Last month I wrote a post in which I expressed my belief that Richard Dawkins, the British zoologist and writer of books on popular science, is something of an “intellectual quadriplegic.” A bit hyperbolic I admit, though I think anyone would have a difficult time defending the premise that Dawkins is a impressive thinker, much less deserving to be included as one of Britain’s top 100 public intellectuals .
While I regret questioning his intellect, especially since it means that I am stooping to his level (he has referred to the targets of his derision as: “caterwauling shrieks,” “low-grade intellectual poodling of pseudo-philosophical poseurs,” “footling debates,” “boorish tenured confidence,” “yahooish complacency,” and “driveling ephemera of juvenile pamphleteers and the old preaching of spiteful hard-liners”), I have a hard time drawing any other conclusion than that he's a sloppy thinker. I'm not the only one who holds that opinion. Writing a review of "The Devil's Chaplain" for First Things, Stephen Barr finds that while Dawkins is attempting to present a more “human” side of himself though he finds:
Of more concern is the quality of his thinking, which is far from impressive. To call it low-grade intellectual poodling would perhaps be too harsh; but it is certainly not high-grade. The first thing to note is Dawkins’ carelessness with facts. (This is especially strange in a man who so emphasizes the factuality of science, with its “testability, evidential support, precision, [and] quantifiability”). Here is a small sampler: speaking of neutrinos, he says that “on average one passes through you every second.”
Actually many billions of neutrinos pass through you every second, a fact well known to science buffs. In explaining an evolutionary idea he states that a certain quantity “grows as a power function,” though any mathematically minded person would see that it grows exponentially. He attempts an elementary combinatoric calculation and gets it wrong. He discusses a well-known quantum phenomenon in terms that are incorrect. If one reads enough of Dawkins, one gets used to this sort of thing; in a previous book he showed that he did not know the difference between a cosmic ray and a gamma ray.
Such errors might be excusable for the non-specialist. But Dawkins hold the Pythonesque title of “Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science” at Oxford University. The least he could do was walk down the hall and ask his august colleagues to vet his manuscript.
But the real problem I have with him is that he attempts to provide an intellectual veneer to a patently ridiculous notion. As Barr notes, Dawkins argues that “we must face up to is that we are animals, with no special status or unique value among the animals. To think otherwise is ‘flagrant speciesism,’ ‘human chauvinism,’ and ‘human speciesist vanity.’”
But if we think a little more deeply than Dawkins does, we realize that moralizing about speciesism is utterly silly from the standpoint of atheistic Darwinism. True, there is no absolute reason to prefer people to cows; but then, there is no absolute reason to prefer anything to anything, including non-speciesism to speciesism. If all moral standards are arbitrary, one might as well go with the speciesist standard. That, at least, has the human organism acting in a way that corresponds to its biological function of survival and propagation. “Cousinship,” indeed, is the very best of Darwinian reasons for caring. There is certainly no way to make sense, from a Darwinian perspective, of a trans-species Benthamite calculus of suffering, for that has nothing to do with any organism’s fitness for survival.
This is the heart of my main criticism of Dawkins and every other materialist who believes that we are the products of unguided evolutionary processes: you can’t get here from there. Like Barr, I believe that:
The inescapable conclusion is that Dawkins and materialists of his sort do not in fact “stand up full-face into the keen wind of understanding.” They don’t face the implications of their ideas. If they did, they would have to dismiss all talk of morality, rebellion against nature, and intellectual freedom as so much sentimentality.
Dawkins says, we must accept Darwinism as true science but must rebel against its moral implications: “[A]t the same time as I support Darwinism as a scientist, I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs.”
He reiterates the closing words of his own first book, The Selfish Gene: “We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.” What enables us to rebel, he says, is the fact that nature, though mindless, has accidentally endowed us with intelligence. Our brain can understand the evolutionary process that gave rise to it, and thus can transcend it. Our “blessed gift of understanding” enables us to react with “revulsion” to nature’s imperatives and to be the “only potential island of refuge from the implications of the Devil’s Chaplain.”
This is similar to the criticism of my last post on this topic by Tom Girsch, who took offence at my characterization of naturalism:
When a naturalist says there is no such thing as "ethics," he says it in the same way that he says that there is no such thing as Arizona. It exists as a human-created abstraction, that is useful and convenient, but doesn't exist in any real, physical form "out there."
But why should we rely on these abstractions if they are “accidentally endowed” by nature? How can they be “useful and convenient” if they don't correspond with reality, with what is “out there?” Doesn’t it seem odd that believing in naturalism requires one to reject its implications when it comes to how we should live our life? I can honestly say that if theism required me to act as in an anti-theistic manner, I would have qualms about believing it was true.
Most materialists, however, are unwilling to give up morality and live as nihilists. They are also hesitant to accept Darwinian ethics since it provides a thin blouse to protect against the cold wind of reality. The materialist must borrow their ethics from another in order to protect themselves from the implications of their own worldview. Dawkins, for example, has spent his career attempting to convince the public that Darwinism is true --even if he can‘t live like it is. That, in my opinion, isn’t too "bright."
1
Oh lord, at it again. Notice that, as I believe you've pointed out in past posts, "is" doesn't necessarily imply "ought" (though we don't have to be Humeans and say that it never does). We are animals built to survive and reproduce, but the abilities that nature has given us to aid us in those pursuits allow us to do much more. In fact, if we do more than just survive and reproduce, our lives turn out to be much nicer. We can even develop complex systems that, though they may not be absolute, are still grounded in the reality of everyday life, and designed to make that life better. As this reality grows more complex, through the accumulation of cultural practices and artifacts, those systems will do so as well (at least in practice).
In other words, even within a materialist world view, ethics can correspond to reality, and be grounded in it, even if reality does not give us one necessary set of ethical rules. Just as the borders of Arizona correspond to reality (in that they divide up something that is real, namely the land), ethics can as well. This correspondence need not be a one-to-one correspondence. In fact, it is a one-to-many (or many-to-many)correspondence in both cases (there are multiple ways to divide up the land that we call Arizona, and there are many possible ethical systems). Materialists who aren't moral realists (and there are those, but you've ignored them entirely) don't have to be nihilists. They can be pragmatists, for example, and many are either explicitly or implicitly. There are plenty of other options, as well, and if you only took the time to read some of the philosophical literature on ethics, you might recognize this.
There are tired arguments, and then there is tired "low-grade intellectual poodling of pseudo-philosophical poseurs." Trotting out the "materialists don't have a theistic ground for their ethics, therefore they cannot have any ethics" argument is a painfully trite case of the latter. It became so when people like you refused to accept any counterarguments simply because your own ethical systems require absolute necessity given from on high. You may not like the counterarguments, and that's fine, but they show that nihilism is not the only (or even a coherent) rational path from materialism to ethics. Dawkins may be sloppy at times, but he's certainly not being irrational when he states that he is not a Darwinist when it comes to ethics.
posted on 08.27.2004 8:49 AM2
well look, if you're waiting for me, as the self appointed Defender of Evolution, on the EO to jump in here...I don't actually care for Dawkins all that much. Some of his writing is quite good to read, but it's not revolutionary and I've had a few friends who have had some...shall we say...concerns over Dawkin's integrity in a couple of minor run-ins.
posted on 08.27.2004 8:59 AM3
Good post.
Dawkins claims the high ground in a landscape that has to be utterly flat. Maybe he's just taller than everyone else?
posted on 08.27.2004 9:14 AM4
I think Dawkins is intelligent, articulate, and arrogant, however I suspect his refusal to engage creationists is a tacit recognition of his limitations. His bark greatly exceeds his bite.
Darwinists rarely acknowledge the implications of their worldview let alone live by them.
posted on 08.27.2004 10:25 AM5
Bevets:
I suspect his refusal to engage creationists is a tacit recognition of his limitations.More likely it's because creationists aren't particularly interested in honest debate. Unless you think "you can't explain absolutely everything about your position, therefore your position must be wrong, therefore my position must be right" counts as "honest debate."
Darwinists rarely acknowledge the implications of their worldview let alone live by them.When you've sold all you own to go witness for Jesus, we'll talk. posted on 08.27.2004 12:23 PM
6
Spot,
Oh lord, at it again. Notice that, as I believe you've pointed out in past posts, "is" doesn't necessarily imply "ought" (though we don't have to be Humeans and say that it never does). We are animals built to survive and reproduce, but the abilities that nature has given us to aid us in those pursuits allow us to do much more. In fact, if we do more than just survive and reproduce, our lives turn out to be much nicer. We can even develop complex systems that, though they may not be absolute, are still grounded in the reality of everyday life, and designed to make that life better. As this reality grows more complex, through the accumulation of cultural practices and artifacts, those systems will do so as well (at least in practice).
Let me stop you right there. You keep using words and phrases like “do much more”, “nicer”, “better.” Where do these concepts come from? Either they have a reference point in nature (since that is all there is for the materialist) or they do not. Which is it?
In other words, even within a materialist world view, ethics can correspond to reality, and be grounded in it, even if reality does not give us one necessary set of ethical rules.
You are doing just what I claimed -- borrowing an ethical system from another worldview. Also, if there is more than “one necessary set of ethical rules” how do we decide which is “better” or is that even possible?
Just as the borders of Arizona correspond to reality (in that they divide up something that is real, namely the land), ethics can as well. This correspondence need not be a one-to-one correspondence. In fact, it is a one-to-many (or many-to-many)correspondence in both cases (there are multiple ways to divide up the land that we call Arizona, and there are many possible ethical systems). Materialists who aren't moral realists (and there are those, but you've ignored them entirely) don't have to be nihilists. They can be pragmatists, for example, and many are either explicitly or implicitly.
You seem to be missing the point. How can you be pragmatic about something that is simply a made up concept that may or may not correspond to reality. Under your argument I could say that my ethical system is “blue” and it would be just as meaningful.
There are plenty of other options, as well, and if you only took the time to read some of the philosophical literature on ethics, you might recognize this.
I have and find no sound, valid argument within the literature.
There are tired arguments, and then there is tired "low-grade intellectual poodling of pseudo-philosophical poseurs." Trotting out the "materialists don't have a theistic ground for their ethics, therefore they cannot have any ethics" argument is a painfully trite case of the latter.
You find them tired arguments because you have no way to defend your position. Your view is that ethics is not something we recognize from reality but something we choose. But if ethics is nothing more than a matter of taste we have no reason to submit to it.
It became so when people like you refused to accept any counterarguments simply because your own ethical systems require absolute necessity given from on high.
Not at all. I am willing to accept a sound, valid argument that flows from true (under your worldview) premises. You just haven’t done that.
posted on 08.27.2004 12:59 PM7
Darwinists rarely acknowledge the implications of their worldview let alone live by them.
Bevets! I'll talk to you! :)
I don't know how one can be a human being and live a life consistent with the belief that there is no ultimate ground to stand on to make judgments.
posted on 08.27.2004 1:24 PM8
Most Creationists/IDCists take the approach of presenting, or contriving, a problem in evolutionary biology, or sometimes geology or physics, as being intractable, and then declaring their version of mythology the 'winner' by default.
Occasionally the Creationist will present testable predictions, although this is usually not a good idea , since the predictions get whacked pretty good. Young Earth Creationism, as silly as it is, at least produced testable predictions.
Another tactic common we see, especially on the Islamic Creationist website Harun Yayha, is to present the religious text-in the case the Q'uron- as having been fully verified by modern science and then go on to attack evolution in the classical ways.
Some fairly literalist creationists take the approach that the literal interp of the religious document is critical to the validity of the faith and thus attempt to place a mental/emotional roadblock between science and the creationist mythology.
By far, the best version of IDC is theistic evolution. This is the idea that the Creator created and works through natural processes.
posted on 08.27.2004 2:16 PM9
Worldview shmorldview.
The fact is, Joe, that most of us don't subscribe to any "worldview" in the way that you seem to. The argument that everyone has or should have a "worldview" that dictates their beliefs on every subject -- from what kind of peanut butter I buy to whether stem cells are human beings -- is one that is peculiarly precious to fundamentalists (indeed, it is part of the definition of fundamentalism). Why should this be? I submit that this gives fundamentalists an easy way to judge others as being "irrational". And of course "irrational" is just a step away from "nuts." And "nuts" is just a step away from "dangerous to society." And fear is a great way to grow the ranks.
Frankly, as I've noted before, the stuff Dawkins writes in his pop science and pop philosophy books isn't very interesting to me. It's mostly old news.
For example, this thing about Arizona sounds to me like a less-clever re-rewrite of Vonnegut's descriptions of "granfalloons" in "Cat's Cradle" which was written decades ago.
Do we all remember what a granfalloon is? Vonnegut defined the term as a "proud and meaningless association of human beings." And he gave us a little poem to help us remember: "If you wish to study a granfalloon,
Just remove the skin of a toy balloon."
Kurt Vonnegut is to Dawkins what Thomas Jefferson is to George W. Bush.
posted on 08.27.2004 2:34 PM10
Let me stop you right there. You keep using words and phrases like “do much more”, “nicer”, “better.” Where do these concepts come from? Either they have a reference point in nature (since that is all there is for the materialist) or they do not. Which is it?
Joe, this is where you go so far astray that it's difficult to justify discussing it with you. I'm not in any way borrowing from any non-materialist world view. Quality of life is based in biology (even when it concerns things like social status. Sure, you can have "quality of life" in non-materialist world views, but that does not imply that you can't have it in a materialist one. Feelings are real, as are needs, desires, etc. Even if the folk-psychological language we use to describe them is less than exact, it can still "correspond" with reality.
You seem to be missing the point. How can you be pragmatic about something that is simply a made up concept that may or may not correspond to reality. Under your argument I could say that my ethical system is “blue” and it would be just as meaningful.
No Joe, you are missing the point, despite repeated attempts by so many to explain it to you. At some point one has to begin to assume that you are unwilling or incapable of grasping it. I assume the former. The concepts may be "made up," but they are based in reality, and the idea is to pick the ones that work the best in a particular ecological context. The criteria for "working the best" will vary of course, because different cultures will create different ideas of what constitutes quality of life (though there will be a great deal of overlap, because of our shared biology and environment), but that's not inconsistent with materialism. When you finally grasp that, it will be much easier to deal with your anti-materialist arguments.
I have and find no sound, valid argument within the literature.
You give no indication of having any familiarity with the literature, particularly since you never address any of the arguments that permeate it. Further, your objects to the types of ethical positions that are brought up by commentors (e.g. pragmatism here) demonstrate an ignorance of the issues and arguments involved. Perhaps a post addressing the different types of ethical theories that aren't dependent on transcendental justifications might be in order, to demonstrate that your argument that materialism necessarily leads to nihilism makes any sense.
You find them tired arguments because you have no way to defend your position. Your view is that ethics is not something we recognize from reality but something we choose. But if ethics is nothing more than a matter of taste we have no reason to submit to it.
No reason to submit to it? Well, there are obvious, and not so obvious social reasons for submitting to ethical systems, but there are also practical and rational ones (which aren't necessarily separate from the social ones), which do not require adopting a non-materialist stance. One way is to relate them to quality of life (as consequentialist and pragmatist theories might do), but others can draw from elsewhere. Again, putting a little time into reading the literature would help here.
Not at all. I am willing to accept a sound, valid argument that flows from true (under your worldview) premises. You just haven’t done that.
Since you've yet to show that the sorts of criteria I've described are inconsistent with materialism in any way, form, or fashion, I think it's pretty clear that you're not open to any arguments. You've made up your mind. Within the materialist world view, there are very real facts about the world (including the social world), and these facts make certain behaviors more advantageous to individuals or groups for various reasons (quality of life, dominance of the individual or group, increased survivability, better ability to breed and raise children, etc., etc., etc.). The language with which we describe ethical systems may be couched in vocabulary that is not necessarily materialist, but this does not make the ethical system any less consistent with materialism. If you can show how these ethical systems are in fact inconsistent with materialism, do so. Arguing that they are "created" and therefore we have no reason to follow them simply won't work. There are plenty of reasons why this is not true (some of which I've just described). Until you show that the ethics are actually inconsistent with materialism, I doubt any of those who aren't members of your choir will take your points seriously.
posted on 08.27.2004 2:36 PM11
DS writes
"By far, the best version of IDC is theistic evolution. This is the idea that the Creator created and works through natural processes."
Indeed. It is the only version of creationism that doesn't require it's adherents to lie or ignore the millions of observations scientists have made about the natural world over the past several thousand years.
posted on 08.27.2004 2:38 PM12
tgirsch
I think Dawkins is intelligent, articulate, and arrogant, however I suspect his refusal to engage creationists is a tacit recognition of his limitations. His bark greatly exceeds his bite.
More likely it's because creationists aren't particularly interested in honest debate. Unless you think "you can't explain absolutely everything about your position, therefore your position must be wrong, therefore my position must be right" counts as "honest debate."
tgirsh has a fondness for straw men.
Dawkins (and Darwinists in general) rely heavily on the illusion of invicibilty. To see how this works, listen to Rush Limbaugh. He is intelligent and articulate. He also has no guests. There is an important reason for this: a guest would destroy the illusion that the host is immortal -- he would become a mere mortal like the rest of us. His ideas are invincible because no one is given the opportunity to challenge them. (Callers are screened, anonymous, and muted if they get too feisty) Dawkins milks this strategy for everything its worth. He talks a big game about how ignorant creationists are, but is careful never to engage in actual confrontation -- lest his audience were to recognize his mortality.
Darwinists rarely acknowledge the implications of their worldview let alone live by them.
When you've sold all you own to go witness for Jesus, we'll talk.
Where did you get this idea? Please be specific.
posted on 08.27.2004 3:07 PM13
"His ideas are invincible because no one is given the opportunity to challenge them."
Creationists have been given the opportunity to challenge the fundamental principles of evolutionary biology for over a century. For over a century, creationists have been claiming that "Darwinism" is dead. For over a century, creationists have failed to see their predictions about the death of "Darwinism" come true.
Meanwhile, the fruit born of Darwin's theories has been documented in thousands of research papers written by scientists around the world, including many scientists who believe in God and who believe that Christ is their Savior. Moreover, the principles elucidated by Darwin have helped scientists and researchers study and develop treatments for human and animal diseases, allowing us all to live longer and healthier lives.
Bevets, who is the contemporary world's most famous religious fundamentalist and creationist? What is that individuals greatest accomplishment to date?
Compare and contrast. And try to understand. For once.
posted on 08.27.2004 3:16 PM14
The concepts may be "made up," but they are based in reality, and the idea is to pick the ones that work the best in a particular ecological context. The criteria for "working the best" will vary of course, because different cultures will create different ideas of what constitutes quality of life (though there will be a great deal of overlap, because of our shared biology and environment), but that's not inconsistent with materialism.
But Spot, can you really believe that? I say (for example) that it's wrong for a man to have sex with an 9-year-old boy, and it will always be wrong. But according to your idea, it can be wrong today but right in 25 years if society changes its mind. Can wrong turn into right just because people vote on it? In that case, there is no "real" right and wrong.
posted on 08.27.2004 3:20 PM15
Ed writes
"Can wrong turn into right just because people vote on it? In that case, there is no "real" right and wrong."
How do you define a "real" right and wrong, Ed?
Is it "really" wrong for an adult man to have sex with a 9 year old boy if the 9 year old boy has an IQ of 174, has successfully run his own business for 3 years and employs 150 people, has written two books on morality and the law, is diagnosed with terminal cancer and asks to ask sex with an adult man as his last wish before dying?
posted on 08.27.2004 3:28 PM16
Is it "really" wrong for an adult man to have sex with a 9 year old boy if the 9 year old boy has an IQ of 174, has successfully run his own business for 3 years and employs 150 people, has written two books on morality and the law, is diagnosed with terminal cancer and asks to ask sex with an adult man as his last wish before dying?
Yes, Larry, it's wrong. Absolutely wrong.
posted on 08.27.2004 3:41 PM17
Alister McGrath, Oxford historian and theologian, was interviewed in the Aug. 21 issue of World Magazine.
http://www.worldmag.com/newsite/content/displayarticle.cfm?id=9546
"My personal belief is that the best way of criticizing atheist Darwinism is to focus on the scientific evidence, and ask whether it demands that we abandon faith in God. It clearly does not. I’m very interested in this question, as I will publish a work later this year entitled Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life which argues that the noted atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins-author of books such as The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene-is actually unable to justify his atheism on the basis of the scientific evidence he offers."
When asked, "Should religious presuppositions inform scientific inquiry?" He answers,
"Let me mention one point here. For a Christian, there is an obvious and important connection between the doctrine of creation and scientific inquiry. As John Calvin pointed out, to study God’s creation is to appreciate the wisdom of God in greater depth. It’s no accident, I believe, that the natural sciences became especially significant in Christian Europe, as there was a natural religious motivation to study nature as God’s creation. This doesn’t mean for one moment that people regarded nature as God. They saw it as the work of God, which was to be honored and appreciated for that reason."
The position of theistic evolutionists is really a gnostic revival.
Gnosticism draws a strong distinction between spirit and matter. Spirit is good and matter is evil. The Bible says God made the world, Gnosticism holds that God is separate from the world. This is the position of the theistic evolutionist.
God is separate and distinct from the world and not responsible for its evils. God instituted the
natural laws and has not since interfered. God is separate from the world, as the gnostics and
theo-evos claim. A clean separation of God and creation made for an even purer God, just as the Gnostics had found that spirit could be good when it was opposed to matter.
The gnostics were also antihistorical. Whereas the Bible presents a history of God's activity in the world, including dates and historical figures, the gnostics believed that God's revelation was not open but secret, revealed from within rather than in public documents such as Scripture. The theo-evos must render as allegory anything in the Bible which doesn't fit the current knowledge of science.
The gnostics believed that one should not look for signs of God in nature. The theo-evos urge the separation of religion and science. God is removed from the world. Evolution is the right conclusion given a gnostic starting point.
God and matter don't mix, so life wasn't created.
The gnostic's and theistic evolutionist's hope was fulfilled in evolution's natural selection.
posted on 08.27.2004 3:43 PM18
Joe, I thought I'd try (emphasis on try) to express my points without an overt display of annoyance. So, here goes.
You seem to have two arguments against materialist ethics. The first is that materialism, as a world view, doesn't contain within it the material (pardon the pun) needed to build an ethical system. So, everytime materialists try to do so, they have to borrow from other ethical systems. Depending on whatexactly it is that you mean here, this argument reaches various degrees of horrendousness. Borrowing values other ethical systems is not a bad thing. Humans have spent a lot of time reasoning about, modifying, and testing ethical systems over the last 50-100,000 years. Presumably they've gotten something right. Borrowing language from previous vocabularies used to describe ethics or morality is not problematic, either. If you want people to adopt an ethical system, you'd better couch it in terms that they understand (for purposes of scholarly discussions, it might be practical to develop a more refined vocabulary, which is exactly what philosophers do). Borrowing concepts (e.g., quality of life, happiness, desires, beliefs, etc.) from other ethical/metaphysical/epistemic systems isn't problematic, either. Naturally, with materialism, these concepts will ultimately receive new definitions, or senses (as will the vocabulary), to make them materialist concepts.
None of these accusations imply that materialists aren't being consistent when they propose ethical systems or values. You've yet to even make an argument that they are. Simply stating that they are because many of the values, words, or concepts are borrowed from other ethical systems won't do. You would have to show how "quality of life," for example, is inconsistent with a materialist world view. Good luck with that.
The second way in which you are criticizing materialism is the rehashing of the old argument that without God, there is no reason to be moral. You claim (you do not actually argue) that if values are created by men (or women), there is no reason to adhere to them. Presumably, we only have a reason to adhere to an ethical system if the fates of our eternal souls, after death, are at stake. But why is this a reason for obeying rules? Because if we do not obey them, we are likely to suffer some negative consequences. Why can't the negative consequences be finite and worldly, rather than other worldly? Take a simple example. Why do people obey criminal laws? One reason (among many) is that if they do not, they will be punished. Why is punishment something to avoid? Becaues it's unpleasant (it decreases quality of life, at least temporarily). What if the "punishments" for adopting certain value systems over others didn't require judicial authorities? What if certain facts about our biological and cultural environment made adopting some values instead of others cause a life more difficult and unpleasant (anticipating a response, I will note that there aren't any reasons to think that "unpleasant" can't be a materialist concept, and if there are such, you haven't given us any). If that is the case, then we do not need God to force us, by threat of eternal damnation, to adhere to a set of values.
If this is in fact the case (and you've given no reasons for anyone to think it isn't), then the most rational (or practical) ethical systems will take the most physical and cultural facts into consideration. These systems will be based on human biology, psychology, and sociology/culture. This is exactly what materialism would entail. There's nothing inconsistent or incoherent about this, and it demonstrates ample incentive to obey some value systems over others.
Thus, your two arguments against materialist ethics fail. If you have other arguments, I would be happy to see them. Hopefully, they will take into account the arguments for various ethical systems. Some examples that you might consider are egoism, utilitarianism, pragmatism, situation ethics, Rawlsian ethics, non-utilitarian consequentialist ethics, deontology, existentialism, feminism, various forms of ethical relativism, natural law ethics, moral realism, humanism, communitarianism, intuitionism, compatibilism, subjectivism, prescriptivism, objectivism, rights theories, aristotelian ethics, projectivism, etc. The list goes on and on, and not all of these are completely separate from the others. Since your two arguments that all ethical systems are inconsistent with materialism fail, you're going to have to start addressing individual theories.
posted on 08.27.2004 3:43 PM19
Ed, I'm not sure that under all possible cultural conditions, sex with 9 year olds is wrong. I can't imagine how anyone could know that. In our cultural context, adults having sex with young children does great harm to those children. However, if there were contexts in which it didn't harm the children, or anyone else, in any way, why would it be wrong? Because you, in this context, find the idea revolting? Or perhaps because God finds it revolting? I find both of these to be pretty poor reasons for prohibiting a behavior. I'm going to stick with the practical reasons for prohibiting it.
posted on 08.27.2004 3:49 PM20
Spot,
You seem to have two arguments against materialist ethics. The first is that materialism, as a world view, doesn't contain within it the material (pardon the pun) needed to build an ethical system. So, everytime materialists try to do so, they have to borrow from other ethical systems.
Yes, that is a pretty fair summary.
Depending on what exactly it is that you mean here, this argument reaches various degrees of horrendousness. Borrowing values other ethical systems is not a bad thing.
I agree.
Humans have spent a lot of time reasoning about, modifying, and testing ethical systems over the last 50-100,000 years. Borrowing concepts (e.g., quality of life, happiness, desires, beliefs, etc.) from other ethical/metaphysical/epistemic systems isn't problematic, either.
Here is where our first disagreement begins. Let’s say that I present an argument for an ethical/metaphysical/epistemic system that takes as a necessary premise the fact that supernatural beings exist. The premise leads to conclusion X, which is “borrowed” by the materialist. The problem is that the conclusion relied on a premise that they categorically reject leaving them no reason to support X.
Naturally, with materialism, these concepts will ultimately receive new definitions, or senses (as will the vocabulary), to make them materialist concepts.
This is another problem. They take the concepts, scrape them of any non-materialist baggage, and present them as if they still retained the same semblance of meaning that they held before. Take, for example, the word “purpose.” The materialist denies that there is any teleological purpose in nature. Yet for some peculiar reason they seem to think that humans can create something that is foreign to nature, as if they themselves were distinct and separate from their material environment.
You would have to show how "quality of life," for example, is inconsistent with a materialist world view. Good luck with that.
The problem I have is that the materialists never tells us how we get this concept of “quality of life.” Either it can be derived from materialist assumptions or it has to be borrowed from another system that allows non-materialist premises.
The second way in which you are criticizing materialism is the rehashing of the old argument that without God, there is no reason to be moral.
Not exactly. While I do think that God is the basis of morality, I would concede that materialism could present an ethical system based on nothing more than what can be deduced from natural concepts. The problem is that they do not want to go where these conclusions lead.
You claim (you do not actually argue) that if values are created by men (or women), there is no reason to adhere to them.
Why should they? If I create a concept (“Blue is the a moral color.”) why should anyone else adhere to it? They could if they wanted to but what reason, other than force, would compel them to do so?
Hopefully, they will take into account the arguments for various ethical systems. Some examples that you might consider are egoism, utilitarianism, pragmatism, situation ethics, Rawlsian ethics, non-utilitarian consequentialist ethics, deontology, existentialism, feminism, various forms of ethical relativism, natural law ethics, moral realism, humanism, communitarianism, intuitionism, compatibilism, subjectivism, prescriptivism, objectivism, rights theories, aristotelian ethics, projectivism, etc. The list goes on and on, and not all of these are completely separate from the others.
Absolutely. Of course, not one of these ethical systems can be derived from purely materialist premises. So that doesn’t really help your argument, does it?
Since your two arguments that all ethical systems are inconsistent with materialism fail, you're going to have to start addressing individual theories.
To save time, why don’t you tell me which ones are consistent with materialism (i.e, that they can be derived only by using premises that do not contradict materialism.)
posted on 08.27.2004 4:16 PM21
"Yes, Larry, it's wrong. Absolutely wrong."
Okay, Ed, since you are the holder of knowledge regarding absolute wrongs and rights, which of the following alternative dying wishes by my business-owning, worker-employing, very smart, and very mature and very gay 9 year old are also "absolutely" wrong:
1) going to Disneyland on "Gay Day"
2) snuggling on a couch with Michael Jackson for 1 hour (parentally monitored)
3) snuggling on a couch with Tom Cruise for 1 hour (parentally monitored)
4) snuggling on a couch with Cher for 1 hour
5) snuggling on a courch with gay filmmaker, Gus van Zant, for 1 hour
6) DVD boxset of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, complete first season
If any of these are not "absolutely wrong," please rank them according to their relative wrongness (scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being absolutely wrong and 1 being just a little naughty).
posted on 08.27.2004 4:26 PM22
Re adherence to the moral code which states that "blue is a moral color," Joe writes
"They could if they wanted to but what reason, other than force, would compel them to do so?"
Well, if it was known that wearing colors other than blue caused substantially greater harm to the environment in which we all live than non-blue colors, that would probably compel some people to do so. Or if was shown that a substantial fraction of the population that sees others wearing non-blue colors inevitably develop Alzheimer's, than that would compel some people to do so.
Those are examples of non-force reasons which would "compel" someone to follow your code (which looked arbitrary on its face). If your code is in fact completely arbitrary, then the question is why would you ever propose it unless of course you intended to start a religion.
posted on 08.27.2004 4:36 PM23
Larry,
Those are examples of non-force reasons which would "compel" someone to follow your code (which looked arbitrary on its face). If your code is in fact completely arbitrary, then the question is why would you ever propose it unless of course you intended to start a religion.
So then could homosexuality be classified as "immoral" since it hinders the survival of the species? If you claim that is an arbitary distinction, what would make it so?
posted on 08.27.2004 4:41 PM24
Joe writes
"So then could homosexuality be classified as "immoral" since it hinders the survival of the species?"
We've gone down this road before. There is no evidence that the existence of homosexuality in a population is detrimental to the survival of the population.
Would 100% homosexuality be detrimental to the surivival of a sexually reproducing species, i.e., the complete absence of heterosexual reproduction? Sure.
This is beside the point I was making, however, because my point was not about the "survival of the species" (although your reading of my hypotheticals is consistent with my observations, above, about the mindsets of worldviewers).
My point was that the unwillingness to intentionally harm oneself or others, directly or indirectly, can be a compelling non-forceful reason for adhering to a moral code (even a facially arbitrary code such as the one your proposed).
Oh, and as to why I assumed that your proposed code wrt to the color blue was arbitrary: I assumed it was arbitrary because you didn't provide any justification for it (not even a supernatural one).
posted on 08.27.2004 5:16 PM25
Larry,
God did just that when he gave humans the ten commandments: wearing other colors than blue = disobeying these rules (lying, murdering, cheating, adultery--you know the drill).
Thus, to continue your point, disobeying these rules causes substantially greater harm to individuals and society. This is one reason why I choose to believe God. I look around and see that people who don't lie, murder, cheat, steal, sleep around, and worship creation, are just better off (happier, get along better, have better families). It just makes sense to me that if God said things these things and they correspond with reality, then they must be true ideas.
At this point in human history, it's impossible to disentangle the materialist and non-materialist worldviews. If it were possible for non-materialists to set up their own world and live by its consequences, without the influence of religion, then perhaps we could see if morality could develop solely from nature.
posted on 08.27.2004 5:39 PM26
Spot,
if there were contexts in which it didn't harm the children, or anyone else, in any way, why would it be wrong?
Under your conception of morality, even if a behavior causes harm, it isn't wrong as long as society approves of it. People can be mistaken about what's harmful, but after they come to consensus, they can't be mistaken about what's right and wrong. That's because there is no external standard to judge them by. Even the people of the future can't judge them because they live in a different "context".
"Harm" has no privilege as a standard. Today you believe it's wrong to harm innocent people, but if the majority of humankind comes to believe otherwise, then harming innocents will be morally right in the new context.
posted on 08.28.2004 11:15 PM27
Larry,
I think we've taken this example too far, and it's gotten unseemly. I'll take the blame for introducing it in the first place.
Your 9-year old genius with his own business probably wouldn't care what I thought anyway.
posted on 08.28.2004 11:24 PM28
Here is where our first disagreement begins. Let’s say that I present an argument for an ethical/metaphysical/epistemic system that takes as a necessary premise the fact that supernatural beings exist. The premise leads to conclusion X, which is “borrowed” by the materialist. The problem is that the conclusion relied on a premise that they categorically reject leaving them no reason to support X.
In practice, it is more often the case that an ethical principle is derived, and then the existence of a divine being is used to justify it. In those cases, borrowing is perfectly justified, if the principle works. In other cases, it may be that one can arrive at the same principle through two different routes.
This is another problem. They take the concepts, scrape them of any non-materialist baggage, and present them as if they still retained the same semblance of meaning that they held before. Take, for example, the word “purpose.” The materialist denies that there is any teleological purpose in nature. Yet for some peculiar reason they seem to think that humans can create something that is foreign to nature, as if they themselves were distinct and separate from their material environment.
In many caeses, they do have roughly the same meaning, even if they are grounded in a different metaphysical system.
Also, since humans create all sorts of things that are "foriegn" to nature (has nature ever produced a video game system?), this doesn't seem like a valid criticism. Naturally, purpose can be redescribed in strictly materialist language, related to things like equilibrium, but it's hard to work with that sort of language in everyday life. None of this implies that humans are distinct and separate from their material environment in the way that you seem to be implying. However, it does indicate that humans can come up with descriptions of their behavior that capture its subtlelties that may not present in the behavior of other animals, or nature as a whole. Cumulative culture, for instance, is unique to humans, and though its not present in nature itself, there is nothing anti-materialist about asserting its existence. The same is true of "purpose," which simply implies directed behavior, something that all animals do, but which humans do in particularly complex fashions.
The problem I have is that the materialists never tells us how we get this concept of “quality of life.” Either it can be derived from materialist assumptions or it has to be borrowed from another system that allows non-materialist premises.
Sure they do. Psychologists and neuroscientists, generally working within the materialist tradition, have been telling us about "quality of life" for decades. Furthermore, since much of what makes life better is related to our socialized wants and needs (which can be further couched in materialist language, and once again, have been by psychologists and neuroscientists), not all of the language with which we describe "quality of life" need be couched in biological or physical terminology.
Not exactly. While I do think that God is the basis of morality, I would concede that materialism could present an ethical system based on nothing more than what can be deduced from natural concepts. The problem is that they do not want to go where these conclusions lead.
Actually, many have done this. Moral realism or moral naturalism are not uncommon these days, and the implications have been well worked out. However, there are other moral systems that aren't deductive or realist, which have also been detailed, and which have other sets of implications.
Why should they? If I create a concept (“Blue is the a moral color.”) why should anyone else adhere to it? They could if they wanted to but what reason, other than force, would compel them to do so?
If "blue is the moral color," as an ethical principle, makes life better within a particular biological and social context, then you should adhere to it, and probably would. It's likely that if it were better for society, and most individuals within it, that you adhere to "blue is the moral color," it's likely coercion would be used to get you to adhere to it. This is what happens with most criminal laws. But coercion isn't always necessary. Cutting in line isn't a crime, but people tend to not do it, because in the long run, society works better for everyone involved if people don't cut in line very often. That's why people should adhere to such rules, and part of why they do (along with socialization).
Absolutely. Of course, not one of these ethical systems can be derived from purely materialist premises. So that doesn’t really help your argument, does it?
If you mean we can't get these ethical systems from a physical description of the world, then you're probably right, but that's not what any materialists wants anyway. However, many or all of these can be formulated in such a way that they, and the extra-material principles from which they are derived (e.g., human reason, pragmatism, knowledge of human psychology, knowledge of social relations, etc.), are consistent with materialism, which was my point.
posted on 08.29.2004 12:23 AM29
Ed Jordan,
Under your conception of morality, even if a behavior causes harm, it isn't wrong as long as society approves of it. People can be mistaken about what's harmful, but after they come to consensus, they can't be mistaken about what's right and wrong. That's because there is no external standard to judge them by. Even the people of the future can't judge them because they live in a different "context".
"Harm" has no privilege as a standard. Today you believe it's wrong to harm innocent people, but if the majority of humankind comes to believe otherwise, then harming innocents will be morally right in the new context.
Where did I say, "if society approves of it, it's not immoral?" Society's can approve of many things that I find immoral, and I can find things immoral that my own society approves of. I've said nothing to imply otherwise. However, I see no reason to call something immoral if it doesn't have negative consequences. The problem with this system is determining when something has negative consequences, and when those consequences are sufficient to label something immoral (for example, sports play can cause injuries, which are presumably negative, but few of us think sports are immoral). Utlimately, our standards for determining what level of negativity to accept in particular situations will be pragmatic, as well.
posted on 08.29.2004 12:24 AM30
Who decides what "negative consequences" are?
Take a public opinion poll and despair.
posted on 08.29.2004 3:50 AM31
In practice, it's obvious that people in power decide what negative consequences are. Hence slavery, Holocausts, and the like. No ethical system can avoid them (both examples took place in the middle of the Christian world). So deciding whether to adopt an ethical system shouldn't be based on whether the ethical system can prevent such things. However, one reason for adopting an ethical system should be that it views such things as unethical, and for reasons other than, "God says so" or personal revulsion.
posted on 08.29.2004 12:18 PM32
Spot,
Where did I say, "if society approves of it, it's not immoral?"
You were using the word "culture," not "society." You said, "[D]ifferent cultures will create different ideas of what constitutes quality of life . . . ." Looking back at the paragraph of yours that I quoted first, I infer that you have a two-part process for how a culture should decide what's moral: First, a culture should determine what "constitutes quality of life"; Second, the culture should implement the ethics that provides the best fit for providing that quality of life to people.
I'm also assuming that you would hold that there is nothing outside of culture that can provide a transcendent moral standard: moons and stars and planets are dead things; plants and animals are non-sentient; intelligent aliens, as far as we know, don't exist, or live too far away, or lived in different epochs (and anyway would have such different biologies that their opinions would be irrelevant); there is, according to you, no God; eventually, humanity will be wiped out by one cosmic cataclysm or another, and we may not even leave a scar; we don't matter to anyone or anything outside of ourselves; no one outside of ourselves can judge us; in fact, after we're all gone, whatever injustices we committed in our own eyes will be all gone also -- they may as well have never happened.
Since there is no transcendent standard, it seems to me that culture is the sole and final arbiter of both the goals of morality and of its implementation.
So can a culture be wrong when it determines what constitutes quality of life? Can a culture be wrong about the ethics it implements? How would we know? What standard would we use to decide?
Is every individual his own moral authority? In response to gary's post, you wrote, "In practice, it's obvious that people in power decide what negative consequences are." What if the people in power don't allow free speech or dissent? What if the culture has decided that Order promotes the highest quality of life and simply shoots trouble-makers in the head? Who has moral standing to say that the culture is wrong? Where does that moral standing come from?
To gary you also wrote, "[O]ne reason for adopting an ethical system should be that it views such things [as Holocausts and slavery] as unethical . . . ." Where does that no-Holocausts-and-no-slavery standard come from?
Nazi Germany existed in a sea of competing cultures, but someday humanity may have only one culture, and there is no guarantee that the Monoculture will adhere to the no-Holocausts-and-no-slavery standard. If it doesn't, and it wipes out all dissent, and it reigns for 10,000 years, it won't be wrong.
posted on 08.29.2004 8:12 PM33
Actually, I think the individual is the sole arbiter of morality. Cultures can and will try to impute their own moral world-views onto their members, but ultimately individuals either alone or collectively must decide what is and what is not permissable, and how to punish behaviors that are not. As I said, often groups in power will enact moral codes that may not be shared by many individuals, either within or outside of the cultures over which they wield power. However, this is not an indictment of the view that morality is not given from on high, any more than it is an indictment of the moral view that it is. No moral view is immune to the wims of the powerful. This was obviously the case in Nazi Germany, and the pre-Civil war United States. The people in power allowed behaviors that many consider immoral. The fact that a culture, or the people in power within a culture, adopt an ethical system does not mean that we should adhere to that ethical system. It's just the way things actually work, and no one familiar with even a tiny bit of history can deny this.
posted on 08.30.2004 12:26 AM34
Joel, I'm glad to see that you recognize the Chardanist/gnostic heresy of Hugh Ross and company. So few do, possibly because so few Evangelical pastors still remember what the Gospel -is-, having replaced it with pop-psych, and Darwinian evolution isn't contrary to Jungian spiritual experiences. But it -is- contrary to the results of the experimental method, logic, and Christianity.
posted on 08.30.2004 9:24 AM35
"When you've sold all you own to go witness for Jesus, we'll talk."
No where did Christ tell all believers to sell everything they had to witness. I suspect you know that though...
posted on 08.30.2004 11:21 AM36
Says Larry -
"Indeed. It is the only version of creationism that doesn't require it's adherents to lie or ignore the millions of observations scientists have made about the natural world over the past several thousand years."
It's always a pleasure when people trot out the notion that somehow evolutionists have a monopoly on scientific knowledge and that creationists must "lie or ignore" science.
In all actuality, science continues to find more and more problems with Darwinian evolution and more and more scientists are rejecting it as an acceptable scenario, and yet it's creationists who are dishonest about science.
I'm not saying science has definitively proven creationism is true, but you're fooling yourself if you think Darwinian evolution has any footing in modern science.
So which observationas am I ignoring?
Is it this one from Pierre-Paul Grasse: "What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."
Or the observation that there is an extreme absence of transitional forms, indeed, a lack of any sort of fossil record of continual macroevolution at all? Are we ignoring the fact that the fossil record speaks of sudden appearances of species not extensive change between species? Are we ignoring the Cambrian explosion when a multitude of species popped into existence with no hint as to where they came from?
Maybe we're ignoring Elderidge and Gould's observation that puctuated equilibrium (their own theory) has no basis when they said in Nature in 1993: "But continuing unhappiness, justified this time, focuses upon claims that speciation causes significant morphological change, for no validation of such a position has emerged. "
Are we ignoring the fact that mutations overwhelmingly produce defective organisms or ones that can only survive in unusual environments?
Could we be ignoring Wallace Arthur when he claims in his book Theories of LIfe: "One can argue that there is no direct evidence for a Darwinian origin of a body plan--black Biston Betularia certainly do not constitute one! Thus in the end we have to admit that we do not really know how body plans originate. "
Might we not be taking concepts like irreducible complexity into consideration?
Are we ignoring the fact that many of the transitional forms of protohumans were either frauds or based on one or two tiny bones and whole lot of conjecture?
The thing is, I embrace the whole breadth of science. That's why I believe in an old earth and that's why I don't believe in evolution. I dont believe in ignoring science, and neither should evolutionists. But that's the order of the day, it seems. The Journal of Molecular Evolution was established in 1971, dedicated to explaining how life at the molecular level came to be. One would hope to find studies exploring the origin of complex biochemical systems in this journal. But, in fact, none of the papers published in JME over the entire course of its life as a journal has ever proposed the origin of a single complex biochemical system in a gradual step-by-step Darwinian processAccording to Michael Behe, "The search can be extended, but the results are the same. There has never been a meeting, or a book or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems".
But of course, it's the creationists who ignore science. Cute.
-Phil
posted on 08.30.2004 12:53 PM37
Phil, on empty:
"In all actuality, science continues to find more and more problems with Darwinian evolution and more and more scientists are rejecting it as an acceptable scenario"
And what is your evidence for this remarkable proposition, Phil? It sounds like something that was written 100 years ago or more, you know, when creationists were predicting that "Darwinism" was on its "last legs."
"In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."
Whoever the heck this guy is, I wonder what he'd think about the bacteria and viruses that no longer thrive on the planet earth because they are, um, extinct. Is that a "final" evolutionary effect? Duh. Yes it is. In fact, it is the only "final" evolutionary effect because other than extinction events, animals never "finish" adapting to their environment.
Like all the lying creationist liars, you take Eldridge and Gould out of context. Did Eldridge and Gould not believe that evolution by natural selection occurs? Be serious.
"Are we ignoring the fact that many of the transitional forms of protohumans were either frauds or based on one or two tiny bones and whole lot of conjecture?"
Um, scientists didn't ignore the "frauds" you are referring to -- they rooted them out. As they root out frauds all the time. You should read a scientific journal sometime instead of websites written by creationist cranks. Fyi, Bigfoot is still "at large" too, in case you were curious (which I'm sure you are, you natural-born skeptic, you!).
"Might we not be taking concepts like irreducible complexity into consideration?"
Oh, you mean that ill-defined concept that is completely ignored by every credible biologist on the planet because it has zero utility and was proposed by some Discovery Institute moron?
"none of the papers published in JME over the entire course of its life as a journal has ever proposed the origin of a single complex biochemical system in a gradual step-by-step Darwinian process"
Um ... maybe not (although I wouldn't trust a fraud like Behe as far as I could throw his fat charlatan behind) but scientists have discovered a lot about the relationships between various "complex biological systems" in nature and have proposed many testable explanations for how those systems might have evolved. "Every step"? Maybe someday. That's a tall order. After all, we just sequenced the Human Genome a couple years ago and we don't even know the functions of all the encoded genes yet. Do you suppose creationists will help tell us what those functions are???? I highly doubt it. No, once again, it will be scientists doing the work and creationists who sit on the sidelines saying, "Oh it's just too complex, can't you see? God must have done it. Please put down your test tubes, stop praying and vote for George Bush."
No creationist has proposed ANY scientifically testable explanation for ANY ASPECT of the origin of ANY "single complex biochemical system." That is why scientists ignore creationists except when creationists spout off bogus and offensive religious propoganda like "evolutionary biologists ignore science."
posted on 08.30.2004 8:35 PM38
Serge referred to the following quote, and I had to commend you:
But why should we rely on these abstractions if they are "accidentally endowed" by nature? How can they be "useful and convenient" if they don't correspond with reality, with what is "out there?" Doesn’t it seem odd that believing in naturalism requires one to reject its implications when it comes to how we should live our life? I can honestly say that if theism required me to act as in an anti-theistic manner, I would have qualms about believing it was true.
Very well said, Mr. Carter!
Take care,
Steve
posted on 09.01.2004 9:55 PM