you were implying that it was not an assumption at all. Your use of scare quotes seems to bolster this interpretation.

But I could have misread. So, all that's left is one of two things.

1. You can explain that you were in agreement all along with what I said, that evolution simply assumes that a guiding hand was absent throughout the entire process.

Or...

2. You can explain how we have observed and tested our way to the position that, in the course of human evolution, nothing that happpened was deliberate, planned, designed, or calculated.

And as far as aliens are concerned, I'm afraid Richard Dawkins believes in them more than I do, as witness his response to Ben Stein's questioning. If aliens were here, I'm sure they could find a more interesting place to be than under my bed. Maybe they're in your belfry, hunting bats.

Singring said...

'But gravity and electromagnetism are things we can directly observe and test.'

As we can also do with evolution.

'In other words, you were implying that it was not an assumption at all. Your use of scare quotes seems to bolster this interpretation.'

No. My use of quotes was to illustrate that I wasn't sure what kind of assumption you were talking about. If we are talking about everyday, colloquial assumptions (I assume you've got car insurance for that car?), then evolution is nothing like that, if you were talking about scientific assumptions (we assume that the hypothesis with the most explanatory and predictive power that has not been falsified is correct), then you would have been right - but the latter applies to all scientific hypotheses/theories.

I'm sorry if this is confusing for you - but this is the kind of stuff we have to make very sure we all agree what we're talking about, because its just completely false to go around saying things like 'evolution is just a theory' or its' just an assumption' if it is not clear what we mean by saying that.

'1. You can explain that you were in agreement all along with what I said, that evolution simply assumes that a guiding hand was absent throughout the entire process.'

I am certainly in agreement with what you said all along if you meant 'assume' in the latter sense I outlined above. I'm just not sure you are. We make the assumption that no guiding hand is involved about gravity, about electromagnetism, simply because there is no evidence for a guiding hand, nor do we need one to explain what we see.

Now: do you believe that all of these are also directed by 'guiding hands'? If not, why not? If so, what are your reasons for doing so? I have some rather good reasons for assuming that humans evolved. I'd like to hear your good reasons why you think that - on top of that - there was some sort of guiding hand involved?

'And as far as aliens are concerned, I'm afraid Richard Dawkins believes in them more than I do, as witness his response to Ben Stein's questioning.'

LOL. Lee, saying stuff like this just makes me lose any and all interest in having a decent, serious discussion with you. Richard Dawkins has explained numerous times what he was saying, and what Expelled turned it into (watch it again and pay attention as to who actually says Dawkins believes in aliens - hint: its not Dawkins).

More to the point, I couldn't give a dime as to what Dawkin's thinks or doesn't think about aliens - I was illustrating a point that you apparently had no interest in considering and resorted in the usual knee-jerk 'atheists are stoopid' routine that has no bearing on the issue at hand.

Lee said...

>> 'But gravity and electromagnetism are things we can directly observe and test.'

> As we can also do with evolution.

As debatable as that statement is, you're not responding to the point I raised. Can the absence of a guiding hand in evolution be directly observed? Yes, or no?

> I'm sorry if this is confusing for you - but this is the kind of stuff we have to make very sure we all agree what we're talking about, because its just completely false to go around saying things like 'evolution is just a theory' or its' just an assumption' if it is not clear what we mean by saying that.

Of course, I didn't say any of that. You're simply changing something I did say into something you'd prefer to respond to.

> LOL. Lee, saying stuff like this just makes me lose any and all interest in having a decent, serious discussion with you.

Why start now?

> Richard Dawkins has explained numerous times what he was saying, and what Expelled turned it into (watch it again and pay attention as to who actually says Dawkins believes in aliens - hint: its not Dawkins).

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Lee said...

> I was illustrating a point that you apparently had no interest in considering and resorted in the usual knee-jerk 'atheists are stoopid' routine that has no bearing on the issue at hand.

Where did I say atheists are stupid, or imply it?

Lee said...

> We make the assumption that no guiding hand is involved about gravity, about electromagnetism, simply because there is no evidence for a guiding hand, nor do we need one to explain what we see.

That sounds like a yes to me -- yes, the idea there was no design or guiding hand involved is assumed.

So we are in agreement on that issue.

Singring said...

'Can the absence of a guiding hand in evolution be directly observed? Yes, or no? '

That depends on what kind of 'guiding hand' we are talking about. But that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether evolution is assumed or not.

'Of course, I didn't say any of that.'

Of course you did. You said that humans being the result of evolution was simply assumed. I quoted the respective post.

'DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."'

It comes as little surprise to me that the words 'could', 'possibility' and 'possible' mean nothing to you.

It also comes as no surprise to me that you purposefully omit the next few sentences, in which Dawkins states that even if such aliens existed, they themselves would have to have arisen by an evolutionary process.

But then again, arguing this with someone who just blithely assumes what a movie like 'Expelled' has to say without checking the actual facts is rather pointless.

For example, a cursory YouTUbe search would have brought you to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqg7S3scnpM

But hey - why listen to what people actually say? Its much easier to watch Expelled.

'That sounds like a yes to me -- yes, the idea there was no design or guiding hand involved is assumed.'

As it appears, we agree in our definition of 'assumed' in this sense, so yes - that there was no design is assumed - just as it is assumed that little invisible pixies aren't responsible for starting your car in the morning.

Lee said...

> That depends on what kind of 'guiding hand' we are talking about. But that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether evolution is assumed or not.

Well, since I raised the issue, I'm at least the expert on that. And I was indeed raising the issue that in evolution a guiding hand is absent.

> Of course you did. You said that humans being the result of evolution was simply assumed. I quoted the respective post.

No, I didn't. Here's what I said:

> Lee: Just goes to show that not all evolution is through random, unguided processes

>> Singring: Sure, if you want to define evolution generally as change over time. But how does it follow that human evolution was not through random, unguided processes?

> Lee: That it was, is simply assumed.

Clearly, my issue was about the assumed absence of a guiding hand -- the "random" part of evolution. The rest of it, I pretty much left unchallenged for the purposes of this exchange.

> It comes as little surprise to me that the words 'could', 'possibility' and 'possible' mean nothing to you.

I said Dawkins apparently believes in little green men more than I do. You said he doesn't. The quote shows pretty much that he does. I'm sorry Dawkins lost the exchange and has since tried to 'explain' what he said, but the quote is there for all to see.

> It also comes as no surprise to me that you purposefully omit the next few sentences, in which Dawkins states that even if such aliens existed, they themselves would have to have arisen by an evolutionary process.

Yep. Dawkins has no data whatsoever about aliens but he's sure his observations of life on Earth apply to any that may exist. But he doesn't believe in God because there's no evidence. Go figure. (At least he has admitted that life could contain clues about design, i.e., the "signature of some sort of a designer.")

Fine, given his belief in the universal applicability of evolution, all that does is punt the design question back in time a few billion years, perhaps.

> But then again, arguing this with someone who just blithely assumes what a movie like 'Expelled' has to say without checking the actual facts is rather pointless.

But here you are, responding to my posts.

> As it appears, we agree in our definition of 'assumed' in this sense, so yes - that there was no design is assumed - just as it is assumed that little invisible pixies aren't responsible for starting your car in the morning.

There's plenty of pixie dust already there in your belief in "truth". Apparently you care about the truth, as you see it. Why? Is it a hobby? Is it a figurative game of chess? Because none of it matters in your world view. You're going to die some day, and everything you are is then gone forever. The love of truth is but a chemical state of your brain, and when you're gone, so is that.

So my belief in pixies is really no worse than your belief that something, anything really matters.

Lee said...

> Well, since I raised the issue, I'm at least the expert on that. And I was indeed raising the issue that in evolution a guiding hand is absent.

Sorry, garbled, meant to say, I was indeed raising the issue about whether evolution simply assumes the absence of a guiding hand.

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

'Well, since I raised the issue, I'm at least the expert on that. And I was indeed raising the issue that in evolution a guiding hand is absent. '

Then maybe you should have expressed that more clearly, rather than making it sound that you thought evolution itself was assumed?

'I said Dawkins apparently believes in little green men more than I do. You said he doesn't.'

Dawkins thinks it is possible that aliens exist - so do most scientists. So do I. Don't you? Incidentally, I also believe it is possible that a God exists. I also believe it is possible that unicorns exist - does that mean I believe in these things more than you do? Do you believe that unicorns cannot possibly exist?

'Dawkins has no data whatsoever about aliens but he's sure his observations of life on Earth apply to any that may exist.'

He was talking in hypotheticals - the hypothesis that alien life would have to be the result of evolutionary processes strikes me as a rather reasonable one because we do have data suggesting that there is life that has evolved that way (on earth) and no data to suggest that it may arise otherwise. So if we extrapolate from the best available data, aliens should be a product of evolution - it doesn't mean they absolutely must be - but they probably are.

'Because none of it matters in your world view. You're going to die some day, and everything you are is then gone forever.'

So? Aren't I allowed to enjoy myself and do the things I value while I am? Who's going to play thought police and tell me what I can and can't value? You? Your God? Nice bunch of guys you are.

Not everything I have done will be gone forever (hopefully). Maybe I was able to help a few people during my lifetime. That's plenty enough for me. You apparently need some divine daddy who's super-powerful and owns you, mind, body and all, so you can feel happy. Whatever floats your boat. But leave it up to me to decide what I can or can't care about.

'So my belief in pixies is really no worse than your belief that something, anything really matters.'

Well, actually it is because you believe in pixies in addition to believeing that some things matter. So even if believing that some things - truth, for example - matter is a belief you think is unfounded and ridiculous - I'm still slightly better off I'd say because at least I don't believe in pixies or Gods or any of the other unnecessary, unfounded and ridiculous nonsense you do. That's good enough for me.

Lee said...

> Then maybe you should have expressed that more clearly, rather than making it sound that you thought evolution itself was assumed?

I could always improve on my writing skills, of course. But construing something that wasn't said from something that was not a new thing for you.

> Dawkins thinks it is possible that aliens exist - so do most scientists. So do I.

Actually, by my way of thinking, the most significant part of what Dawkins said was his admission that life might contain evidence of design. The part about green men is just an amusing lagniappe.

> So? Aren't I allowed to enjoy myself and do the things I value while I am? Who's going to play thought police and tell me what I can and can't value? You? Your God? Nice bunch of guys you are.

Knock yourself out. Just pointing out that, by your world view, there is no lasting significance whatever to this discussion, but just another form of self-gratification. Of course, that's not my world view. Since I believe the soul is immortal, I believe that conversations can have permanent significance. That's why they are important to me.

> Not everything I have done will be gone forever (hopefully).

A thousand years from now, the only people in the 20th century who will probably be remembered will be Albert Einstein and maybe Winston Churchill. I sincerely doubt it will be more than a handful. Then, how about in a million years? A billion? Ten billion?

> Maybe I was able to help a few people during my lifetime.

In ten billion years, that too will be lost. Your world view, not mine. There's no escaping the futility of life in a godless universe. Rationalism can't provide meaning. I think post-modernism is your best bet. Life is worth whatever meaning you assign to it. Good luck, and may the random movements of particles bless you.

> That's plenty enough for me. You apparently need some divine daddy who's super-powerful and owns you, mind, body and all, so you can feel happy.

Since my all-powerful Divine Daddy created me for the purpose of being happy in His presence, it stands to reason I need Him.

> Whatever floats your boat. But leave it up to me to decide what I can or can't care about.

Of course. It's not my job to tell you what you can or can't care about. I'm only here to point out that whatever it is that you do care about, according to your world view, it is like investing love in a sand castle you've built just before the tide comes in. Here today, gone tomorrow. End of story. Nobody will remember The Adventures of Singring or How Singring Foiled the Twisted Pixie Lovers. Or care.

> I'm still slightly better off I'd say because at least I don't believe in pixies or Gods or any of the other unnecessary, unfounded and ridiculous nonsense you do.

Wow. All this highly-wrought verbiage for something that leaves you only slightly better off? Imagine what you could do for God's Kingdom if we could harness that energy and zeal.

We all believe in some ridiculous nonsense. The ridiculous nonsense I believe in holds that the world appears to be designed because it has a Designer. The ridiculous nonsense you believe is that somehow, in a world where nothing has permanent significance, there is some way to measure "slightly better off."

Singring said...

'Actually, by my way of thinking, the most significant part of what Dawkins said was his admission that life might contain evidence of design. The part about green men is just an amusing lagniappe.'

Don't dodge the question - do you believe it is possible aliens exist?

'Knock yourself out. Just pointing out that, by your world view, there is no lasting significance whatever to this discussion, but just another form of self-gratification.'

Actually, I'm trying to show you in what ways your understanding of evolution and the position of science is faulty. Having a better understanbding of science contributes to a functioning, healthy society. My discussions on this blog are entertaining, yes. But they are certainly not just self-serving.

'A thousand years from now, the only people in the 20th century who will probably be remembered will be Albert Einstein and maybe Winston Churchill. I sincerely doubt it will be more than a handful. Then, how about in a million years? A billion? Ten billion?'

What makes you think I consider being remembered as something that matters? In my view, what matters is to reduce the amount of suffering in the world, even if its just by a little. Improving the lives of other is an effect that lasts longer than any memory.

'In ten billion years, that too will be lost.'

So what? Does that mean helping people here and now is pointless? You know what - you better stay a devout Christian, Lee, because I shudder to think what kind of atheist you would be.

'Life is worth whatever meaning you assign to it.'

Exactly. That's good enough for me and I'm sorry its not for you.

'Since my all-powerful Divine Daddy created me for the purpose of being happy in His presence'

So you are incapable of being happy without him? Happiness by dictate and dependency - like I said: whatever floats your boat.

'Nobody will remember The Adventures of Singring or How Singring Foiled the Twisted Pixie Lovers. Or care.'

You keep making this point as if I cared about being remembered. I don't. I don't have this inner narcissism that I need to be remembered, I need to be the focus of the universe's attention. It's the humble Christians like yourself who have, which is exactly why you see fault in my world view because it lacks this component of self-adulation.

'We all believe in some ridiculous nonsense. The ridiculous nonsense I believe in holds that the world appears to be designed because it has a Designer. The ridiculous nonsense you believe is that somehow, in a world where nothing has permanent significance, there is some way to measure "slightly better off."'

1.) How does the absence of permanent significance entail the absence of temporary significance?

2.) Your position about a designer could be supported by empirical evidence. So far it has not. therefore it is an unfounded belief.

3.) Do you disagree that it is better to only adopt such beliefs that are probably true as opposed to any old belief that comes along?

Lee said...

> Actually, I'm trying to show you in what ways your understanding of evolution and the position of science is faulty.

You mean, in between imparting condescension and derision while accusing me of same, and misconstruing what I have said.

> Having a better understanbding of science contributes to a functioning, healthy society.

Paraphrased, "If you guys would just think about things the way I do, we'd all be better off." Sounds like an evangelist speaking. So what if you happen to be an evangelist for agnosticism?

> My discussions on this blog are entertaining, yes. But they are certainly not just self-serving.

Wouldn't that depend on how many others are as entertained as you are?

> What makes you think I consider being remembered as something that matters?

The point is that all that we are and all that we do won't matter after enough time passes. Your world view, not mine.

> In my view, what matters is to reduce the amount of suffering in the world, even if its just by a little.

Imagine you had a button on your desk, and that by pressing it, you could kill every living being on the planet, instantly and painlessly. That would reduce the amount of suffering in the world to zero. If you would not press it, it means there is something you value more than the alleviation of suffering.

> You know what - you better stay a devout Christian, Lee, because I shudder to think what kind of atheist you would be.

I know you (and others who use the same rhetorical ploy -- it's not very original, after all, they must teach it in Atheist Histrionics 101) mean that as an insult, but that's what the Bible tells me, and it's what I know in my heart to be true. You're talking with a Calvinist, after all. I too shudder at what I would have become without God's grace in my life.

But at least now we agree that the world is better off with Christianity to restrain the worst instincts of those who embrace it. So if reducing suffering is your goal, you should stop trying to talk people out of believing in God.

> It's the humble Christians like yourself who have, which is exactly why you see fault in my world view because it lacks this component of self-adulation.

Actually, it is the other way around. We are built to worship something. Best that we not worship ourselves. Even the great atheist empires of the 20th century bow to the great godlike statues of their heros such as Stalin and Lenin and Mao. If we don't worship God, we will worship something, even if it's as lowly and unworthy as our own wisdom.

> 1.) How does the absence of permanent significance entail the absence of temporary significance?

Something stops mattering as soon as it is gone, or the person to whom it matters is. Your world view, not mine. Why mess around with temporary values? As soon as you're gone, it will matter no more than the fancy that a male gnat once had for his beloved's abdomen.

> 2.) Your position about a designer could be supported by empirical evidence. So far it has not. therefore it is an unfounded belief.

In other discussions, the very idea of supporting the existence of a designer with empirical evidence has been read right out of the realm of possibility.

> 3.) Do you disagree that it is better to only adopt such beliefs that are probably true as opposed to any old belief that comes along?

Earlier you spoke of such things as alleviating suffering and building a healthy society. I'm not sure what truth has to do with it. Again, as such things follow from your world view, not mine.

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...

> Dodn't I just tell you that in my word view, whether something ios forgotten has no bearing at all upon whether it is important or not?

Your world view is in denial.

> I think what we have here is a classic case of projection - you are yourself desperately afraid of being forgotten....

Nice try. Better stick to your day gig.

> Well, no, because I would have killed billions of people - something I would very much consider suffering.

You're ignoring the parameters of my hypothetical question and, what else, it is Singring after all, going for the cheap shot. How intellectually cowardly.

How can anyone suffer if everyone becomes instantaneously and painlessly dead? But I was right... you wouldn't push the button. Therefore, there is something else you value more than the absence of suffering. You just haven't figured out what it is.

> Like I said, Lee - if as an atheist you saw no harm in killing ten bilion people, then maybe its best you stay a Christian.

So you do agree that Christianity is a positive for society.

Atheists who are "good people" are still feeling the residual presence of Christ in their lives. They say they don't believe in God, but they have internalized the ethics of the society they were raised in and believe what goodness they possess is all their own doing, a product of their own enlightened intellect. The object of worship becomes one's own wonderful self.

But the Bible tells us that man's heart is desperately wicked. Take away God's presence, and the world slips back into its old ways. The Romans crucified over a hundred thousand people and displayed them on the road between Jerusalem and Damascus in the aftermath of the 70 AD siege of Jerusalem. The Mayans sacrificed people to their gods by the thousands, ripping their hearts out while still alive. The Mongols destroyed entire cities -- Samarkand, Baghdad, Kiev -- the men were slaughtered and the women marched back to Karakorum to become sex slaves. Shinto Japan killed 600,000 defenseless people in Nanking. Mao killed 60 million of his own people, and was prepared to kill half of China's population.

Just another day in the life of a society where God is shunned.

> Which is exactly why they weren't 'atheist empires'. Don't you even realize what you are typing?

They denied God's existence. That makes them atheists. They set themselves up as gods. That makes them human.

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

'Your world view is in denial.'

So now your 'argument' has devolved to the 'I'm wrong and you're right!' level?

How exactly is my world view in denial? What is your evidence that we live forever, are remembered forever, are loved by some sky-daddy?

Oh, I remember now - you know it in your heart.

I know you think I'm condescending and arrogant and what have you - but how else am I supposed to respond to an argument that operates on the level of 'I know in my heart that you are in denial'?

'Nice try. Better stick to your day gig.'

If you are not afraid of being forgotten, then why do you see that as one of the prime deficiencies of my world view?

'You're ignoring the parameters of my hypothetical question..'

No I have not. It might help if you asked me what my definition of suffering is before you try to interpret my answers for me. Ending a life - even painlessly - without consent of the person being killed or without the result being the saving of a greater number of other lives certainly constitutes undue suffering. In your scenario, since I would be killing everyone and saving no one, that would by definition be wrong.

'So you do agree that Christianity is a positive for society.'

Hey - if Christianity is the only thing keeping you from going on a killing spree (and apparently it is, judging by your own statements), then I'd say in your case it certainly is. But maybe you should think a while about what that says about you as a person - that the only thing keeping you from moral evil is an authoritarian dictate.

'Atheists who are "good people" are still feeling the residual presence of Christ in their lives.'

Oh dear me - now we're going off the really, really deep end.

'The Mayans sacrificed people to their gods by the thousands, ripping their hearts out while still alive. '

vs.

'Just another day in the life of a society where God is shunned.'

I really don't think I could do a better job of making you look ridiculous.

I rest my case.

Lee said...

> How exactly is my world view in denial? What is your evidence that we live forever, are remembered forever, are loved by some sky-daddy?

If you think ignoring the eternal is the way to go and cannot be otherwise dissuaded, all I can say is, enjoy your sand castles while you have them.

> No I have not. It might help if you asked me what my definition of suffering is before you try to interpret my answers for me.

Well, I was relying on the generally accepted definition of suffering -- agony, torment, torture; pain, distress. Perhaps someday you will publish your dictionary and I will be able to consult your own definitions.

> Ending a life - even painlessly - without consent of the person being killed or without the result being the saving of a greater number of other lives certainly constitutes undue suffering.

So, if I die painlessly and instantaneously, I suffer... but if I die painlessly and instantaneously while saving lives, I do not suffer.

Never mind that I am dead and have no way of knowing whether others lived due to my efforts.

And I am the one who believes in pixies.

> But maybe you should think a while about what that says about you as a person - that the only thing keeping you from moral evil is an authoritarian dictate.

It doesn't matter what you think of me. It doesn't even matter what I think of me. All that matters is what God thinks of me.

But at least get the position right: the only thing keeping *any* of us from moral evil is God's presence. Whether you acknowledge Him or not.

> Oh dear me - now we're going off the really, really deep end.

What's so "deep end" about believing that the culture in which a person is raised has a say in how that person turns out?

Singring said...

'So, if I die painlessly and instantaneously, I suffer... but if I die painlessly and instantaneously while saving lives, I do not suffer.'

It isn't surprising that you can't understand my rationale for morality if all you can think of is you and your suffering, Lee.

Lee said...

How is suffering not personal?

Or are you just objecting to my use of myself in the hypothetical proposition? Fine, let's use you. You say that if you die, even painlessly and instantaneously, you suffer. But you also say that if your death saves others, you do not suffer. So my question is, how will you know which is which?

Does all someone have to do is to fool you into thinking your death is saving others, but once you're dead, the others die anyway? How does the 'suffering' thing balance out?

Singring said...

'Fine, let's use you. You say that if you die, even painlessly and instantaneously, you suffer. But you also say that if your death saves others, you do not suffer. So my question is, how will you know which is which?'

You keep approaching morality from the angle of the consequence it has for the individual, when morality is also about the consequences for others.

Let's try this again and I'll try to be as clear as possible in explaining myself:

Here are the basic principles I base my moral decisions on:

1.) Death is a form of suffering (physical pain is not essential).

2.) Other forms of suffering can be physical (wounds etc.) or psychological (shock, trauma) or even econpmic (poverty).

3.) A moral action is one that - according to the best information available at the time - minimizes the amount of suffering in the world. I assume that only humans can suffer.

Those are pretty simple rules.

Now, you came up with the scenario of a button, which would instantly kill all humans, but painlessly.

Now, you alledged that in my system of morality, it would be moral to push the button. If you apply above rules, however, you will see that this is not so at all. Since killing others for no good reason, i.e. when it does not in some way alleviate the suffering of other to such a degree as to outweigh the suffering inflicted by killing, is wrong in my moral system, it would be wrong for me to push that button, because id everyone is killed, then all I am doing is inflicting suffering and I am not lessening any other suffering.

I don't think only of myself when making moral decisions - I think primarily of others. I really hope you do so, too.

Now let's look at some of what you said:

'But you also say that if your death saves others, you do not suffer.'

No. If I die, I suffer according to the definition pertinent for my moral system. The question is: does my death alleviate the suffering of others to such a degree that it outweights my own suffering? If it does, then to act morally I will have to sacrifice myself.

If I am standing on a train platform and therre are two little children walking across the tracks just as the train is coming, then the moral thing to do would be to run and push them out of the way, even if it means risking my own life.

Lee said...

> You keep approaching morality from the angle of the consequence it has for the individual, when morality is also about the consequences for others.

Are you even aware that you are distorting what I said? I mean, is it on purpose? A debate tactic? Well, if you're unaware, let me help you: in the context of the individual here, I have been talking about *suffering* (since *you* raised the subject). Not morality.

I don't disagree with your comment about morality. In fact, I would go so far as to propose that morality *only* makes sense in terms of relationships, and the concomitant consequences for others.

> 1.) Death is a form of suffering (physical pain is not essential).

This disagrees with the dictionary's definition. And given your world view -- here today, gone tomorrow -- it makes that, once someone is dead, they cannot feel. And if they cannot feel, they cannot suffer. We could end suffering by killing everyone. Obviously, then, there is something we value more than putting an end to suffering.

Only the living suffer. It's unavoidable. It's how we deal with suffering that helps determine who we are.

> A moral action is one that - according to the best information available at the time - minimizes the amount of suffering in the world. I assume that only humans can suffer.

I don't agree with you and Descartes on that: I think animals suffer. Even Descartes admitted, wow, they sure do *act* like they suffer.

I also disagree that minimizing suffering is necessarily moral. I think morality consists simply of rules and principles that govern the establishment and maintenance of good relationships. Those who put the good of others before their own exhibit advanced signs of morality.

But not all suffering is bad. Some types of suffering may be necessary. E.g., what if a child is in serious danger of growing up as a narcissist? To not become one, he will have to suffer. He will have to learn there are others in the world and that they matter, too. Maybe he will learn, and go on to become a worthwhile person. But that learning process will involve some pain, maybe some serious pain.

> Now, you alledged that in my system of morality, it would be moral to push the button.

To be precise, I asked you why it *wouldn't* be moral. I assumed you did not think it was moral, which is why I suggested that there must be something you value more than the mitigation of suffering, but just don't realize it.

> Since killing others for no good reason...

Ending suffering is not a good reason? You end their lives, you end their suffering. That's where I was coming from. Again... there must be *something* *else* you value more.

> The question is: does my death alleviate the suffering of others to such a degree that it outweights my own suffering?

How will you know your sacrifice was worthwhile? Its being worthwhile is a component of whether you suffer in dying, after all. Your rules, not mine.

> If I am standing on a train platform and therre are two little children walking across the tracks just as the train is coming, then the moral thing to do would be to run and push them out of the way, even if it means risking my own life.

Well, I think you're right, and if confronted with that situation, I hope I'd be brave enough to rise to the occasion. But what if the children are suffering terribly in this life, e.g., horrible disease, terrible home life, a type of horrible psychosis, and are looking forward to a terrible life. Let's say somehow you knew all this. Would you still save them? Why?

Singring said...

'This disagrees with the dictionary's definition. '

I have just given yu the definition I use in teh context in morality and still you insist about ignoring that and sticking with your idea of what you think I'm saying. If you want to ignore what I say, then why even bother asking?

'I don't agree with you and Descartes on that: I think animals suffer. Even Descartes admitted, wow, they sure do *act* like they suffer.'

That's lovely. I actually agree. I think there are quite a few animals that suffer. But for the purpose of our argument I left that out of the picture. Now you get all in a huff about it, as if it were the main drive of the argument. Maybe at some stage you can settle on one topic?

'But not all suffering is bad. Some types of suffering may be necessary.'

Did you even bother to read what I posted? This is the entire point of my moral system. A moral action is one that minimizes the amount of harm - that means that in some situations you have to cause some suffering to avoid a greater amount of suffering that would otherwise be caused.

'...what if a child is in serious danger of growing up as a narcissist?'

I'm sorry, but your example is completely incoherent. Firstly, I don't see how someone becoming a narcissist necessarily or even probably entails suffering being cause to him/her or anyone else.

'To not become one, he will have to suffer.'

What on earth are you talking about? How would suffering prevent him from becoming a narcissist? He might be genetically disposed to become one, maybe teaching him about empathy will change his personality, maybe falling in love will change his personality.

'But that learning process will involve some pain, maybe some serious pain.'

Maybe it will - but that pain would then not be inflicted upon him by others, but simply arise within himself as he 'learns' as you say. Morality is about the actions of others and how the would affect him - I thought you had said so yourself earlier, but now you go back to this individualism again.

'Ending suffering is not a good reason?'

Ending suffering is an excellent reason if the action required would create less suffering than that being ended.

However - as I clearly, expressly stated - in my moral system, death represents suffering. You just want to ignore that bit, or maybe you just don't understand it. I'm beyond caring at this point. I've tried to be as explicit as possible and still you just flatly ignore what I say.

'How will you know your sacrifice was worthwhile?'

. I'll quote it for you so it isn't so hard:

'3.) A moral action is one that - according to the best information available at the time - minimizes the amount of suffering in the world.'

My sacrifice is worthwhile if the best information I have indicates that it will reduce the overall amount of suffering in thw world.

I may be wrong and my sacrifice may not be worthwhile - but that could be said of any moral system. Maybe those two kids I push off the train tracks have pneumonia and both die one hour after I have saved them? Who knows?

Moral actions are taken according to the best information available at the time. It's really very simple, and it right there in my post if you only had taken the time to actually read it.

Singring said...

'But what if the children are suffering terribly in this life, e.g., horrible disease, terrible home life, a type of horrible psychosis, and are looking forward to a terrible life. Let's say somehow you knew all this. Would you still save them? Why?'

It depends - this is the grey area of morality that I hope we all acknowledge exists.

How long would these children have to live if they have some disease? I mentioned pneumonia. If I knew they only had one day to live, my moral rules would mean it wouldn't be moral to save them. But what if they had two years to live? Then it would probably be moral to save them.

Would the children realize they are suffering from a terrible mental disorder, or would it just seem normal to them (only in the former case would they be suffering)? In the former case saving them would proabbyl be moral, in the latter it probably wouldn't, assuming that they are suffering the disorder at the time I see them.

'...I hope I'd be brave enough to rise to the occasion.'

I hope I had the courage, too. The rules to my moral sytsem may be simple, but the situations in which they apply rarely are. Also, I know that in abstract and sometimes in very direct ways, I fail my own rules every single day - we all do. If I were strictly adhering to them, I should be somwhere in Africa right now helping starving children. I'm not. Same with you: if you were follwoing the precepts of Jesus you would proably also be in Sfrica, or maybe walking across the US with no earthly posessions evangelizing people or something.

Lee said...

Singring, I don't have any idea what you look like, but if I want to know, I'll just look up your picture in the dictionary, next to "disagreeable". Even when I'm agreeing with you, you turn even that into an opportunity to pitch a hissy fit. Why? My guess, is just to keep your hat in.

> I have just given yu the definition I use in teh context in morality and still you insist about ignoring that and sticking with your idea of what you think I'm saying. If you want to ignore what I say, then why even bother asking?

Since, as we have observed, you're good at making up positions taken by your adversary, I suppose it's not much of a stretch to rewrite the dictionary, either. But when you make up your own definitions of words, don't be shocked and amazed when you leave room for puzzlement.

In any event, I'm not changing what you said, I was just disagreeing with it.

> That's lovely. I actually agree.

Nice juxtaposition. When you hug your gal, do you also slap her silly just to keep things balanced?

> Did you even bother to read what I posted? This is the entire point of my moral system. A moral action is one that minimizes the amount of harm...

My problem here is that I *did* read what you posted. You wrote this:

> A moral action is one that - according to the best information available at the time - minimizes the amount of suffering in the world.

Earlier, you said "suffering", not "harm." They are not the same thing.

But since you're already re-writing the definition of suffering, I suppose you can throw in "harm" as well. But don't be surprised that I missed that bit of revisionist lexicography. I still don't have my personal copy of the Singring Dictionary.

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

'Earlier, you said "suffering", not "harm." They are not the same thing.'

I misstyped. My bad. To be consistent in my terminology, I should have typed 'suffering'. I have used 'harm' and 'suffering' interchangably when discussing morality on this blog before.

In any case, I see that your entire argument is now that you don't agree with my semantics.

So let's check the semantics, shall we?

I don't know what dictionary you use - I don't use the Singring Dictionary (though that is a good one), I use the Miriam Webster dictionary, for example.

Let's see what it has to say under 'suffer' as an intransitive verb:

'1
: to endure death, pain, or distress
2
: to sustain loss or damage
3
: to be subject to disability or handicap
— suf·fer·able adjective
— suf·fer·able·ness noun
— suf·fer·ably adverb
— suf·fer·er noun'

So not only are not even trying to make an argument anymore, your semantics are wrong. But I'm easy - if you don't like my use of the word suffering, just replace it in my set of rules wuth 'suffering and/or death' if that makes you happy. It's that simple.

Need we go on with this?

'Nice juxtaposition. When you hug your gal, do you also slap her silly just to keep things balanced?'

You know, I might turn into a condescending, arrogant douche when people try to tell me that my world view does not prevent me from commiting mass genocide, or when they argue that people making human sacrifices to God is the result of them turning from God or they actually argue that they are right and I am wrong because 'they know in their heart' I am delusional, but at least I have the decency not to accuse them of being physically abusive just because I don't like the way they phrase their arguments.

JW Farquhar said...

I just read this article "Becoming as Rational As We Think We Are" printed in "The Classical Teacher." Many Kudos for writing about reason's effect on Christianity.

I love this--"In the beginning was the Logic and the Logic was with God and the Logic was God"

I too write about the same subject(s) and today published a Page that describes my new book, "Daniel's Secret". Here are first two paragraphs.

APOLOGETICS ON STEROIDS
“Daniel's Secret” raises Christian apologetics to a new level by reaching back to the beginning Creation for a new understanding of the Bible's foundation. Here is an interpretation of the Bible by the divine numbers of reason in the Bible (not a man) that exposes the scientific numbers of biblical heaven and earth, announces the origin of reason, and reveals the Creation's salvation path through Jesus Christ.

“Apologetics” comes from the Greek word apologia, which means to give a defensive reason for a system or idea. But where does reason come from? Since there are only seven questions of reason that one could ask about anything, forget solar days and see why there are seven days in the Creation. See how seven I AM's from Jesus spell out seven divinely sequenced steps of reason that repeat and repeat and repeat in the Bible.

I would be greatly honored if you would consider checking out this book. I will mail you a copy. See it on www.revelationofgenesis.org