According to the Center for Inquiry, science is the highest form of knowledge, trumping religion, intuition, and tradition, among other things. However, there are very good reasons to believe that science is not the highest form of knowledge.
The Center For Inquiry is an atheistic think tank and public policy organization whose fundamental goal appears to be using the prestige of science to support the leftist agenda, or at least portions thereof. Consider, for example, the following quotations taken from their Declaration in Defense of Science and Secularism, in which they decry the role played by religious beliefs in forming the public's attitudes toward various contentious issues:
Embryonic stem cell research, which promises to deliver revolutionary therapies, has been needlessly impeded by the misguided claim that the embryo and/or the first division of cells in a petri dish (blastocyst) is the equivalent of a human person. This is rooted in a moral-theological doctrine that has no basis in science.
The nation spends hundreds of millions of dollars on faith-based programs of unproven efficacy, including ill-advised abstinence-only programs in such areas as drug abuse prevention and sex education, which are more successful at promoting misinformation than abstinence.
Abstinence policies are advocated abroad and promotion of condom use rejected, heedless of the danger of AIDS and of the need for wise policies aimed to restrain rapid population growth.
Scientific evidence of global warming is dismissed and the destruction of other species on the planet is ignored, driven by the misguided view that the Earth has been given to the human species as its dominion.
In each case cited above, CFI is taking the leftist position on an important social question (the morality of obtaining stem cells from human embryos, the promotion of sexual abstinence, overpopulation, global warming, biodiversity), and stating or at least implying that the answers to these dilemmas are a simple application of scientific research that much of the general public is perversely refusing to acknowledge.
The CFI Declaration also uses the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to take a swipe at American Christianity:
We cannot hope to convince those in other countries of the dangers of religious fundamentalism when religious fundamentalists influence our policies at home; we cannot hope to convince others that it is wrong to compel women to veil themselves when we deliberately draw a veil over scientific knowledge; we cannot hope to convince others of the follies of sectarianism when we give preferential treatment to religious institutions and practices. A mindset fixed in the Middle Ages cannot possibly hope to meet the challenges of our times.
And this provides the pretext for their main point:
Science transcends borders and provides the most reliable basis for finding solutions to our problems. We maintain that secular, not religious, principles must govern our public policy. This is not an anti-religious viewpoint; it is a scientific viewpoint. To find common ground, we must reason together, and we can do so only if we are willing to put personal religious beliefs aside when we craft public policy.
In other words (and this is probably CFI's main organizing principle), science is the highest form of knowledge, trumping religion, intuition, and tradition, among other things. For if they claim that science "provides the most reliable basis for finding solutions to our problems," then science would have to be more certain and more clear than any other form of knowledge. This attitude of the superiority of science unmistakably pervades all of their statements.
But CFI makes it clear that by science, they mean "naturalistic science," that is, science premised on the belief that there is no God, in which case natural forces and entities are all that exist. Their basic position is more accurately called "naturalism," which is the worldview (i.e., comprehensive system of thought) based on atheism. The basic elements of naturalism include atheism, materialism — the doctrine that only matter and its properties exist, and empiricism — the doctrine that all knowledge is obtained inductively, based on our sense perceptions. Consider this quote from their web page "Center for Inquiry's Unique Mission":
What would it mean to extend the scientific spirit to our most basic and cherished convictions? It would be to embrace a thoroughly scientific outlook (an outlook referred to in the scholarly literature as scientific naturalism or philosophical naturalism). The naturalistic outlook is at once a method of inquiry, a cosmic world view, and a new form of ethical inquiry. [Emphasis in original]
And this is where their entire theory falls apart. Their view that naturalistic science is the highest form of knowledge is actually irrational, even self-contradictory. As I demonstrate below, it cannot possible be the case that any sort of science is the highest form of knowledge, and so people are allowed to disagree with the scientific leftists of CFI, if they have good non-scientific (or even scientific) reasons for doing so.
Demonstrating the irrationality of their basic position, here is an improved version of a letter I sent to CFI.
* * *
An Open Letter to the Center for Inquiry
Dear Center for Inquiry:
I have read the statements of principle on your website, and you say some things I can agree with. Postmodernism, with its relativistic irrationalism, needs to be strongly rebuked by being demonstrated to be false. Furthermore, you are right to decry the widespread ignorance of and even hostility to science.
But the statements on your website make some fundamental intellectual errors which doom your enterprise and also explain much of the public's hostility to a scientific establishment that declares itself, erroneously, to be the acme of truth and clear thinking.
The basic problem is your worldview of naturalism. As a worldview (that is, a comprehensive philosophical system) naturalism only begins with atheism. It also includes materialism, the doctrine that only physical objects and their properties actually exist. And naturalism also entails empiricism, the doctrine that all our knowledge originates in our sense perceptions, and can only be validated through what is often called the scientific method of observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation, and interpretation of experimental results. In brief, naturalism says that knowledge comes from induction: we must begin by observing specifics and then try to generalize from them, but we are not allowed to start with general principles. Naturalism, therefore, includes the doctrine sometimes called "scientism," the belief that science is the highest form of knowledge.
Here's your problem in brief. We know by intuition that the laws of logic and mathematics, and moral laws, exist. "Intuition" means the mind's ability to know a truth directly, without having to engage in a process of reasoning. But naturalism cannot account for these truths, that is, it cannot account for their cause. We know that these laws are true, but naturalism cannot explain why they are there.
In other words, according to naturalism, mathematics, logic and morality should not exist. But they do exist. Therefore naturalism is false. There is, as I show below, no good reason to believe naturalism. This being the case, we are not required to agree with your atheistic and politically leftist stances. They are derived from a flawed way of thinking
Before examining the evidence, we have to discuss presuppositions. Atheists and agnostics typically believe that theists (i.e., people who believe in God) begin with an irrational and arbitrary presupposition, a "leap of faith," if you will, that the Bible or the Church is always right. The atheists and agnostics, in contrast, believe that they themselves make no assumptions, and instead follow the evidence wherever it properly leads.
But in reality, all reasoning must begin with presuppositions that are not subject to formal proof, because if all statements must be proved, there will be an endless regression of proofs: Statement A is true because of statements B and C. And what is the proof of statements B and C? They are true because of statements C, D and E. And what is the proof of statements C, D and E? And so on, to infinity (or to reasoning in a circle).
And this will mean that the thinker literally knows nothing. Some postmodernists are content to say they know nothing, but normal people will acknowledge that presuppositions are unavoidable if we are to know anything.
This is not to say that we never test our presuppositions. One way we can test the system of thought that our presuppositions create is to see if it is logically consistent. If a system is logically contradictory, as naturalism is, then it must be false. Furthermore, we can grasp some truths directly, by intuition. But every process of reasoning must begin with truths that are already known, or presupposed, to be true. Atheists and theists are no different in this respect.
Is Science Superior?
Although you have not stated it directly, you have clearly implied (and many atheists have openly stated) that you believe science to be the highest form of knowledge, by which you presumably mean the most certain and the most precise. You have also taken the position that nothing can be considered knowledge, that is, a belief that is not only true but also that has been properly justified, unless it has been verified or at least supported by science. But these views are actually irrational, because your view of science is self-refuting, and therefore necessarily false. Here's why:
The validity of science obviously requires the validity of many forms of knowledge that are non-scientific. That is, in order to do science, you must first have confidence in the validity of many forms of non-scientific knowledge. These include the laws of logic and mathematics, the knowledge that our senses are basically reliable in providing us with knowledge of an objectively existing reality, and certain moral knowledge, e.g., that you ought to report your data and results honestly. But none of these forms of knowledge are proved by using the scientific method.
For example, the truths of mathematics are in no way proved by observation, hypothesis formation, and experimentation. If that were the case, then, for example, the fact that 2+2=4 could possibly turn out to be false, if we ever got better data. After all, all scientific knowledge is provisional, that is, it is not known with 100% certainty (although the probability may be very close to 100%.) If mathematics is verified scientifically, then every mathematical truth might turn out to be false.
But it is clearly absurd to say that 2+2=4 might be false. It could not possibly be false. The fundamental facts of mathematics are known not by science, but by intuition, that is, the faculty of the mind that is capable of grasping truths immediately, without engaging in a process of reasoning. What might at first glance appear to be "experimental verification" of mathematical truths is simply the placing of mathematical facts before the student, so that he can see them clearly and thus understand and agree with them. Similar comments pertain to the laws of logic, the fact that our senses are generally reliably, and (as explained below) morality.
Note that it is only the fundamental truths of mathematics, usually called the axioms, which are not proved. The theorems (statements that can be proved from the axioms) are proved, using logic together with already known mathematical truths. But the foundation of it all consists of truths known by intuition, not formal proof.
Therefore, you are making the absurd claim that science is more certain than the knowledge it is based on. In reality, the reverse is true: mathematics and logic, for example, are preconditions of science, and therefore more certain and precise than science. Science is obviously not the highest form of knowledge.
Since it is clear that many non-scientific forms of knowledge are more certain and clear than science, you will have to abandon your claim that nothing can be known unless it has been justified scientifically.
You are also using the word "scientifically" in an inconsistent way. Naturalists (i.e., those who believe in the worldview of naturalism) will say that a necessary part of the definition of scientific inquiry is the assumption of naturalism. But reality is not determined by definitions: if you have good non-scientific evidence for naturalism, then you are justified in your definition of science, but if not, you are not justified. In any case, we have to see that evidence; you cannot just say "naturalism is true because we say so." Now, John Q. Public does not know that naturalism is a necessary part of science. He thinks you scientists just dispassionately examine the evidence, and go wherever it leads. So if you do not tell him that you do not prove naturalism, but just assume it, you are for all intents and purposes lying to John Q. Public.
And this assumption of naturalism, coupled with your beliefs about the superiority of science as a way of knowing, produces another example of irrationality: Naturalism cannot be proved scientifically, because the scientific method can only examine physical entities, not abstract claims about ultimate reality. Naturalism could only be proved by using non-scientific arguments that, according to your worldview, are less certain than science. And therefore making naturalism a part of science would weaken science, not strengthen it.
How do we Know?
You have said, "Many modern thinkers have argued that we should examine our beliefs and theories carefully and assent only to those for which there are adequate grounds." Although this sounds reasonable at first sight, if it means that everything must be proved, then it is actually irrational: As shown above, the requirement that everything be proved means that we know literally nothing.
The conclusion is inescapable: if we are to know anything, there must be at least some truths that we know without proof. These truths would have to be known either by intuition, by our direct experience of the reality described by the truth, or by our trusting the words of a trustworthy authority. All of us use these means of knowing every day.
For example, we know "if A is taller than B, and B is taller than C, then A is taller than C" by intuition: when we understand what this statement means, it becomes self-evident. We know what we had for breakfast by direct experience; no proof is needed. And most of the specific facts we know (such as the results of the last election, the gross national product of Bolivia in 2004, or the mass of Jupiter), we know because we believe what an authority tells us. In principle, we could verify some of these facts for ourselves, but life is too short for us to verify for ourselves any but a tiny handful of the statements that we have to believe in order to do the business of living. And even so, the verifications of these provable truths ultimately come down to either intuition or direct experience.
(In fact, knowing something by intuition can be seen as a specific type of knowledge by "direct experience:" you see it with your mind, and you grasp it directly, without engaging in a process of reasoning.)
So what exactly do you mean by "adequate grounds" for a belief or a theory? How do you know what type of grounds are "adequate?" Since you are naturalists, any grounds you give for believing something would have to be naturalistic. And this means you will have to answer the question, "What naturalistic grounds are there for the belief that purely naturalistic grounds are adequate to verify everything?"
But within your worldview of naturalism, only physical objects and their properties actually exist. Furthermore, according to naturalism all knowledge must be empirical, that is, inductively based on sense perceptions. How then could you give adequate grounds for believing anything except specific facts or statistical generalizations, which are not certain? How could you be certain that all of reality must always conform to naturalism?
If general principles like "all explanations must be naturalistic" are to be true 100% of the time, how can you know that these principles are true, since they are not physical objects and are not perceived by the senses? You may sense intuitively that these principles are true, but according to naturalism, nothing can be known with 100% certainty. Therefore it is absurd for a naturalist to say, "I know that all explanations must be naturalistic."
In your worldview, you must either accept that "naturalistic grounds are adequate" without any grounds (by a "leap of faith"), thus violating your principle of giving adequate grounds, or else you must refer to an at least partly non-naturalistic justification, in which case you violate your naturalism. In either case, your position is contradictory.
Therefore people are allowed to seek non-naturalistic grounds for their beliefs.
Here's another look at your dilemma: We have shown that if science is to be valid, then there must be at least some forms of knowledge that are "higher", that is, more certain and more precise, than science. Furthermore, we have shown that all knowledge is based on statements that are true, but are not proved; that is, they are either received directly by the mind, or are believed because the authority who provides them is trustworthy.
But how can this be, if naturalism is true? Naturalism means, among other things, that nothing exists except physical objects and their properties. And it also means that all knowledge is obtained from the senses. But, for example, the laws of mathematics (which according to the foregoing analysis must be more certain than science and also known without proof) are clearly not physical entities, or their properties. And they are not proved by sense perception, because what we perceive with our senses is never exact, as mathematical entities are. The Pythagorean Theorem, for example, is never validated by any physically existing triangle; it is a statement about a universal group: all right triangles. How then can the Pythagorean Theorem exist, if naturalism is true? To better understand this dilemma, consider the following thought experiment:
Even according to naturalism, it is possible that the human race is the only species in the entire universe that is intelligent enough to grasp mathematics. So according to naturalism, when we go extinct, and if no other intelligent species has evolved to take our place, then the Pythagorean Theorem will pass out of existence. But how can a non-physical entity "pass out of existence?" Does the fact that a treasure is buried at such-and-such a location cease to exist when the last pirate to know its whereabouts dies? It is intuitively clear that the Pythagorean Theorem never passes out of existence, even if no mind exists to think it.
Naturalism fails to account for the existence of mathematics, which really exists. This is another proof that naturalism is false.
Naturalism Cannot Account for Morality
Finally, your worldview cannot account for morality. Real morality consists in saying "you ought to do this" or "you ought not to do that," but these "oughts" are not the type of entity that can evolve, via Darwinism or otherwise. Evolution at most can explain why people behave as they do (I don't think it can even explain that), but it can never prove that they ought to behave as they do. Without this "ought-ness", this "incumbency," morality becomes meaningless as a guide to life, and any assertion that you ought to do X is meaningless in your worldview. At most, you can only say "If you want Y, then you ought to do X", but this still leaves unanswered the question "Why should I want Y?"
For example, naturalistic ethics (in its currently popular form) declares that we ought to do what we can to alleviate poverty, but it can give no reason why we ought to care about poor people whom we don't know and who have no impact on our lives. At most, your worldview says, "If you want the entire human race to flourish, then you ought to care about improving the lives of the poor", but you cannot prove that one ought to want the entire human race to flourish. What would you say to all the misanthropes of the world? You ultimately have no argument why they ought to care, so if it is necessary for them to act as if they care, you will have to use force. This is the dark side of naturalistic ethics: there is no limit on human wickedness if there is no God.
Some naturalists try to dodge this problem by admitting that morality can be objective, and that we can know it by intuition, not by testing it scientifically. But where then do these "oughts" come from? In the naturalistic worldview, they simply exist without any origin or reference to anything beyond themselves. But such morality is not really morality, because if a moral precept does not originate from a legitimate authority (which would have to be a person), there's no reason why we have to obey it, in which case it is not really morality. To understand this point more clearly, consider the following thought experiment:
Imagine an archaeological dig that has uncovered an ancient city, and suppose the archaeologists have uncovered a tablet saying, “No chariots allowed on this street, by order of the king!” Question: is it still true in the year 2007 that chariots are not allowed on the street? Clearly no, because the authority who issued that rule, and backed it up, no longer exists. It is no longer the case that chariots are not allowed on that street. If there is no personal authority to back it up (to “ground it"), a moral rule is null and void. If morality is to exist objectively, there must be a personal authority who grounds it.
Some find this idea of morality needing a personal cause to be puzzling. But it seems to follow from a close analysis of what the cause of morality could be. Consider:
What is the source (i.e., ultimate cause) of our belief that mass murder is wrong? It seems that there are only four possibilities:
1) There is no source. It's just there, somehow. (To paraphrase Ayn Rand's way of dismissing this kind of thinking.)
2) It has a source that is impersonal, like the source of the Grand Canyon.
3) It has a personal source, namely man: for example, we recognize that it is beneficial to refrain from murder.
4) It has a transcendental Personal Source, who is the ultimate moral authority. That is, the authority introduces us to morality, and enforces it.
Now, explanation 1) is clearly inadequate, being analogous to the materialist's claim that the big bang had no cause, it just happened.
2) Is an improvement, but it fails to recognize that moral principles are clearly intended for personal beings who have the capability of choosing their behavior. And how can the impersonal have authority over the personal? If scrabble tiles are tossed on the ground randomly and they happen to spell out "don't go", am I obligated to not go? Obviously not.
At this point, we may be looking at an issue that cannot be explained further, but can only be grasped by intuition: personal beings can only be morally guided by precepts originating from another personal being. Of course, under naturalism there is no clear-cut difference between personal and impersonal: a man is just a more complicated version of a bacterium, and a bacterium is just a more complicated version of a bucket of chemicals, and thus the naturalist may fail to recognize the truth of this idea.
3) Is even better, but it presupposes that the standard for determining what is "beneficial" for society has been clearly established. Hitler says that eliminating Jews is beneficial, and you and I disagree with him. But if there is no Higher Authority to resolve the dispute, then it is just a matter of who is physically stronger. This may seem distasteful: Mass murder just seems wrong, and apparently that's all there is to it. But saying "that's all there is to it" is really a reversion to (non) explanation 1 above.
Therefore the most satisfactory explanation of the source of morality is God. More specifically, God's moral principles are a person telling another person what to do. Or, to put it in a way appropriate to this letter, the naturalist's explanation of morality's source is radically inadequate; with no personal God, it can only be 1 or 2 above.
The scientific method cannot ground, that is, prove the objective truth of, morality, because morality (the sum total of all valid "oughts") does not consist of physical objects or properties thereof. Moral principles cannot be validated by scientific experimentation: I defy you to describe a scientific experiment that could establish, not that we do good, but that we ought to do good.
And it is not enough to prove that If we want X, then we ought to do Y. This does not prove that I ought to do Y, it only transfers the problem to X: "OK, so why should I want X?" Unless you can give a categorical answer to the question "Why should I do Y?" you have not accounted for morality.
Therefore, a "scientific" morality cannot be an improvement over the "spiritualist-paranormal" ethics you decry. On the other hand, the biblical view of ethics at least makes sense: if a legitimate authority says you ought to do it, it is objectively true that you ought to do it. This view of ethics at least has a chance of being valid, whereas your view fails radically.
Furthermore, if our intuition tells us that some acts are objectively wrong, and are not just declared so by a consensus of society, then we must identify the cause of objective morality. This cause, whatever it is, must be non-naturalistic, which is more evidence that naturalism is false.
Naturalism Cannot Account for Reality
In conclusion, if you want to be rational, you will have to abandon your claims about science, and admit that non-scientific knowledge can be just as valid as, if not more valid than, science. You will also have to admit that all our knowledge is based ultimately on our believing statements that are not proved but are grasped directly, or are believed because of the trustworthiness of the authority, and not because of "adequate [naturalistic] grounds." Finally, you will also have to admit that with a purely naturalistic worldview, you cannot create a society that understands and respects morality, because you cannot explain the evident existence of objective moral principles.
In short, naturalism cannot account for the most basic facts of reality. Therefore, if you want to be rational, you will have to be some sort of "supernaturalist" or, as it is usually called, theist. Non-natural entities exist, so you should examine the evidence to see which form of theism is the most likely to be true.
Of course, the real issue here is atheism. You believe there is no God, and so you want a comprehensive system of thought and social organization premised on atheism. Fair enough, but it isn't going to be as intellectually easy to create as you seem to think. You will have to declare, arbitrarily, certain ways of thinking to be invalid, namely those ways of thinking that cannot be proved by reference to only naturalism. But then John Q. Public will see that you are trying to pull the wool over his eyes, and he's not going to take it.
Sincerely,
Alan Roebuck
asrprof@yahoo.com
Read more articles by Alan Roebuck
I don't follow your arguments at all, professor. Methodological naturalism is an inherent part of science, a method of inquiry that does its best to take all of the evidence into account. It does not reject supernaturalism so much as ignore the conflicting, but unsubstantiated claims that people have made about the supernatural. Claims about the supernatural that have no evidence are never addressed by science. The only time claims about the supernatural are addressed is when facts, gathered through scientific research, disprove the claim about the supernatural.
As you know, methodological naturalism is not ontological naturalism, yet, at times, it appears that you confuse the two in your letter. I'm sure that is not intentional, but it does undermine the point of your comments.
The points that you highlighted, that naturalism cannot account for morality or reality don't seem to follow either. While I would agree that methodological naturalism has not completely accounted for morality, it has certainly not been shown that it cannot. Behavior is an area that has been studied in science, both in humans and in other animals. You don't make it at all clear how that research does not apply.
As for reality, the whole point of science is to research reality not account for it. Nothing, other than unsubstantiated speculation, has ever attempted to account for reality. Reality is. Philosophy and religion are equally unable to account for reality. Science, at least, has the good grace not to claim that it can.
Comment by freelunch | December 21, 2007
Stellar.
I have a math degree from LMU. Yes, the Jesuits.
Inductive logic has limits. Since reality is finite and temporal, any induction derived from it is not an absolute.
Deductive logic has limits, too. See Godel. Axioms, putatively absolute truths, are ultimately arbitrary. As mathematicians proudly boast, any resemblance between a mathematical system and reality is purely coincidental.
Faith precedes everything except "Je doute, que je suis". The human condition. So, we Kant know noumena. Big deal. Provisionality rules.
Are there any absolute truths besides the one and only one that Descartes propounded? I believe there is: An absolute morality requires God. Else, as you so persuasively argued, naturalism as you define it contradicts itself. It is the ultimate self-abandonment.
But, is “An absolute morality requires God” an absolute truth? Intriguing if it is.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 21, 2007
Is there an absolute morality? Religions do not appear to teach that. If there is, they certainly do not agree on what it is.
I don't understand why any gods would be required for an absolute morality. Could you walk me through the steps that confirm this, please.
Comment by freelunch | December 21, 2007
freelunch,
Let's define "absolute morality," shall we? Do you think that it is consensus morality? Or is it transcendent morality? Or perhaps it is an evolved moral sense?
An absolute morality requires a non-variable standard. A non-variable standard requires a source. Name your source.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 21, 2007
I don't see any evidence that there is an absolute morality. The evidence appears to show that morality is derived from the needs of the society in which it is found. There are, of course, a number of rules that tend to be found in most societies because they are consistent with the needs of almost all societies. Is it evolved? In a sense, I suppose it is. We do see 'moral behavior' in other species.
Comment by freelunch | December 21, 2007
To Freelunch:
You say "I don’t follow your arguments at all…" But if so, then perhaps I have succeeded in proving my case.
You also say "Methodological naturalism is an inherent part of science." But if science deals with reality (ontology), and not just theories, and if naturalism is false, that is, if non-naturalistic entities really exist, then there is no reason to insist on methodological naturalism. If the God of the Bible exists, then physical residues of at least some miracles will exist, and these could at least in principle be studied by science. It is illogical to insist that science MUST be naturalistic, UNLESS naturalism is proved true. (Sorry for the caps; I can't figure out how to make italics appear.) And since I have provided an argument against naturalism, you have to provide actual arguments for it in order to maintain your position.
You also say "Claims about the supernatural that have no evidence are never addressed by science." But ANY claim that something supernatural has occurred is automatically dismissed by scientists, because they always interpret the evidence according to a presupposition of naturalism. Science dismisses the supernatural by defining it away, not by truly addressing all the evidence, including the philosophical evidence against naturalism.
Finally, you said "Science, at least, has the good grace not to claim that it can [account for reality.]" But if science is not making a claim about reality, then we are free to ignore what it is saying, and the Darwinists have no right to object to those of us who claim that there is no reason to believe that Darwinism describes reality.
Stellar said: "Axioms, putatively absolute truths, are ultimately arbitrary." But axioms are not arbitrary. We test them, both by observing whether they accord with intuition, and by checking whether the system they give rise to is logically consistent. An inconsistent system, such as naturalism, must contain at least some false axioms.
Comment by Alan Roebuck | December 21, 2007
Professor, there is no reason to assume that naturalism is false. What is the value of such a speculative question, other than to make it impossible to draw any conclusions about anything, ever? Why speculate whether the God of the Bible is true? Do you reject all other gods? Why? It is easy, but pointless to argue that something that is completely unsupported by any evidence might exist. Anyone can do that. The difficulty is to provide a reason for others to accept such an argument. So far, you don't seem to have succeeded. So far, the only reality that we have available to us is the natural environment. Nothing, other than the imagination of human beings, supports any claims about any supernatural beings or doings.
Science doesn't prove anything true. Science shows us where the evidence leads us. It never disproves things that do not have any evidence about it. That is done by basic logic. If a claim, in this case for supernaturalism, is completely unsupported by any evidence, the null hypothesis, that there is no such thing as the supernatural, will continue to hold. That, though, is a logical problem, not a scientific problem. If you choose to reject the concept of the null hypothesis, you are arguing against the ability to understand anything. You are arguing that any fantastic claim is equally valid, no matter how absurd on its face. I am unwilling to do that.
Science describes what happens in reality. It makes no effort, at the moment, to try to tell us why reality exists — the evidence about that question does not exist. Why try to attack science on something that it knows that it does not know? Why not accept that science knows its limits? There is no valid reason to try to try to redefine science beyond its actual scope. We know what science can know. Objecting that it does not know what it cannot know does not change what it can.
No, there is nothing inconsistent about methodological naturalism. Sure, it is pragmatic. It is limited to evidence, but that isn't an inconsistency, it is a consistency. Science makes no claims about something that it cannot make claims about. Is there a reason that religions are not so circumspect?
aside: the two letters: em in angle brackets will give you italics.
Comment by freelunch | December 21, 2007
freelunch:
If this temporal and finite universe is all there is, there are no absolutes. Everything is relative, including morality. However, if an eternal and infinite God exists, there are absolutes; eg, potentially, morality.
We have a problem, though. Temporality and finitude mandate provisionality. An absolute cannot be expressed in a universe where everything is provisional. In quasi-mathematical terms, the imperfect set cannot contain the perfect set.
How, then, can we discover God’s absolute morality? By seeking it always, even though we know our efforts are doomed to failure. After all, God doesn’t expect us to be perfect. Perfection can’t arise from imperfection.
Is discovering God’s absolute morality the hardest task there is? You betcha. Think Sisyphus in a rock-less universe.
But, unless we posit the existence of God as the giver of absolute morality, then morality is negotiable, ephemeral, & postmodern. It’s the only logical possibility.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 22, 2007
Alan:
Granted, integral mathematical systems based on deduction are more ‘true’ (whatever that means) than scientific theories based on induction.
Scientists will gladly admit that all their theories are provisional, based upon the best data and evidence they have gathered to date, but that new data or evidence could be discovered that might necessitate a reformulation of their theories. In Euclidean geometry, however, the angles of a triangle always sum to 180 degrees.
Science, however, deals with the real world, while mathematics deals with abstract concepts. In fact, mathematics as an intellectual discipline is the highest abstraction, so much so that any resemblance between mathematics and reality is coincidental.
Take any mathematical system. Let’s call it A. Establish axioms. Posit theorems. Try to prove or disprove them based upon the axioms and upon other theorems formerly established.
Then, take mathematical system A and add, change, or delete axioms. Call this new system B. Posit theorems, etc.
Now, ask this question: Which mathematical system, A or B, is more ‘true’ than the other? The answer is, “Neither”. As long as both systems are internally logically consistent, they both are integral in a strictly mathematical sense.
But, let’s assume we must choose between systems A & B. How can we choose? Well, we can review each system and decide which set of axioms seems to make more common sense, or which set of axioms seems to better mirror the real world. So, we choose one system over the other.
What have we done? Made a leap of faith. We accept one system’s set of axioms as more ‘true’ than the other. This leap of faith is irreducible. Others can accept or reject our leap of faith as they see fit.
So, we decide to test our mathematical system in the real world to determine whether or not its truths can be vetted by reality. However, as soon as we do, then the provisionality of existence and essence (except for “Je doute, que je suis”) provisionalizes our mathematical system.
Therefore, all mathematical axioms are arbitrary. No mathematical axiom is an absolute truth.
Now, let’s consider an absolute God. Can a mathematical God posit mathematical axioms that are absolutely true?
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 22, 2007
Freelunch wrote:
I don’t see any evidence that there is an absolute morality. The evidence appears to show that morality is derived from the needs of the society in which it is found.
Free,
There are literally hundreds of injunctions against immoral acts and thoughts and a like number of admonitions to moral acts and thoughts imposed on Christians by the Bible. Of those, very many have nothing to do whatsoever with societal need nor do they reflect the culture in which they were first postulated. The entirety of the New Testament was written in the first century (AD for us Christians and CE for…others). One cannot make any argument at all that the morality espoused therein reflects the Roman worldview or that any part of it was in anyway necessary to keep Roman society together. Paul, who wrote the majority of the books of the New Testament was espousing views that were at odds with the Jewish religion and culture from which he came. Again, one cannot argue that his views reflect the culture or were necessary for his society. In fact, his socio-cultural contemporaries would have had him executed as a heretic, if they could have.
Fast forward to 21st century America.
The Bible promulgates a puritan morality; one that abstains from the mere thought of sexual impropriety. Yet, what does that have to do with the needs of our present society. We live in the United States of Sex and while it may be an ugly thing, the society functions well despite the incredible levels of promiscuous sex. Internet porn is a huge industry and I'd be willing to bet that some people reading this are active viewers, and yet here they are at IC. What is society's need in loving your neighbor, or humbling yourself (especially in the narcissistic world we live in), or praying for people, or giving of yourself to others, or remaining faithful to ones word, or sacrificing one's wants for the needs of others. Not a thing. Not one of these is a "need" of our society. In fact, there is a remarkable absence of these actions in our society and yet we function just fine. Sure, there are negatives to an immoral society and ultimately, it is always the undoing of a culture when it becomes debauched, but we don't "need" morality to survive.
The reason you see no evidence of absolute morality is that you haven't looked. Next time you're in doubt, open a Bible and read it. On the very first page there are 10 absolutes published. The first five are about man's relationship with God, so one cannot say that these are derived from the needs of society. There is no societal need in "You shall have no other gods before Me."
Regards.
Comment by Julian Cate | December 22, 2007
LiveFree,
I would agree that finding anything that does not appear to exist is hard. It appears to be impossible. What I don't understand are some of your assertions about God, when there is no evidence that any of these assertions are consistent with God, even if God exists.
If a God exists, that does not logically require that an absolute morality exists. It doesn't even require that the speculative attributes that people have given to God exist. God does not have to be unchanging. He does not have to be forgiving. He does not have to be tolerant of imperfection. He does not have to care about humans at all. He does not have to be eternal or infinite.
Since there is no evidence that an absolute morality exists, what possible value is there to assert such a thing? How do humans benefit themselves by asserting absolute moralities, particularly when they conflict. The history of Christianity and other religions are excellent examples of both good and evil done in the name of God. Even if, as you speculate, there is absolute morality, it is clear that no one knows what it is, therefore we are stuck with the morality that societies develop for themselves from their needs and their understanding of the past.
A god that cannot be known is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist. A morality that cannot be known is indistinguishable from a morality that does not exist. Throughout history people in positions of power have used their claim about an absolute morality to oppress others and to justify violence to those with whom they disagree. A pragmatic morality, a social compact, on the other hand, ends up breaking oppression because you can appeal to those around you to reconsider their views about how people can be treated.
A pragmatic morality allows a society to end slavery or treat women as equals to men. How does a society that claims to adhere to an absolute morality make that change?
Comment by freelunch | December 22, 2007
freelunch,
If God does not have to be eternal or infinite, then he ceases to be God. Definitionally, God must possess certain characteristics in order to be God.
But you are quite right when you say that a god that cannot be known is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist. However, if God exists, he could hide if he wanted. We are discussing him here, therefore, if he exists he is not hiding. If he exists, everything we know about him is due to revelation. If he exists, he has shown himself.
Regarding morality, if there is no absolute morality, there is no morality at all. Morality assumes a standard of thought and conduct. If there is no standard, then we are simply comparing one person's idea with another. By what criteria can we then say that one person's moral idea is superior while another's is inferior and ought to be rejected?
Our very words written here assume a great deal regarding morality and value judgments. You are reading what I'm writing and comparing it to your preconceived notions of logic, reason, and morality. And many of those preconceptions are fundamentally immutable. They have to be, because one cannot engage in systematic thought without evaluating ideas, concepts and words according to some sort of standard.
Otherwise, how do you know that slavery is bad or that it is good to treat women as equals? Trace back these assertions to their fundamental premises. Without absolute morality, you eventually end up with an unsupported assertion of your version of truth. If my version of truth differs from yours, we are only left with a jumble of notions that are meaningless to anyone but ourselves.
Look at it another way. A statement like "there is no absolute morality" is an absolute statement. How can you assert a universal absolute that contradicts itself?
Comment by Mountain Man | December 22, 2007
Mountain Man,
We are discussing a particular human conception of a god. The fact that we discuss such a conception does not mean that this god exists or even can exist. The fact that we discuss it, does not mean it is so. People discuss Discworld, but that doesn't mean that Terry Pratchett's fictional universe exists, either.
We do not need to make claims about an absolute morality that cannot be supported by any evidence. Morality does exist. What makes one idea about morality superior to another? Success. In large part, morality is the rules of society that make society work well. Those societies that have poor moral standards tend not to work very well. People may appeal to some sense of morality that goes beyond the simple here and now when they are trying to change moral standards. They may argue that the standards of today are not approved by God. Those arguments may persuade a few, but they are not based on any absolute morality, since no one has been able to point to any absolute morality.
My statement about the lack of an absolute morality is an observation. It is not a moral statement. Understanding words is not a moral statement. Truth is not a moral statement. One could certainly point to an absolute morality if it is ever found but it has not been. People do not apply an absolute morality to themselves or others. They apply the morality that they have. Until someone can point to an absolute morality, and show how it exists and show how it can be applied to humans, my statement is accurate.
There is no absolute morality. Slavery is bad because it is bad for the society that engages in it. It is obviously bad for the slaves, but we can also see how it corrupts the slaveholder. Treating women as chattel also makes society work more poorly. Again, it is easy to see how it is bad for women, but all of society suffers because of it. It appears that every society has blind spots about its moral arrangements and, often, those are the ones that are most strongly defended as being 'given' no matter how much harm those arrangements inflict on the society that has them.
Comment by freelunch | December 22, 2007
freelunch:
Outstanding post. You argue compellingly.
"(God) does not have to be eternal or infinite."
By my definition, God is eternal and infinite. The only other logical possibility that the universe has existed forever belies the temporality of the universe we know. Thus, I choose an eternal and infinite God.
However, some of your other statements are not so easy to dismiss; eg, “If a God exists, that does not logically require that an absolute morality exists”. You’re right. It does not logically ensue.
So, how to respond? I believe that an absolute morality exists and is God-given, but that’s the problem. I can’t prove it logically. In fact, nobody can. Logic, after all, produces only provisional truths since logic proceeds from a set of fundamental assumptions that are accepted on faith alone. Logical truths are true only within the framework of the faith-accepted truths that underpin them. Such is the human condition.
How, then, can we determine what an absolute morality should be? Well, we can seek the truth in the Bible and any other holy book, or via Science.
I won’t pester you with citations from the Bible except to make one comment. The 10 Commandments of the Old Testament became the 2 Commandments of the New Testament:
Matt. 22:34 " When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 37 He said to him, " 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
My only contribution is that we can reduce Christ’s 2 commandments to one, having only one word: “Give”. Theologically, giving is the quintessence of an absolute morality.
Now, science. I believe we can devise a morality by extrapolating it from the Theory of Evolution. For example, the commandment “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” has a sociobiological and evolutionary basis. Specifically, it makes sense that a male would provide resources to his wife and children only if those children are biologically his. After all, the survival instinct includes survival via one’s children. It makes no sense to provide resources to children fathered by another guy. Thus, the fidelity of females as stipulated by the 9th commandment has an evolutionary basis, too.
However, any such extrapolated morality is as provisional as the universe is. If we try to induct morality, we run dead smack into the human condition. Still, this exercise has some merit. What I’ve concluded is that the 10 commandments (or the 2 or the 1) synch pretty well with the way evolution operates.
Ultimately, however, your arguments are winners. Logically, we can’t deduct or induct an absolute morality. If you chose to not make the leap of faith that an eternal and infinite God promulgated an absolute morality, any further dialogue between us would be useless.
“A pragmatic morality allows a society to end slavery or treat women as equals to men. How does a society that claims to adhere to an absolute morality make that change?”
In my opinion, any pragmatic morality is a proper subset of an absolute morality. As I said before, a pragmatic morality extrapolated from the way evolution operates pretty much synchs with the morality propounded in the Old and New Testaments.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 22, 2007
Freelunch,
I think that you need to read my post a little more closely. I did not assert that because we were discussing God means he exists. I said that if God exists, the fact that we are discussing him means he revealed himself. Of course we can discuss a hypothetical god that doesn’t exist, but we cannot discuss a god that exists and is hiding. I was simply addressing your point about a god that cannot be known. I pointed out that God, if he exists, is only known by his choice if we are talking about him.
You ask, “What makes one idea about morality superior to another?” Your answer is incorrect. Success is not the measure of morality. The ends do not justify the means. True morality functions apart from its results. A moral person does not behave morally because he gets the results he wants. That is narcissistic, which is immoral. A moral person behaves morally regardless of the results.
Prison inmates manifest their own code of moral behavior that is strictly applied. The prison subculture functions with efficiency. Would you call the behavior of prisoners moral in this context? Simply because it works?
You said, “My statement about the lack of an absolute morality is an observation. It is not a moral statement.” Now you are being ridiculous. It is not possible to make statements about morality that are not moral statements.
I did not say that understanding words is a moral activity. I said that evaluating communication, logic, and reason depends our preconceived moral judgments. it is the same with the concept of truth - it cannot be interpreted apart from our moral preconceptions. Otherwise, liars would not offend us. Morality is meaning and context that must be used to evaluate everything in our lives.
You keep repeating that absolute morality has not been found as if that was axiomatic. But the whole thrust of our discussion is about absolute morality. This kind of “is not, is too” exchange is immature and without profit. An a priori denial of the subject proposition is intellectually vapid.
And you persist in the logical conundrum of using an absolute statement to deny the existence of absolutes. This is internally contradictive, for there must be at least one absolute in order to assert there are absolutely no absolutes.
“Slavery is bad” is a moral judgment. You say it is bad because it is bad the slaves, but why is being bad to slaves immoral? Is it always bad, i.e., an absolute moral? Why is that society working poorly is bad, or even immoral? Is that always bad as well? Absolutely?
Comment by Mountain Man | December 22, 2007
Mountain Man,
The fact that people discuss God or gods does not say anything about the actual existence of God or gods. A God who has completely hidden Himself from the universe, would have no influence on the views that people have of gods. We know nothing about any gods, therefore we can draw no conclusions about them at all.
I did oversimplify when I stated that success was the test of morality. I take morality as a strictly pragmatic problem, though. The moral underpinnings of a society are tested by how successful that society is. A prison society, no matter how rigidly enforced the informal rules of behavior are, is a society that has failed. In a true sense, the results do matter, not in some simplistic manner of whether you can force people to behave in accordance with the rules implied by the morality, but in the manner of testing whether the people are happy or comfortable.
I feel completely justified in testing the moral systems of others against what I know about moral systems and their outcomes. That does not mean that I have any reason to think that the test I am willing to use is in some way an absolute morality. No evidence supports that position. It would be the most extreme hubris on my part to claim that there is an absolute morality (and, by implication, that I know what it is).
It is not possible to make statements about morality that are not moral statements.
You'll have to explain how you got to that conclusion, please.
An a priori denial of the subject proposition is intellectually vapid.
Really? Haven't you just rejected the entire concept of the null hypothesis?
Comment by freelunch | December 22, 2007
There was a man who lived in naturalisticland. He gave great speeches but the rulers did not like him. Many people said that he did supernatural events. But the rulers knew that the masses are easly mislead. They knew that an illusionist could fool many. The rulers did not like the number of people who followed this man. So they gathered him up and killed him. Some of his followers said that he came back from the dead after three days. The rulers did not like this so they gathered up the followers and killed them as well.
Soon people forgot his name. No books were written about him. No monuments were made to honor him. His words were lost to history.
I do not live in naturalisticland but some people say I do. They can't see that events in our history are exactly opposite what you would find in naturalisticland. Others say that history was spoiled by some who would not accept the fact that we live in naturalisticland. But I always point out that our eyes do not see all.
Comment by fbaginski | December 22, 2007
Freelunch,
Let’s try one more time. IF there is a God, AND he chooses to remain hidden, THEN we would know nothing about him. Do you follow? BUT IF there is a God, AND he chose to reveal himself, THEN we would know something about him. SO IF there is a God, AND since we are talking about him, THEN we know he has revealed himself and not remained hidden. None of this has anything to say about proving the existence of God.
In my post I demonstrated that morality is not solely a function of pragmatism. I presented several points to that effect. You simply repeated yourself and said that morality is a pragmatic problem. “Is not, is too.” I used your criteria in the inmate example. So you moved the goalposts and I have to kick again.
“Happy and comfortable.” Now there is a moving target. So unhappy and uncomfortable people means that a society is immoral? Truly bizarre.
How about answering some of my questions? For example, how do you know that happiness is good? How do you know that a successful society is desirable, or that the prison inmates are not happy? What about slavery? And treating women as equals? Why are those things bad or good? Because you say so? Because society is happy? What if they’re happier otherwise?
In fact, why should I accept any part of your assertions? You might be making it all up. Tomorrow it could be different.
You may indeed be completely justified in testing moral systems. But you have to use absolute language and absolute concepts to arrive at your conclusions. And simply stating your feelings in the matter does nothing to establish the superiority of your criteria, methodology, or conclusions. I feel that you are wrong. Clearly, that makes my viewpoint superior to yours.
You say, “No evidence supports that position.” Another empty dismissal. Do you ever answer a question or respond to a point, or is it sufficient for you to continue repeating your opinion ad nauseum?
Comment by Mountain Man | December 22, 2007
Mountain Man,
Evidence matters to me. If it doesn't matter to you, that is your choice, but there is no way we can have a meaningful discussion if you are willing to accept claims that have not been supported by any evidence. Logical claims, properly formed or not, about morality or God don't mean anything if they are not related to actual evidence about them. Since there is no evidence about God and there is no evidence about absolute morality, discussions of such things are neither less nor more important than discussion of the Tooth Fairy or leprechauns or the Goddess.
Comment by freelunch | December 22, 2007
Freelunch (how appropriately named) said: "Since there is no evidence about God and there is no evidence about absolute morality, discussions of such things are neither less nor more important than discussion of the Tooth Fairy or leprechauns or the Goddess."
Then why are you here arguing? Your very use of the words "success", "meaningful", etc are without meaning in your world.
Freelunch, you argue that there is no evidence for certain things. However, you have a definition of evidence that excludes the validity of the very statement "there is no evidence for certain things" and the presuppositions necessary to make that statement.
Since there is no evidence about the statement "logical claims, properly formed or not, about morality or God don't mean anything if they are not related to actual evidence.", it is a meaningless statement by you.
Despite Mountain Man's best efforts, you keep ignoring what he is saying and contradict yourself over and over, therefore proving the point of this article.
Your discussions of such things are neither less nor more important than discussion of the Tooth Fairy or leprechauns or the Goddess - by your own criteria.
Will you dig even deeper?
Comment by amccann | December 22, 2007
freelunch,
What a creative cop-out! You brought the subject up, and I responded. But now you're not interested? Oh, and it's my fault!
I have asked you several times for your evidence, and you repeat your opinions. We truly must have different ideas about "meaningful."
It escapes me how I can ask you questions and the result is you accuse me of accepting things without evidence. I have made few if any representations about what I accept or believe (with or without evidence) anywhere on this thread.
I have asked you to step up and explain your rationale. Still waiting.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 22, 2007
What societies do matters. What people do matters. Those are important things. Those are what makes societies successful or failures. I haven't made any presuppositions about the supernatural. I stated a fact. There is no evidence to support any claims about the supernatural. Unless you can provide evidence to show that I am wrong, that statement stands.
Clearly, I am interested in the problems of morality, but it strikes me that those who invoke 'absolute morality' are doing so without either any evidence that it exists or any definition of what it is. How do we discuss something like that?
Mountain Man asked me much earlier to define 'absolute morality'. Why should I? I comprehend the concept but have no reason to accept it. If there is something about the concept worth discussing, then it is up to the proponent of the concept to define it and defend it. As far as anyone can tell, there is no evidence for a source of morality that can be or has ever been immutable and absolute for all people at all time. The words can be defined, but they don't appear to describe anything that exists. The history of humanity has shown that standards or morality, of religion, of gods, of all supernatural claims are quite mutable.
If you can show me why I should accept claims about the supernatural, I am completely open to considering them, but I cannot accept the assertions themselves as valid until you provide cause.
BTW, I took my nom de net to mock the voodoo economics silliness of Laffer, Reagan and Bush. Apparently they all skipped every economics class worth taking and had never heard of Keynes, whose policies they recommend in overly liberal doses.
Comment by freelunch | December 22, 2007
Freelunch:
In comment # 7 (and in all your comments), you are assuming that naturalism is either true, or else gives us the best picture of reality that is available. That is why, for example, referring to God, you say, "It is easy, but pointless to argue that something that is completely unsupported by any evidence might exist."
But the existence of God is only "completely unsupported" if all evidence must be interpreted naturalistically. And how do you know that naturalism is true (or best)? I have given arguments against it; you have not refuted them or provided any positive evidence supporting naturalism. You have simply assumed it.
If you are a person who is concerned with thinking accurately, you need to consider my words: naturalism is not self-evident. You need to judge it by the evidence, and reject it if the evidence leads that way, and not just assume it.
LiveFreeDieFree:
In comment # 9, you have said, in effect, "All axioms are arbitrary." But I don't think this is correct. Some truths can be grasped directly, through intuition or simply perception. Although our intuitions and perceptions can be mistaken, there is no reason to think that they are always mistaken. Sometimes, we grasp truth. And any system that is contradictory, as naturalism is, has to be false. Therefore some non-naturalistic entities must exist. That being the case, we can examine the evidence and draw conclusions about the supernatural, and not just dismiss it automatically. That's the main point of my essay.
Comment by Alan Roebuck | December 23, 2007
freelunch:
"There is no evidence to support any claims about the supernatural."
From a strict metaphysical viewpoint, there is no evidence to support any claims about the natural, either. We accept on faith that the universe exists. Strictly speaking, there is no "real world" but an "imagined world". For proof, please review the history of Western civilization.
"Nuts", you say, "let's dismiss this metaphysical nonsense and be pragmatic. Let's assume that the universe's existence is a given, and that we can apprehend it".
Fine. Let's do that. I think you'll agree that, based upon what science knows, we apprehend a finite and temporal universe. Two questions, then: (1) What exists beyond the finite boundaries of our universe? (2) What events if any occurred before the Big Bang?
Rationality has limits. Except for “Cogito ergo sum”, there are no absolute truths.
Alan:
“Some truths can be grasped directly, through intuition or simply perception. Although our intuitions and perceptions can be mistaken, there is no reason to think that they are always mistaken. Sometimes, we grasp truth.”
We can grasp truths as truths, truths as non-truths, non-truths as truths, and non-truths as non-truths. How do we know when we are mistaken, and when we are not mistaken?
“And any system that is contradictory, as naturalism is, has to be false.”
I agree with your critique. Naturalism contradicts itself. It claims that nothing is true unless it is proven within the framework of naturalism. However, the claim itself cannot be proven. It must be assumed as an article of faith. However, your claim that “Some truths can be grasped directly” must be accepted on faith, too.
“And any system that is contradictory, as naturalism is, has to be false. Therefore some non-naturalistic entities must exist.”
No. You’re assuming that universality consists only of the natural and the supernatural, and that an abnegation of one results in the affirmation of the other. By demonstrating that naturalism contradicts itself, what you’ve proven is that some truths are true even if naturalism cannot prove them to be true. But, again, which truths? The answer must be: The truths that we assume to be true.
(Paraphrased): “Some mathematical axioms are not arbitrary”.
We accept that mathematical axioms are true on faith alone. There’s no getting around it.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 23, 2007
freelunch,
Still waiting… (sound of crickets chirping)
Comment by Mountain Man | December 23, 2007
LiveFreeDieFree:
Your basic position is that since it is possible to be mistaken about anything we believe, we ultimately need faith in order to know anything. I would say that there is some merit in this position: there can be no absolute proof of anything, and all we know is ultimately based on knowledge that is not proved, but is known anyway.
But the falsehood of naturalism frees us to examine the evidence, without simply declaring "it can't be true," which is the naturalist's response to any idea that even suggests the possibility of a supernatural realm. I am not claiming that the demonstration of naturalism's illogic proves that Christianity is true, but we are free to consider the possibility that it might be, based on the evidence.
And if there is a God, then there is such a thing as objective truth, because God does not have our limitations. This is one reason why only if there is a God can we have any justified confidence that we can sometimes know truth.
Comment by Alan Roebuck | December 23, 2007
[…] There is a [link=http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/12/21/the-scientific-leftists-of-the-center-for-inquiry/]terrific analysis[/link] of naturalism, scientism, and atheism at Intellectual Conservative entitled The Scientific Leftists of the Center for Inquiry which hits on many of the points I have been making of late. He does a much better job of explaining a point I was trying to make, what he refers to as "intuition"; knowledge which does not rely on inductive reasoning, experimentation, and observation. It`s rather lengthy, but extraordinarily worthwhile. […]
Pingback by Timothy Birdnow » Naturalism, Atheism, and the Flaw in Rationalism | December 24, 2007
Professor Roebuck:
I am almost through with Dr. Anthony Rizzi's book, The Science Before Science, and his arguments appear to follow yours (he offers a proof that God exists, etc.), except he maintains that all our knowledge comes to us through our senses. Are you familiar enough with his work to offer an explanation of the apparent difference between what he says and what you are saying? Thx.
Comment by sedonaman | December 24, 2007
Mountain Man, I was away for a few days. Still, I did answer your questions. You may not like the answers I gave, but I did answer it.
LiveFree, Where does 'naturalism contradict itself'?
Comment by freelunch | December 26, 2007
freelunch,
Here's a sample of one of your answers: "Mountain Man asked me much earlier to define ‘absolute morality’. Why should I?"
Here are some of the questions you have yet to answer: "…how do you know that happiness is good? How do you know that a successful society is desirable, or that the prison inmates are not happy? What about slavery? And treating women as equals? Why are those things bad or good? Because you say so? Because society is happy? What if they’re happier otherwise?"
Here's another question you have yet to answer: "A statement like 'there is no absolute morality' is an absolute statement. How can you assert a universal absolute that contradicts itself?"
And please, answer the questions. Do not simply restate your opinions and ignore the rest. mccann is quite right in saying, "Despite Mountain Man’s best efforts, you keep ignoring what he is saying…"
Comment by Mountain Man | December 26, 2007
Mountain Man,
What is the point of trying to refine the definition of something that has no evidence to support it? Why are you stalling with the definition, when any definition fails for lack of evidence? If you think that you have a definition that is supported by some evidence, then provide the definition that has evidence to support it. I'm not the one who claims that there is something called absolute morality, so I don't see much value in refining the definition. I don't spend a lot of time defining Loki or the Little People, either.
The other questions that you asked struck me as rhetorical. I didn't take them any more seriously than you appeared to. But, since you reiterate them, I shall answer: People tell us that they think that happiness is good. They tell us that they want to be responsible for what they do. We also know that societies with big imbalances of power, say slave-based ones or ones in which women are chattel, are more corrupt than those that are reasonably well-balanced, but offer opportunity. Feel free to argue that corruption is good if you like.
I also explained why my statement that 'there is no absolute morality' is not a moral statement nor an absolute statement. It is an observation. It does not contradict anything until you can provide evidence that there actually is absolute morality. Assertions are not evidence. Claims have to overcome their null hypothesis. Since no evidence supports the claim that there is an absolute morality, the claim tentatively fails. If there is an absolute morality, no one knows what it is and no one can point to it. For all practical purposes, such an absolute morality does not exist.
Comment by freelunch | December 26, 2007
Sedonaman:
I have not heard anything about the book you cite, but I would reiterate the point made in my essay: It cannot be the case that all our knowledge comes through our senses. Sense perception shows us the concrete and the approximate, but only purely intellectual operations can carry us to abstract and exact truths. Think of mathematics: drawings of right triangles never exactly obey the Pythagorean Theorem, and one can never perceive the group of all right triangles, to which the theorem refers.
Comment by Alan Roebuck | December 27, 2007
It's not clear to me what you mean by abstract and exact truths. Your example has made it harder to understand what you mean.
Mathematics is a human invention. It does not provide us with any truths, just tools. The Pythagorean Theorem is a property of Euclidean geometry.
Comment by freelunch | December 27, 2007
freelunch,
Your position is getting more and more bizarre. Your posts are rife with absolute judgments of every kind. Do you not see how ridiculous it is to claim that there is no absolute morality when you must employ absolutes simply to make your case? Do you not see that the statement, "there is no absolute morality" is an absolute?
I have not bothered to make a case for absolute morality because you have amply demonstrated it in your posts. You are unable to even discuss the topic without appealing to the moral sense we all possess.
You say, "Feel free to argue that corruption is good if you like." Why would I do that? Everyone knows that corruption is bad. Murder is bad. Speeding is bad. Universal, absolute morality! You are proving my case for me.
There's a saying: "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." Your total obliviousness is so incredibly funny! Everything I read from you makes me laugh harder and harder. And you fancy yourself as an intellectual, I'm sure.
Do you not know that rhetorical questions need not be answered because the answer is obvious? Why are they obvious? Because everyone knows the answer. Everyone knows what is immoral and what is moral, despite the best efforts of some to try to redefine it.
You crack me up! How funny! I can't wait for your next post.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 27, 2007
Regarding the supposed "lack of an absolute morality".
Okay, as I posed in "What kind of car would Jesus drive to take his girlfriend to an abortion clinic?", and later discussed in "The True nature of human morality" (both in the IC archives), if there is no absolute morality (i.e. a universal moral code), then please tell me when it is morally acceptable to rape and murder a 5 year old child? Which society, which period of time, which culture, etc.?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 27, 2007
It's funny how 'universal, absolute morality' keeps changing over time.
What do you consider the source of such morality?
Comment by freelunch | December 27, 2007
You answer me, I'll answer you. In addition to the above questions, answer this: What is the source of your morality?
Comment by Mountain Man | December 27, 2007
Society is the source of morality. What other possible source is there?
Comment by freelunch | December 27, 2007
freelunch:
So if a store (part of society) decided to charge moral relativeists twice what they charge everyone else, that's ok?
Comment by sedonaman | December 27, 2007
freelunch:
"LiveFree, Where does 'naturalism contradict itself’?'"
There are 2 sources here: (1) Alan's entire essay; and (2) What follows.
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry for Naturalism, the central tenet of Naturalism:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
“Causal closure” or “Causal Completeness”: All physical effects can be accounted for by basic physical causes (where ‘physical’ can be understood as referring to some list of fundamental forces).
Using this definition, mind, for example, is the effect of electrochemical activity in the organic brain.
Science being inductive, it basically posits that existence (ie, phenomena) precedes essence (ie, scientific theories). Thus, science mandates that:
(1) A priori knowledge is impossible; &
(2) All other intellectual disciplines, particularly mathematics & metaphysics, must be inductive.
Mathematics has succumbed to the naturalists. A mathematical system is deemed ‘true’ if it is internally consistent. Theorems proved within a mathematical system (ie, the conclusions) affirm the ‘truth’ of the axioms (ie, the principles). Again, existence precedes essence.
http://www.mrc.uidaho.edu/~rwells/Critical%20Philosophy%20and%20Mind/Chapter%2023.pdf
The battle to save the foundations is over. The defenders of absolute certainty have long conceded defeat and left the field. Truth now in mathematics, as it has long been in the physical sciences, is contextual. Systems are not certain, they are “relatively consistent” – a term that means ‘consistent within a framework.’
Metaphysics must succumb, too, but that’s another story.
Since new data could invalidate current ‘truths’, naturalism must posit that all ‘truths’ are contingent. How, then, can naturalists contend that naturalism is the only way to acquire knowledge if all ‘truths’ are contingent?
Of course, Alan said it better.
His logical conclusion is inescapable: Naturalism denies itself. To naturalists, the only real truths are phenomena. Concepts are provisional. All concepts are, including the concept that naturalism is the only way to acquire knowledge.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 27, 2007
"Society is the source of morality. What other possible source is there?"
*** This is a joke, right? When "society" decided to enslave people, then slavery became "moral". When Germany decided to kill Jews, killing Jews became "moral". It's moral to own a private business in the US, but immoral to own a private business in Cuba — both actions being equally "moral".
Morality does not come from human consensus or societal influences. If so, the UN would be the fountainhead of all that is moral.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 27, 2007
freelunch,
In your view, society invents its morals as it needs to? I suppose then that morals are subject to a variety of mutable factors.
But wait, isn't it wrong to impose morality on someone? Except of course that the statement itself - it is wrong to impose morality - is a moral precept, one that we seem to be free to impose on others.
Does society decide new morals via the force of law? That can't be, since we can't legislate morality. Of course, "can't" is a moral imperative, and the absence of morality in law is still a moral position being legislated.
Or maybe, do a bunch of us just kinda assent to a new moral position, until society is brought up to speed? For example, if gays decide it is immoral to disagree with them (which, of course, is now happening), they can behave according to their new morality. At some point when society has been softened up, they can lobby the government for hate crime laws, etc. They use the force of government to impose a new morality based on the agenda of their interest group. Is that what you mean?
Or how about that we just let the wisest amongst us determine what is moral? An elite group of ethicists could tell us hapless proletariats what is moral.
But what I don't understand is why I should accept society's morals at all. I think my morals are better. I chose them, I made them up, and after all, there is no absolute morality. You say I should because society works better, but that is a moral judgment that I don't have to accept. And, the word "should" is just another moral imperative.
Maybe you can think of a reason I should accept society's morals, whatever they happen to be, but you'll have to do so without forcing moral absolutes on me.
Yup, let's see how you do.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 27, 2007
Methodological naturalism is contingent on the information available. The results are provisional in the most humble manner. There is nothing about this naturalism that contradicts itself. It is important not to confuse the methodology used by science with a philosophical concept. If a better method of discovery comes along, methodological naturalism would give its place up. Until then, it has shown its success.
I spoke up about this because Professor Roebuck's original posting and some of my critics appear to have conflated methodology and metaphysics. I am defending the methodology against the erroneous claims that have been made. I am not making any effort to defend anyone's metaphysics. That does not seem to be useful. That is also why I cannot accept the unsupported assertion that there is such a thing as absolute morality. Nothing supports such a claim. No one can tell me what this absolute morality looks like, where it came from, why it wasn't recognized, why it doesn't seem to be held true in all places at all times. With so many unanswered questions about such a simple, absolutist statement, what possible reason would anyone have for accepting the claim that an absolute morality exists?
Comment by freelunch | December 27, 2007
freelunch:
“Methodological naturalism is contingent on the information available.”
Now about ontological naturalism? If you’re basing your arguments solely on methodological naturalism, then, by definition, there is no absolute morality.
“That is also why I cannot accept the unsupported assertion that there is such a thing as absolute morality. Nothing supports such a claim.”
Again, methodological naturalism by definition rejects an absolute anything.
“There is nothing about this (methodological) naturalism that contradicts itself.”
Of course, it doesn’t. By definition, it doesn’t. Logically, it’s impossible to even form a contradiction in methodological naturalism where literally everything is contingent. Logically, contradictions can be constructed only if one assumes that there is an absolute to reference the contradictions against.
“No one can tell me what this absolute morality looks like, where it came from, why it wasn’t recognized, why it doesn’t seem to be held true in all places at all times.”
You have your belief system, and we have ours. In your belief system, all is contingent. In ours, an absolute is possible.
Let’s talk a little bit about absolute morality, and use the 10 commandments as a basis. The first 3 commandments in the Catholic interpretation speak about God, and the last 7 speak about the human sphere.
Now, I’ll grant you that we can induct analogs to the last 7 commandments using the way evolution operates as a basis. After all, the last 7 commandments are pretty much common sense, and, if one doesn’t try to get too fine, they are pretty much universal.
However, it is impossible by definition to induct analogs to the first 3 commandments. Hence, these commandments are beyond the power of methodological naturalism to add or detract.
We moral absolutists have a major problem, though. We can’t really understand how the perfect can be contained within the imperfect. Our only hope is that, as our consciousness, intelligence, and knowledge evolve, we will eventually understand that the contingencies are chimeras, and that the absolute is all there is.
One last point. In one of your posts, you said, “Society is the source of morality.” Here’s the deal. For “society”, substitute “group”. If so, morality ensues from the group. Thus, group rights trump individual rights. This implies that the individual liberties spoken of in the Declaration of Independence are null and void, and that the basis of the American Revolution is null and void if one believes in methodological naturalism.
Are all methodological naturalists Marxists, then? I think so.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 27, 2007
Statement 1: "I am not making any effort to defend anyone’s metaphysics."
Statement 2: "That does not seem to be useful. That is also why I cannot accept the unsupported assertion that there is such a thing as absolute morality."
Restating - "I'm not arguing about metaphysics - that is why I am making a universal metaphysical claim"
Dog chasing tail, saying he isn't.
Comment by amccann | December 27, 2007
amccann:
Give freelunch a break. Sure, he confuses methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism a time or 17, but, hey, who wouldn’t? After all, there are a bewildering variety of metaphysical theories based upon a rejection of substance dualism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics#Mind_and_matter
René Descartes proposed substance dualism, a theory in which mind and body are essentially quite different, with the mind having some of the attributes traditionally assigned to the soul, in the seventeenth century.
For freelunch, physical processes knowable by science create the mind. Ergo, he embraces “Materialism Monism” aka “Materialism” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism). But, he has a problem. From the first link:
For the last one hundred years, the dominant metaphysics has without a doubt been materialistic monism. Science has demonstrated many ways in which mind and brain interact, but the exact nature of the relationship is still open to debate. Type identity theory, token identity theory, functionalism, reductive physicalism, nonreductive physicalism, eliminative materialism, anomalous monism, property dualism, epiphenomenalism and emergence are just some of the candidates for a scientifically-informed account of the mind. (It should be noted that while many of these positions are dualisms, none of them are substance dualism.)
Look at that list. I don’t know about you, but I found it impossible to understand what each and every one of these metaphysical schools of thought propose, and, even worse, what their strengths and weaknesses are vis-à-vis all the other metaphysical schools of thought based on materialistic monism.
It’s no wonder freelunch is confused. 99.999999% of humanity would be confused.
Of course, we can fault him when he obliquely interjects elements of ontological naturalism into the debate, but, again, we shouldn’t criticize him too harshly. After all, there’s nothing to debate re methodological naturalism. Once you understand its most primitive tenet (ie, everything is contingent, the ultimate nihilism), what’s there to argue about?
So, he orthogonally interjects elements of ontological naturalism to try to fake us out that his POV isn’t ruthlessly and suffusedly nihilistic. In that sense, he demonstrates a great deal of human compassion even though his intellectual contribution to the discussion is nil.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 28, 2007
Is there a moral absolute? Read Genesis. Eve wasn’t told not to eat the apple. Put yourself in the place of one of the 117,000 slain by God through Gideon. Who among us would want to see our son hanging on a cross? God’s morals are relative. So are ours- hence – waterboarding is now the law of the land – who? Us? Love your neighbor? Us?
Free lunch needs to quit dancing around the language of the moronic natural law types. The fact of the matter is that science explains things – materialistic, metaphysical, and spiritual – and if it can’t be replicated – then another explanation is postulated and tested. The test of time – observation – repetition and tested explanation are the properties of science. Religion, moralists, and intellectual conservatism only talk about these properties. Any idiot can question global warming and most of them do. The fact that the origin of species has been explained does not automatically provide grist for the origin of life question. We stand on the shoulders of giants but they answered one question at a time. If only conservative intellectuals could stick to one question without relating every blessed thing to evolution and the question of life – absolute nuttiness. Alan Roebuck is being intellectually dishonest when he denies mathematical proofs with rhetoric
Comment by bertperfect | January 1, 2008
[…] http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/12/21/the-scientific-leftists-of-the-center-for-inquiry […]
Pingback by The Return of the Supercilious Atheist « Scary Reasoner | March 6, 2008