|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Natural Law
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Can we have discussion about what Natural Law is exactly? I am talking with reference to religious and moral issues and not about the legal system. All of the arguments based on Natural Law that I see coming from the Roman Catholic Church seem to be based on Thomism, Scholasticism, Aristotelianism, Platonism, etc. How can there be a knowledge of God and morality imprinted in our souls, prior to any Divine revelation through Scripture or Tradition, if we have to accept the premises of certain philosophical systems in order to defend this knowledge?
(I am no expert in philosophy or theology so please walk me through any complicated language you use in your posts.)
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigie
Apprentice
# 17364
|
Posted
Catholic Natural Law is a process of thinking beginning with Aristotle, going through Aquinas and still developing today with some Catholics suggesting Proportionalism.
The basic idea is that there is an underlining principle to life set out by God. "Do good abd avoid evil". The is worked out using five "Primary Principles" which do not change (deontological - they are good in themselves regardless of the outcome). They include preserving life, educating children, reproduction etc. and are obvious by observing human nature (hence Natural Law).
You then derive Secondary Principles from the primary ones which are slightly for flexible. For example from the Primary Principle to preserve life the Catholic Church derives a secondary principle that abortion is wrong (evil - disordered as it goes against our nature set out by God). From the Primary Principle of reproduction, the Catholic Church comes up with a secondary principle that homosexuality is wrong (un-natural, disordered).
There are some Catholics who suggest that this system of ethics is too inflexible for our modern age and suggest "Proportionalism". They argue that there is more than one human nature, and it is a lot more complicated than it was for Aquinas 800 years ago. Therefore you should follow Natural Law as a guide unless there is a proportional reason not to (i.e. the evil of breaking the law is outweighed by a bad outcome). Although this has been condemned a number of times by the Church, it seems to have crept in the side-door. There are some suggestions that the use of condoms in a marriage relationship where one of the couple has HIV is Proportionalism. (i.e. it is better to use a condom and break a seconary precept because the outcome of probable death is worse). You will of course not get the Pope to admit this as he has in the past roundly condemned Proportionalism.
Ultimately. following Natural Law (what is natural) is thought by supporters to lead to a fulfilled life, going against it will lead to a disordered life and the ultimate "telos" or end of Natural Law is to lead us to God, so you can see why the Catholic Church are so keen on it!
I have of course simplified Natural Law to get the idea across at its most basic...it is of course a lot more complicated. It takes about 8 weeks of lectures to cover it at an appropriate level when I teach my A-Level Students!
I hope this helps! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posts: 15 | From: Middle of Nowhere | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Could you explain how reproduction is a primary principle? I am not even sure what a primary principle is. I am not sure how, without reference to some form of Revelation, you can get people to agree that reproduction is a necessary element of sexuality (ok, Dead Horse issue, sorry). I am not here to argue about the morality of this act or not - I am more concerned with how you get people to agree on even the most basic principles of Catholic Natural Law when many people would not find them intuitive at all.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marama
Shipmate
# 330
|
Posted
Am I the only person who finds the Catholic Church's appeal to the pagan philosopher Aristotle well ... odd?
Posts: 910 | From: Canberra | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
I am not sure how, without reference to some form of Revelation, you can get people to agree that reproduction is a necessary element of sexuality (ok, Dead Horse issue, sorry).
Reproduction being a 'necessary element of sexuality' isn't a Dead Horse issue, unless people use it to argue Dead Horse issues such as homosexuality.
It crops up in Dead Horse threads but isn't a DH in itself.
[ 30. October 2012, 22:26: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
Observing human nature I see plenty of examples of the taking, not the preserving, of life, of deliberately failing to educate children (and indeed exploiting and abusing them), of not reproducing (RC priests, for a start), and so on.
How then can you infer that preserving life and the others therefore come from a Natural Law, that they are inherent in Nature? It seems to me that this is a circular argument, that people have decided that preserving life is a good thing (I'm not arguing it isn't by the way!) and chosen to map this onto a natural Law argument because that sounds better than 'because we think it's good/moral'.
Unless I've misunderstood the whole argument, which is certainly possible!
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
reproduction is a necessary element of sexuality
???
Isn't this backwards? I can see how sexuality is a necessary element of reproduction, but since sexuality does not reliably and consistently result in reproduction, I fail to see how the obverse (converse? No sleep.) can be true.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Ok, other people can explain this better than me, but here goes:
Natural Law is NOT about looking at the way nature works and trying to construct an explanation of life, the universe, and everything based on those observations. It is instead something that the human mind arrives at using reason and starting from certain assumptions that are (it is said) obvious to any human as long as their consciences have not been perverted by something bad. (OK, that's a biased explanation - can someone offer something better?)
Second, when I said "reproduction is a necessary element of sexuality" I meant the Roman Catholic teaching that authentic sexuality, aside from being done within the Sacrament of matrimony, must also be open to procreation, otherwise it is inauthentic, disordered, bad, etc.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
So we should have stopped having sex once my wife was through the menopause. Dang, I knew we were doing something wrong.
Seriously though, the idea that it is a natural law that sexual acts are for reproduction only is full of flaws, not least that it denies sexual relationships to those where one of the couple is impotent and to the post-menopausal.
Then there's Craigie's Secondary Principals. (Welcome to the Ship BTW Craigie.) They are too subjective, they are morals based on conscience. When sociologists can't agree on things (e.g. nature or nurture)it seems strange to dogmatic about them.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Second, when I said "reproduction is a necessary element of sexuality" I meant the Roman Catholic teaching that authentic sexuality, aside from being done within the Sacrament of matrimony, must also be open to procreation, otherwise it is inauthentic, disordered, bad, etc.
So . . . sex that doesn't result in a pregnancy is disordered?
Somehow I suspect I'm going to be sorry I asked this . . .
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Why am I, the radical liberal, explaining these things? Where are all the people who think I'm going to Hell?
Sex is open to procreation, according to humanae vitae, as long as it is between a man and a woman, no artificial birth control is used, neither partner is intentionally sterile, and it culminates in the male ejaculating inside the female's vaginal tract ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) I don't know of any prohibitions in what happens before that. So post menopausal sex is ok by that definition.
I apologize for explaining that.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Now, can we please get back to discussing how people can agree what is Natural Law and what is not if people can't even agree on the basic assumptions (ie, Primary Principles), on which Natural Law is based?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigie
Apprentice
# 17364
|
Posted
The key element here is what Aristotle called "Function Theory". What is it that aspects of human nature do well and what is it that they do excellently? (i.e. their ultimate purpose)
The ultimate purpose of our sexual organs is to reproduce, according to Aquinas. We can do other things with them but these are less noble and sometimes disordered and human diminishing. Aristotle believed the ultimate purpose of humans was to reason excellently, for Aquinas it was to live for God excellently. Aristotle believed that when we fulfilled our ultimate purpose in life we would have "eudemonia" or "human flourishing"...or contentment.
This was taken on by Aquinas to come up with the five primary principles. These would draw people closer to God and help them flourish. We can always observe humans doing the wrong things but that isn't Aquinas' point. He is looking for what we can do that is our ultimate purpose not our disordered purpose. He is truly looking for us to be excellent!
Unfortunately it can be argued that his ideas are too biological. i.e Sex is for reproduction but it can also be unitive in bringing a couple closer together and strengthening their relationship. Some argue there is more than one ultimate purpose to aspects of human nature. In fact Jack Dominion has been in trouble with the Catholic Church (and some of his books banned) because he suggests that sex is more than just physical but is also psychological, mental and spiritual as well.
--------------------
The End is Nigh.
Posts: 15 | From: Middle of Nowhere | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigie:
The key element here is what Aristotle called "Function Theory". What is it that aspects of human nature do well and what is it that they do excellently? (i.e. their ultimate purpose)
Since the universe is constantly moving and does so because of the conditions and not because of some ultimate purpose, and since we, as a living species, survive because we have adapted to change and, presumably, will continue to do so for the next for or five billion years if we're lucky, then there cannot be an 'ultimate purpose'. It's very nice to think we are special, but it is up to us to make our own purposes and carry them out in the best way we can... and this is of course what humans have done since they first evolved.
quote:
Aristotle believed the ultimate purpose of humans was to reason excellently, for Aquinas it was to live for God excellently.
Can't argue with the first part of that!
May I add a welcome - I see you are from dorset and I'm just over the border into Hampshire!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Can we have discussion about what Natural Law is exactly?
I'm certainly no philosopher, but I think I'd say that natural law is what human observers have noticed, checked, seen to be consistent and which, therefore, can be set down as a 'law'. (And yes, I do realise that's very simplistic!)
quote:
How can there be a knowledge of God and morality imprinted in our souls, ...
It would seem that altruism and other instinctive behaviours which have evolved as survival traits can be described as 'hard-wired' or similar, but all religious and other moral codes, or laws, are learnt by each generation from previous ones. In the time a child has lived before communicating in speech is more than enough for such information to be included in the brain's acquired information.
quote:
...prior to any Divine revelation through Scripture or Tradition, ...
How would you differentiate 'divine' revelation from human ideas I wonder?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I would say that there is no natural moral law, because nature doesn't deliver an ought to the human mind. Any attempt at constructing a natural moral law inevitably involves the assertion of various inherently subjective principles. From a purely natural point of view it is impossible to say, to use an earlier example, that sex should be open to procreation or not. One's point of view on this matter is merely opinion. And even if there were some observational evidence in nature that sex should be open to procreation, there is no principle in nature that commands us to follow that observation!
However, our human experience informs us that morality is essential to life. The vast majority of people seem generally to agree that certain behaviour is wrong, such as the taking of innocent life (abortion excluded), theft, corruption, disrespect for others and so on. Most issues in the news are moral issues. Political discourse is driven by morality. Daily life is informed by it - or perhaps at time haunted by it. We cannot escape this reality, which cannot be explained within a purely naturalistic paradigm. (Of course, a philosophical naturalist may assert that 'morality' per se can arise naturally, but that is a vacuous idea. Morality has to have a specific content in order to have any meaning and functionality. If we all decided on our own version of morality, then there would be no morality at all, because that is what immorality is: everyone doing their own thing without any regard for anyone else. A specific and objectively valid morality cannot be discovered in nature. If it can, then could someone be so kind as to show it to me!)
Given that this moral sense doesn't fit into a naturalistic scheme - despite the speculation of those who assume the role of explaining to us how primitive man apparently lived (all without any direct evidence) - then we have to look elsewhere for an explanation.
The alternative to natural reason is revelation. We then need to ask what this revelation is, and on what basis we can believe it and then interpret it correctly.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigie:
Jack Dominion has been in trouble with the Catholic Church (and some of his books banned) because he suggests that sex is more than just physical but is also psychological, mental and spiritual as well.
Is that really the view of the Catholic Church? Have they ever even spoken to a happily married person? If this is their view on something which seems completely unquestionable to such a large part of humanity why should I have any confidence in their pronouncements on more contentious topics?
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The alternative to natural reason is revelation. We then need to ask what this revelation is, and on what basis we can believe it and then interpret it correctly.
Unfortunately, arguing from natural reason is something we can all do, discuss, revise, compromise about and so on. If the only alternative is revelation, all I can say is I haven't had one and until you can convince me you have had one we're stuck.
Lots of people claim to have had revelations and they don't always agree on what is right and what isn't. So how do I decide who to follow? How do I even decide if someone who claims a revelation has really had one and one that was inspired by God and not Satan.
If natural reason convinced me you were right, I would, of course, still have no sound reason to believe you (according to you).
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je
Unfortunately, arguing from natural reason is something we can all do, discuss, revise, compromise about and so on. If the only alternative is revelation, all I can say is I haven't had one and until you can convince me you have had one we're stuck.
It depends how we define our terms. By "natural reason" I mean "information gleaned from nature by observation" or empirical information. Of course, reason itself is not empirical, nor is it derived from nature, as it happens, because if it were it would have no more epistemic validity than the colour of one's skin, for example. Nature just is. There is nothing moral about it. So it follows that anyone who claims to have a moral code must have derived that information from somewhere. Given that moral information cannot come from nature, because there is no ought in nature (if there is, then show me it), then it must come by some other means, and I use the word "revelation" to refer to that.
In fact, even science itself is based on a 'revelation' - in fact, quite a number of 'revelations' in which we should put our faith: the uniformity of nature being one of them; the validity of the empirical scientific method being another. Anything not derived from nature in which we put our faith, is a kind of 'revelation'.
So you have had a revelation, my friend.
Our moral sense is a revelation, and we assume it to be valid. In other words, we put our faith in this revelation. Do you accept this, or not?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In fact, even science itself is based on a 'revelation' - in fact, quite a number of 'revelations' in which we should put our faith: the uniformity of nature being one of them; the validity of the empirical scientific method being another.
I would argue that those are the result of a lot of long-term, painstaking observations rather than articles of faith. Contrary to your assertions, science is valid because we can see it work. It doesn't work simply because we believe in it.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There is nothing moral about it. So it follows that anyone who claims to have a moral code must have derived that information from somewhere. Given that moral information cannot come from nature, because there is no ought in nature (if there is, then show me it), then it must come by some other means, and I use the word "revelation" to refer to that.
This isn't the normal usage of 'revelation'. Perhaps 'intuition' would serve equally well - not least as it is already an established usage to talk of 'moral intuition' in philosophy.
I'm aware that as I grew up I was told that X was the 'right thing' to do, or 'Good boys do Y' or 'You ought not do Z'. Some of these admonitions - or at least their generalisations - are now deeply embedded in my psyche. Rather as when I first learned to drive, turning right involved following a series of rules more or less consciously but after driving for many years I just do them because that's what turning right has become.
My guess would be that most ethics evolved in this way - as a way of managing social relationships (particularly how the young are socialised). As you say, I have no direct experience of how such ideas evolved - though looking at how morality, awareness of others and sociability develop in children we may see some hints.
quote:
Our moral sense is a revelation, and we assume it to be valid. In other words, we put our faith in this revelation. Do you accept this, or not?
I sometimes have 'revelations' (in the sense that you seem to use the word) which, with a little thought are obviously nonsense. Wherever I put my faith I do it with the assumption that it may be wrong and it should be regularly checked reason and experience and revised as necessary. As Keynes said "when the evidence changes I change my beliefs - what do you do?"
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Aristotle believed that when we fulfilled our ultimate purpose in life we would have "eudemonia" or "human flourishing"...or contentment.
And of course, given the time and place, nobody gave much thought to women 'flourishing', they were just meant to get on with wearing themselves out and dying in childbirth and limiting themselves to that sphere (unless in the days of Aquinas they were nuns). And since we're talking about ideas developed in antiquity and the middle ages, nobody imagined reliable contraception or imagined that women might want to do anything else with their lives but constantly birth babies or be abstinent the better to praise God. As for those wicked women who find their purpose in life is not to have babies, no marriage and no sexual relationships for you!
At least if a woman takes up 'natural law' attitudes she has to inflict on herself the potentially ugly consequences for women (though modern medicine and social support and the laws fought for by women who didn't buy their 'natural' status ameliorate that a lot in modern societies). Men who buy into this however, are aligning themselves with a doctrinal system which historically has had bad and limiting consequences for women.
If only this was just a fascinating curiosity for historians to boggle at and dissect.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
I know this is a tired old Jesuit saw, but on a SoF thread titled simply, Natural Law, it seems a shame not to drag it out again.
quote:
Moral Theology Final Exam
Natural Law: Neither natural nor Law.
Discuss.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I would say that there is no natural moral law, because nature doesn't deliver an ought to the human mind.
*snip*
We cannot escape this reality, which cannot be explained within a purely naturalistic paradigm.
Very interesting ... and I find myself agreeing with your words until that last part, ![[Smile]](smile.gif) since there isn't anything outside of natural.
quote:
(Of course, a philosophical naturalist may assert that 'morality' per se can arise naturally, but that is a vacuous idea.
It's a logical idea I think though.
quote:
Morality has to have a specific content in order to have any meaning and functionality. If we all decided on our own version of morality, then there would be no morality at all, because that is what immorality is: everyone doing their own thing without any regard for anyone else.
If ways of behaviour hadnot evolved to enable survival, then our species would probably have become extinct already.
quote:
A specific and objectively valid morality cannot be discovered in nature. If it can, then could someone be so kind as to show it to me!)
I agree that it's not there, like a fossil embedded in a stratum until someone finds it, it's survival behaviours which our species put into words and taught to succeeding generations.
quote:
Given that this moral sense doesn't fit into a naturalistic scheme - despite the speculation of those who assume the role of explaining to us how primitive man apparently lived (all without any direct evidence) - then we have to look elsewhere for an explanation.
Ah, something I can more directly disagree with!! Why do you think it doesn't 'fit into a naturalistic scheme'?'
quote:
The alternative to natural reason is revelation. We then need to ask what this revelation is, and on what basis we can believe it and then interpret it correctly.
Any 'revelation' from a non-human or non-natural source brings with it so many levels of unnecessary assumptions though, doesn't it?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There is nothing moral about it. So it follows that anyone who claims to have a moral code must have derived that information from somewhere. Given that moral information cannot come from nature, because there is no ought in nature (if there is, then show me it), then it must come by some other means, and I use the word "revelation" to refer to that.
This isn't the normal usage of 'revelation'. Perhaps 'intuition' would serve equally well - not least as it is already an established usage to talk of 'moral intuition' in philosophy.
I'm aware that as I grew up I was told that X was the 'right thing' to do, or 'Good boys do Y' or 'You ought not do Z'. Some of these admonitions - or at least their generalisations - are now deeply embedded in my psyche. Rather as when I first learned to drive, turning right involved following a series of rules more or less consciously but after driving for many years I just do them because that's what turning right has become.
The word 'revelation' has two meanings:
1. The disclosing of something previously unknown (the general meaning).
2. The communication of information from a supernatural source (a specific instance of the general meaning).
I used the word 'revelation' quite deliberately, even though I acknowledge that the knowing of innate (and therefore non-empirical) ideas is not necessarily regarded as the result of 'revelation'. However, strictly speaking it is, because implicit in the concept of the 'revelation' of information is the idea that that information could not have been discovered by natural human effort alone. Therefore the ideas must have been given rather than discovered. In that sense, the information is 'revealed'.
Furthermore, 'revelation' is information in which we have to put our faith. Much of it is the kind of information without which knowledge itself becomes impossible. Therefore we cannot 'prove' it, because how can one prove something on which the very idea of proof depends? You have to assume it to be true in order to prove it to be true, and you can never disprove it. The assumption of the uniformity of nature is one such 'given'.
Our moral sense is another 'given'. We cannot discover it with the tools of the empirical scientific method, so therefore the source of this information cannot be nature. Of course, we can just assume that nature has somehow provided us with this moral sense, but this is a position of faith. Coming up with an explanation as to how morality could conceivably have evolved is simply that: an explanation. It's speculation, for which we have no direct evidence at all. Believing speculation to be true requires faith - especially the kind of 'faith' defined by many atheists: believing something to be true in the absence of evidence. So it's a dogmatic position, which appears to be evident in what you say here:
quote:
My guess would be that most ethics evolved in this way - as a way of managing social relationships (particularly how the young are socialised). As you say, I have no direct experience of how such ideas evolved - though looking at how morality, awareness of others and sociability develop in children we may see some hints.
I appreciate your honesty in that you acknowledge that you are guessing. I hold to a rather different explanation, and if this is also guesswork, it is no less valid than your viewpoint.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I would say that there is no natural moral law, because nature doesn't deliver an ought to the human mind.
*snip*
We cannot escape this reality, which cannot be explained within a purely naturalistic paradigm.
Very interesting ... and I find myself agreeing with your words until that last part, since there isn't anything outside of natural.
Your claim that "there isn't anything outside of natural" is an assertion, not an argument. With what justification do you make that assertion?
quote:
SusanDoris again...
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Given that this moral sense doesn't fit into a naturalistic scheme - despite the speculation of those who assume the role of explaining to us how primitive man apparently lived (all without any direct evidence) - then we have to look elsewhere for an explanation.
Ah, something I can more directly disagree with!! Why do you think it doesn't 'fit into a naturalistic scheme'?'
Morality is a form of reason - in fact, it is often referred to as 'practical reason'. Reason can only function if it has objective validity - in other words, it has some kind of authority that enables us to connect meaningfully with external reality, and it cannot be the result of a deterministic process. If it were the result of such a process, then any idea becomes rational, because that is what nature has produced (and who are we to say that nature is 'wrong'?!). If we then say that "certain ideas are right and others wrong", then we are standing back from the output of nature and making a choice on the basis of some external criteria. By doing this we are tacitly acknowledging that there exists something other than nature - namely these criteria - by which nature is being judged. We are also making a rational choice as to the value of different ideas, which is an activity contrary to the deterministic process of material reactions.
By the way, this is why naturalistic epistemology is so incoherent. The putative natural evolutionary process is said to have produced all ideas, and therefore that would include the "idea of God". Therefore the "idea of God" has performed a utilitarian function for a great many people. If an entirely material process could produce ideas (a theory I find utterly absurd, since matter does not contain mind) then it could only produce ideas for entirely utilitarian reasons - i.e. for the purpose of survival. That, after all, is how natural selection works. So the only basis by which an idea could be validated is by pragmatic means: does it work? That is actually the method championed by science! Now clearly the "idea of God" has worked for billions of people (otherwise, according to this theory, it would not have emerged), so therefore, according to the pragmatic method of verification, it is 'true', because 'truth' can only be defined according to "what works". But then the philosophy of naturalism turns round and tells us that this idea is not true, even though its only method of verification is pragmatic, which affirms the validity of the idea of God. This is a clear contradiction at the heart of naturalism, and shows us that the epistemology of this philosophy is incoherent.
The same goes for morality. Any moral idea that 'works' is valid, according to naturalistic epistemology. But then what does 'work' mean, in this context? Lies, theft and murder 'work' for some people in some contexts. Are these practices to be regarded as valid?
quote:
Any 'revelation' from a non-human or non-natural source brings with it so many levels of unnecessary assumptions though, doesn't it?
See my points above to 'que sais-je' regarding 'revelation'. There are ideas we hold which we have not discovered by science - ideas without which knowledge itself becomes impossible. I would not be inclined to argue that these necessary ideas constitute or include 'unnecessary assumptions'. Nothing could be further from the truth!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If we then say that "certain ideas are right and others wrong", then we are standing back from the output of nature and making a choice on the basis of some external criteria. By doing this we are tacitly acknowledging that there exists something other than nature - namely these criteria - by which nature is being judged. We are also making a rational choice as to the value of different ideas, which is an activity contrary to the deterministic process of material reactions.
This seems to be the opposite of reality. You're arguing that the only way to decide between the validity of one idea (say, Newtonian gravitation) and another contradictory one (Descartes' vortices) is by not seeing which one better fits nature, but by some other incredibly vaguely defined "criteria".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
First, to all readers, an apology, I though the Natural Law discussion was interesting and I'm sorry we've gone off at at a tangent. It is a silly game some of us play and very childish it seems to me. I find myself doing it without realising. The definition of a bore perhaps.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I appreciate your honesty in that you acknowledge that you are guessing. I hold to a rather different explanation, and if this is also guesswork, it is no less valid than your viewpoint.
OK, no less valid. I only suggested some hints which might lead to a naturalistic explanation one day.
You've received a private message from an omniscient, omnipotent being who obviously could stand in for our unconscious brain, our moral training indeed anything. Presumably he could have fitted us with a brain capable of making moral judgments which didn't require his intervention but he didn't. Well if you're infinite you can do that, or pretend to, or whatever. I can't argue with that.
Epoché as the Greeks probably still say.
[ETA Translation link "Epoché" - DT, Purgatory Host]
[ 03. November 2012, 17:50: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems to be the opposite of reality. You're arguing that the only way to decide between the validity of one idea (say, Newtonian gravitation) and another contradictory one (Descartes' vortices) is by not seeing which one better fits nature, but by some other incredibly vaguely defined "criteria".
It depends on what you mean by 'fits nature', doesn't it?
An organism fits nature just in case the organism reproduces itself. Human beings might describe some organisms as higher or more advanced, but those descriptions have no relevance to the organism. A comb sponge fits nature just as well as a chimpanzee - arguably better.
In the same way, we could say that ideas fit nature if they reproduce themselves. Human descriptions such as 'true' or 'scientific' have no relevance to whether the idea fits nature. At the moment, there are more creationists than particle physicists so creationism fits nature better in that sense.
Or we could mean 'fits nature' in some sense that makes use of normative and evaluative descriptions such as 'true' or 'reasonable'. The problem is that if you try to think through what 'true' really amounts to, you rapidly become "incredibly vaguely defined". Definitions of true are all circular. And furthermore, any such definition of 'fits nature' is not at present compatible with the physical sciences. This is because concepts of truth require intentionality i.e. aboutness. And intentionality forms no part of the current conceptual repertoire of the physical sciences, and it's not clear how it ever could. (Attempts to explain it in terms of causality end up talking about non-deviant causality, which basically smuggles normative conceptions back in again.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If we then say that "certain ideas are right and others wrong", then we are standing back from the output of nature and making a choice on the basis of some external criteria. By doing this we are tacitly acknowledging that there exists something other than nature - namely these criteria - by which nature is being judged. We are also making a rational choice as to the value of different ideas, which is an activity contrary to the deterministic process of material reactions.
This seems to be the opposite of reality. You're arguing that the only way to decide between the validity of one idea (say, Newtonian gravitation) and another contradictory one (Descartes' vortices) is by not seeing which one better fits nature, but by some other incredibly vaguely defined "criteria".
Except that I was not presenting any such argument at all! Nowhere did I say, or even imply, that, when dealing with ideas directly related to the functioning of nature (a limited range of ideas, by the way) we should not see which one better fits nature.
I was talking about the criterion - or standard - by which we judge the truth or falsehood of ideas. The act of comparing an idea with nature is not dependent simply on nature as the criterion, but rather the method of empirical testing is the criterion. In other words, the criterion is made up of a series of empirically unprovable ideas which we then apply to nature. These ideas include the uniformity of nature, the reality of the external world, the objective validity of logic, the consistency and universality of cause and effect. So when testing something empirically we are interacting with nature by means of a series of ideas and the method of logic independent of nature itself.
The claim that all ideas simply derive from the workings of nature, and that this source of ideas is also the judge of those ideas, by which some are affirmed and others condemned, is patently absurd. This would mean that nature is condemning itself, since it is the source of false ideas. It's a bit like asking a criminal to be both the defendant and the judge (and also the jury) in his own trial! Utter lunacy.
There has to be a rationality independent of nature, by which nature can be evaluated. This viewpoint is what is consistent with reality, whereas your circular naturalistic version certainly is not.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Small correction to my last post:
I claimed that the consistency of cause and effect cannot be empirically proven. I think that is not quite right. Clearly we can satisfy ourselves that cause and effect is consistent through observation, but we cannot prove that cause and effect is universally consistent.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If we then say that "certain ideas are right and others wrong", then we are standing back from the output of nature and making a choice on the basis of some external criteria. By doing this we are tacitly acknowledging that there exists something other than nature - namely these criteria - by which nature is being judged. We are also making a rational choice as to the value of different ideas, which is an activity contrary to the deterministic process of material reactions.
This seems to be the opposite of reality. You're arguing that the only way to decide between the validity of one idea (say, Newtonian gravitation) and another contradictory one (Descartes' vortices) is by not seeing which one better fits nature, but by some other incredibly vaguely defined "criteria".
Except that I was not presenting any such argument at all! Nowhere did I say, or even imply, that, when dealing with ideas directly related to the functioning of nature (a limited range of ideas, by the way) we should not see which one better fits nature.
I was talking about the criterion - or standard - by which we judge the truth or falsehood of ideas.
See, now I'm confused. I thought "ideas directly related to the functioning of nature" were ideas. The name certainly implies it. At any rate if "ideas directly related to the functioning of nature" are ideas, then you're arguing that we can't judge whether they're right or wrong by examining nature. If "ideas directly related to the functioning of nature" aren't ideas, then they're very badly misnamed.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The act of comparing an idea with nature is not dependent simply on nature as the criterion, but rather the method of empirical testing is the criterion. In other words, the criterion is made up of a series of empirically unprovable ideas which we then apply to nature. These ideas include the uniformity of nature, the reality of the external world, the objective validity of logic, the consistency and universality of cause and effect.
I disagree that things like "the uniformity of nature" are simply assumed. I'd argue that it's a conclusion reached after a lot of painstaking observation of what you refer to as "nature". To go back to the example I orignally cited, Isaac Newton didn't convince people that the same law of gravitation explained the motion of both terrestrial and celestial bodies (to borrow two terms from the Aristotelian physics Newton was so busily demolishing) because he was such a convincing orator and all around swell guy, or because people just wanted to disbelieve Aristotle about the non-uniformity of nature (e.g. terrestial and celestial objects work according to different rules). No, Newton demonstrated the validity of his idea through a series of observations and predictions.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
I hope that my probable misunderstanding of parts of your words, EE, do not make my responses too far off the point.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I used the word 'revelation' quite deliberately, even though I acknowledge that the knowing of innate (and therefore non-empirical) ideas is not necessarily regarded as the result of 'revelation'. However, strictly speaking it is, because implicit in the concept of the 'revelation' of information is the idea that that information could not have been discovered by natural human effort alone.
Why not? And if the word revelation implies that humans could not have discovered things themselves, then I would say that the word revelation is the wrong one to choose!
quote:
Therefore the ideas must have been given rather than discovered. In that sense, the information is 'revealed'.
For that you need faith without evidence, as you go on to say here.
quote:
Furthermore, 'revelation' is information in which we have to put our faith.
That is a choice that all are free to make of course, but I certainly prefer to have faith in things which have independent evidence behind them.
quote:
Our moral sense is another 'given'.
If it was a 'given', which I don't agree with I think, then why do morals change and adapt with changing circumstances?
quote:
Your claim that "there isn't anything outside of natural" is an assertion, not an argument. With what justification do you make that assertion?
That is the point of view which wants a proof of a negative, instead of providing proof of the positive, I think.
quote:
If it were the result of such a process, then any idea becomes rational, because that is what nature has produced ...
No, that does not make any idea rational. The natural process of evolution has resulted in our having the brains which can think up an infinite number of ideas, but rationality enables us to decide which are fact and which are fiction and which are 'right' and 'wrong'.
quote:
(and who are we to say that nature is 'wrong'?!). If we then say that "certain ideas are right and others wrong",...
Or perhaps which are more advantageous to human life and which are not.
quote:
... then we are standing back from the output of nature ...
What do you mean by the 'output of nature'?
quote:
The putative natural evolutionary process is said to have produced all ideas, ...
Not produced the ideas, but has resulted in our having the means to have the ideas.
quote:
...and therefore that would include the "idea of God". Therefore the "idea of God" has performed a utilitarian function for a great many people.
Okay, agree that we have produced the idea of God, but that doesn't mean it is a fact. And yes it has performed a utilitarian function, but is no longer necessary for an increasing number of people who see that there are more reliable facts to take the place of the need for a god..
quote:
So the only basis by which an idea could be validated is by pragmatic means: does it work?
No, because we also have an aesthetic, spiritual (in a non-religious sense) aspect of our characters; although this can be counted as being useful of course.
quote:
That is actually the method championed by science! Now clearly the "idea of God" has worked for billions of people (otherwise, according to this theory, it would not have emerged), so therefore, according to the pragmatic method of verification, it is 'true', because 'truth' can only be defined according to "what works". But then the philosophy of naturalism turns round and tells us that this idea is not true, even though its only method of verification is pragmatic, which affirms the validity of the idea of God. This is a clear contradiction at the heart of naturalism, and shows us that the epistemology of this philosophy is incoherent.
I have listened to that paragraph several times, but it sounds very convoluted. Any chance of summarising in a sentence or two please?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
See, now I'm confused. I thought "ideas directly related to the functioning of nature" were ideas. The name certainly implies it. At any rate if "ideas directly related to the functioning of nature" are ideas, then you're arguing that we can't judge whether they're right or wrong by examining nature. If "ideas directly related to the functioning of nature" aren't ideas, then they're very badly misnamed.
Of course they are ideas! I never said they were not.
And to repeat myself, I did not say that "we can't judge whether they're right or wrong by examining nature".
Please show me where I wrote that.
The point I was making is that the method by which we judge whether such an idea is true is not simply by "nature", but by applying a rational method to nature, and this method includes a set of empirically unprovable ideas along with logic, which is also non-empirical. "Nature" by itself is mindless. It cannot judge anything to be true or false, because it just IS. We appeal to a set of ideas, by means of logic, applied to nature, to discern the truth or falsehood of ideas related to the functioning of nature.
Now clearly the only part of this method which is "of nature" is the physical reality to which we apply this method. But the method itself is not derived from nature. And this goes back to the point I was making: if nature is the source of all human ideation, then it is in no position to judge whether an idea is true or false, because the judge of all ideas is also the source of those ideas, and therefore it is the source of those ideas it judges to be false. Which is clearly absurd. Human ideation cannot derive simply from the workings of nature, but from a rationality independent of nature - but interacting with nature (a point you seem to have missed) - by which we judge the truth or falsehood of ideas.
quote:
I disagree that things like "the uniformity of nature" are simply assumed. I'd argue that it's a conclusion reached after a lot of painstaking observation of what you refer to as "nature".
That is nonsensical. The only way we can empirically discover that nature is uniform is by knowing absolutely everything. We have no way of knowing for certain if the laws that operate in our part of the universe also operate in the same way ten billion light years away. We assume it to be the case. But we certainly cannot know for sure. Science uses the method of induction, and I assume you know what that means?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
See, now I'm confused. I thought "ideas directly related to the functioning of nature" were ideas. The name certainly implies it. At any rate if "ideas directly related to the functioning of nature" are ideas, then you're arguing that we can't judge whether they're right or wrong by examining nature. If "ideas directly related to the functioning of nature" aren't ideas, then they're very badly misnamed.
Of course they are ideas! I never said they were not.
And to repeat myself, I did not say that "we can't judge whether they're right or wrong by examining nature".
Please show me where I wrote that.
Since I did that in my first post I'm not sure why posting it again is going to make a difference, but there you go.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
I disagree that things like "the uniformity of nature" are simply assumed. I'd argue that it's a conclusion reached after a lot of painstaking observation of what you refer to as "nature".
That is nonsensical. The only way we can empirically discover that nature is uniform is by knowing absolutely everything. We have no way of knowing for certain if the laws that operate in our part of the universe also operate in the same way ten billion light years away.
We assume it to be the case. But we certainly cannot know for sure. Science uses the method of induction, and I assume you know what that means?
Insisting on the proof of negatives seems to your one trick pony. So yes, I supposed that you could argue that just because we can observe objects more than ten billion light years away behaving according to the same laws we see operating everywhere else doesn't mean that part of the Universe is still behaving the same way now as when that light left thirteen billion years ago. Of course, this maximalist approach to proof required seems both pretty useless and functionally indistinguishable from saying "we can't judge whether something's right or wrong by examining nature". But you claim that's not what you're saying, so . . . ?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris
quote:
That is actually the method championed by science! Now clearly the "idea of God" has worked for billions of people (otherwise, according to this theory, it would not have emerged), so therefore, according to the pragmatic method of verification, it is 'true', because 'truth' can only be defined according to "what works". But then the philosophy of naturalism turns round and tells us that this idea is not true, even though its only method of verification is pragmatic, which affirms the validity of the idea of God. This is a clear contradiction at the heart of naturalism, and shows us that the epistemology of this philosophy is incoherent.
I have listened to that paragraph several times, but it sounds very convoluted. Any chance of summarising in a sentence or two please?
Not sure about "a sentence or two", but I will explain what I meant.
According to the philosophy of naturalism, everything pertaining to human life is the result of the workings of natural laws alone. Such laws operate on matter and energy to form human organisms and this, of course, includes the human brain. This organ in turn somehow generates all ideas. I find this theory utterly bizarre, and totally counter-intuitive. I cannot see how the mere configuring of atoms and molecules can produce mind, but anyway this is what many people believe. Clearly there needs to be a method by which matter can achieve this incredible (and, in my view, impossible) feat, and this method is, of course, known as natural selection.
Now it's no good pretending that natural selection is only relevant when it concerns the formation of a human being's physical anatomy, and is not the method used to generate human intelligence and ideation. That would be a case of naturalists trying to have their cake and eat it. It's dishonest. If naturalists are claiming that this is the method by which living organisms have come into being, then they have to follow that idea through to its logical conclusion, without trying to steal concepts (such as an objectively valid rationality) from a non-naturalistic worldview.
The mechanism of natural selection is unashamedly utilitarian. The various aspects of life develop according to their usefulness under the purpose of survival. Does this organ work according to this agenda? Is this limb useful and viable to help this organism survive? Those elements of life which are most useful will survive and those less useful will die out. Now why should it be any different concerning the content of human brains? Why should ideas not emerge, persist or die out according to the same mechanism? There is no logical reason why this should not be the case.
So somehow human beings have naturally evolved, according to the theory we are all supposed to believe (or else!), and ideas have somehow been generated in the human brain. At some point "the idea of God" emerged, and it survived and survived and survived. For generations this idea not only persisted but thrived. When we get into recorded human history, we discover that this idea dominated human thinking for thousands of years. Now obviously (according to the theory of naturalistic evolution) this idea thrived because it was incredibly useful. This usefulness tells us nothing about the truth or falsehood of the idea, because truth and falsehood are of no relevance to natural selection. Only what is useful survives.
Not only was the "idea of God" useful, but all ideas which survived were useful. We come to the present day and we see the popularity of atheism, although this idea has also been around for a long time. Thus the "idea of atheism" has also been useful. The "idea of philosophical naturalism" is also useful, because that survives.
If the philosophy of naturalism is true, then all these ideas exist and persist for no other reason than that they are useful. Their usefulness is the only thing a logically consistent naturalist can say about them. Truth and falsehood are irrelevant, because ideas do not survive because they are objectively true (whatever that means), but because they are useful.
But this is, of course, nonsensical. How can the concept of 'truth' exist within a philosophy in which ideas only have validity if they are useful? If both the "idea of God" and the "idea of atheism" are useful - and therefore valid - how can they both be true? This is the fundamental incoherence of naturalism, as far as epistemology is concerned.
But we do not judge ideas simply according to their usefulness. That is because philosophical naturalism is not true! If it were true, then we would have no basis for believing in truth, or rather we would judge an idea to be true simply on the basis that it was useful. Such a method of thinking is inconceivable. The way we normally think constitutes clear evidence that naturalism is not true, because its method of generating ideas does not correspond to reality.
I hope this explains my view a bit better.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I'll just clarify a sentence in my last post:
quote:
If both the "idea of God" and the "idea of atheism" are useful - and therefore valid - how can they both be true?
I would like to expand this sentence:
quote:
If both the "idea of God" and the "idea of atheism" are useful - and therefore valid - how can they both be true, given that the only means by which any idea can be judged to be 'true', according to the philosophy of naturalism, is if it works, that is, if it is useful?
[ 01. November 2012, 22:05: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Since I did that in my first post I'm not sure why posting it again is going to make a difference, but there you go.
OK, I'll concede that nature may be part of the means by which we judge certain ideas to be true or false, but certain elements of this method have to be independent of nature, as I have explained. So essentially my point stands. Some reality has to exist independently of nature in order for critical thinking to be possible.
Perhaps you would like to explain how it is possible for the source of all ideas to be the judge of those ideas. How can nature deterministically generate an idea, and then condemn it as 'false', without also condemning itself?
The only reality that can judge ideas is a perfect and unchanging rationality, which can condemn false ideas that are generated by intelligent beings possessing the freedom to corrupt and distort concepts. This is consistent with the theistic worldview, which fits reality perfectly. The deterministic worldview of inherently mindless naturalism bears no relation whatsoever to the reality of human cognition and ideation.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Not sure about "a sentence or two", but I will explain what I meant.
According to the philosophy of naturalism, everything pertaining to human life is the result of the workings of natural laws alone.
And until a better explanation comes up, that sounds sound and sensible to me.
quote:
Such laws operate on matter and energy to form human organisms and this, of course, includes the human brain. This organ in turn somehow generates all ideas. I find this theory utterly bizarre, and totally counter-intuitive.
Just because it is difficult to find these ideas not bizarre or counter-intuitive does not make them wrong, especially as testing confirms this.
quote:
I cannot see how the mere configuring of atoms and molecules can produce mind, but anyway this is what many people believe. Clearly there needs to be a method by which matter can achieve this incredible (and, in my view, impossible) feat, and this method is, of course, known as natural selection.
However, the more this apparent impossibility is investigated, the more it is found to work. The very fact that it happened - and had millions of years in which to happen - shows that it is possible.
quote:
Now it's no good pretending that natural selection is only relevant when it concerns the formation of a human being's physical anatomy, and is not the method used to generate human intelligence and ideation. That would be a case of naturalists trying to have their cake and eat it. It's dishonest. If naturalists are claiming that this is the method by which living organisms have come into being, then they have to follow that idea through to its logical conclusion, without trying to steal concepts (such as an objectively valid rationality) from a non-naturalistic worldview.
But this is not done is it? It is known that a rational explanation of something will have to change if further evidence is found and that there is, for instance, no objective morality.
quote:
The mechanism of natural selection is unashamedly utilitarian. The various aspects of life develop according to their usefulness under the purpose of survival. Does this organ work according to this agenda? Is this limb useful and viable to help this organism survive? Those elements of life which are most useful will survive and those less useful will die out.
But none ever has a prior purpose; they happen by chance mutation etc. Can you think of one thing throughout the millions of years of evolution which developed with a purpose?
quote:
Now why should it be any different concerning the content of human brains?
The content of human (and other animal) brains is material; the process of evolution has resulted in humans having a brain which can imagine.
quote:
Why should ideas not emerge, persist or die out according to the same mechanism? There is no logical reason why this should not be the case.
Yes, there is! It's the brain that produces the ideas, they don't float in from somewhere else. Information comes in via the senses and is stored, re-arranged, put together in different forms and so on. The difference is that we are in control of ideas and can decide whether they are useful or not.
quote:
So somehow human beings have naturally evolved, according to the theory we are all supposed to believe (or else!), and ideas have somehow been generated in the human brain.
Exactly so.
quote:
At some point "the idea of God" emerged, ...
It is fairly easy, with long hind sight, to see that natural events would cause fear and wonder and an assumption would be made that there must be something with a thinking mind behind it.
quote:
... and it survived and survived and survived. For generations this idea not only persisted but thrived.
Especially when a person or group of people assured others that they would make sure everything was in harmony with the feared entities and they wouldn't have to worry about them. From then on, I suppose, politics took over!
quote:
When we get into recorded human history, we discover that this idea dominated human thinking for thousands of years. Now obviously (according to the theory of naturalistic evolution) this idea thrived because it was incredibly useful. This usefulness tells us nothing about the truth or falsehood of the idea, because truth and falsehood are of no relevance to natural selection. Only what is useful survives.
But that is a very weak argument for the continuing belief in a God though.
quote:
Not only was the "idea of God" useful, but all ideas which survived were useful. We come to the present day and we see the popularity of atheism, although this idea has also been around for a long time.
Ah, yes, and as I am wont to say, I'd love to know what the very early atheists thought but hadn't the evidence to prove their conviction that there were certainly not minds behind natural events.
quote:
Thus the "idea of atheism" has also been useful. The "idea of philosophical naturalism" is also useful, because that survives.
Hmmm, that needs a bit of thinking about - I can't think of a good answer just at the moment but I'm pretty sure I don't agree!
quote:
If the philosophy of naturalism is true, then all these ideas exist and persist for no other reason than that they are useful.
They are there in people's minds, are passed on to and discussed with others, adapted to circumstances, although religious ones do lag well behind it seems, and persist because people insist that they should; they can be stored in words in many different ways, but they are still human ideas, not ones which arrived from an invisible, supernatural source.
quote:
If both the "idea of God" and the "idea of atheism" are useful - and therefore valid - how can they both be true? This is the fundamental incoherence of naturalism, as far as epistemology is concerned.
Well, I'm afraid that's tying yourself and me up in knots since atheism is simply a lack of belief in any gods at all. I don't think it's just an 'idea', in the way you are describing.
quote:
I hope this explains my view a bit better.
I'm not sure, but thank you!
[ 02. November 2012, 08:50: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
Susan Doris wrote quote:
Since the universe is constantly moving and does so because of the conditions and not because of some ultimate purpose, and since we, as a living species, survive because we have adapted to change and, presumably, will continue to do so for the next for or five billion years if we're lucky, then there cannot be an 'ultimate purpose'. It's very nice to think we are special, but it is up to us to make our own purposes and carry them out in the best way we can... and this is of course what humans have done since they first evolved.
The conditions which cause the universe to "move" the way it does are there because they have been designed. The way the universe, from the very microsecond of its inception has been fine tuned to be life-permitting is literally incredible. We have come to the conclusion that we are special by observation and reflection. And we've also considered the alternative. If there is no ultimate purpose to our existence, then ultimate,y our existence is meaningless. However long humanity survives it will eventually be extinguished with no one to remember it or observe its achievements. If that's just the way things are, why would we want them to be any different? But the fact is we recognise that there is a greater reality than that which is accessible to our five senses, and that that universe has a purpose to which to contribute.
[ 02. November 2012, 09:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@SusanDoris
Atheism and Theism are ideas, but IMO they are both "big picture" ideas. World views. Meta-narratives, to quote the term used by postmodernists.
In "The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge" the postmodernist Lyotard summarises his sceptism about metanarratives (and their reliance on some form of transcendent and universal truth) as follows:
"Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives"
I'm not sure if, like me, you really see atheism as a "big picture" idea, a world view, a meta-narrative which colours the way you look at everything else. Or is it for you simply a specific critical rejection of the specific "big picture" idea of Theism?
If it's the second, do you actually have a "big picture" view? Or, like the postmodernists, are you sceptical of all "big picture" ideas?
Hope that is sufficiently clear. These issues are not always easy to discuss.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
The way the universe, from the very microsecond of its inception has been fine tuned to be life-permitting is literally incredible.
The pedant in me says that if something is "literally incredible" it really, really can't be believed. So I don't!
quote:
We have come to the conclusion that we are special by observation and reflection.
Unfortunately, having only one universe to observe, our reflections may be a bit parochial. If only one person were to survive an explosion they might ask 'Why me?' and answer that it must be because they were special. And in some sense that's obviously true - where they were standing when the blast went off, how the explosive was set, how much there was and so on will decide who survives. And a lump of concrete may fall on their head a second later and they won't survive.
Whatever happens, it would be hard to successfully claim that the explosion was designed to save them while killing everyone else. Especially if the bombers motives were unknown.
quote:
And we've also considered the alternative. If there is no ultimate purpose to our existence, then ultimate,y our existence is meaningless.
Does Ship of Fools have an ultimate purpose meaning? (A bad example as it probably does). I read a book and find meaning and purpose in it - it doesn't have to be infinitely long or eternal to be worthwhile. I don't say "This book is ultimately meaningless because one day the last copy will have vanished so I won't read it". Though in the case of "50 Shades of Grey", I do.
quote:
However long humanity survives it will eventually be extinguished with no one to remember it or observe its achievements. If that's just the way things are, why would we want them to be any different?
I assume 'them' in the last sentence refers to humanity's achievements. Personally it doesn't matter to me. But achievements now have an effect now. If I teach someone the skills to get a job they want, I've done my bit. I've never felt inclined to say "In the long run we'll all be dead so I won't bother." Which may just be protective psychology. But though I enjoy my life I've no desire for it to go on for ever - "And if thou wilt, remember,/ And if thou wilt, forget" my wife and I witter to each other whenever we have to attend a funeral (and they're getting more frequent).
quote:
But the fact is we recognise that there is a greater reality than that which is accessible to our five senses, and that that universe has a purpose to which to contribute.
"Some of us" would be more accurate than "we".
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
The conditions which cause the universe to "move" the way it does are there because they have been designed. The way the universe, from the very microsecond of its inception has been fine tuned to be life-permitting is literally incredible.
Thank you. But as que sais-je says, it is incredible! However, we are free to believe what we want to believe, so although I think it is less magic than reality (see RD's book, 'The Magic of Reality') then I can understand it is evidently very important in your life.
quote:
We have come to the conclusion that we are special by observation and reflection.
For me, that's cocooning oneself into a false sense of reality, as you have probably gathered! I think we're lucky.
quote:
And we've also considered the alternative. If there is no ultimate purpose to our existence, then ultimate,y our existence is meaningless.
If you have, in fact, considered the alternative, i.e. that there is no God, as atheists are happy with, why do you think my life still has purpose, has always had purpose, the purposes I have decided for it and will continue to do so until its end. If you then say that the god you believe in has purpose for my life too, then that must include the purpose that I am an atheist!
quote:
However long humanity survives it will eventually be extinguished with no one to remember it or observe its achievements. If that's just the way things are, why would we want them to be any different?
A large number of us are quite happy with this.
quote:
But the fact is we recognise that there is a greater reality than that which is accessible to our five senses, and that that universe has a purpose to which to contribute.
Ideas which the human brain can encompass fairly easily. With the increasing knowledge we have of the galaxies and the universe, I wonder where you imagine your greater reality to be and would be interested to hear.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
The way the universe, from the very microsecond of its inception has been fine tuned to be life-permitting is literally incredible.
The pedant in me says that if something is "literally incredible" it really, really can't be believed. So I don't!
The pedant in me says that if you don't believe the universe is life permitting then you don't believe you're alive ![[Biased]](wink.gif) .
The issue of "meaning" is about ultimate meaning. We can find relative meaning in the course of individual lives and experiences, but if ultimately the entire human race disappears into oblivion with no-one to notice then ultimately the whole business turns out to have been ultimately pointless.
Having said that, I'm grateful for the relatively meaningful conversation
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Not sure about "a sentence or two", but I will explain what I meant.
According to the philosophy of naturalism, everything pertaining to human life is the result of the workings of natural laws alone.
And until a better explanation comes up, that sounds sound and sensible to me.
Well there is another explanation, to which I subscribe. In your view it may not be 'better', but then you have not defined what you mean by 'better' in this context. Certainly the agency of intelligence seems to me to be a far more sensible explanation for the existence of highly complex systems than the naturalistic self-assembly hypothesis, which I regard as seriously counter-intuitive, and therefore can only be believed by a huge leap of faith (the kind of 'faith' that ignores evidence).
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Such laws operate on matter and energy to form human organisms and this, of course, includes the human brain. This organ in turn somehow generates all ideas. I find this theory utterly bizarre, and totally counter-intuitive.
Just because it is difficult to find these ideas not bizarre or counter-intuitive does not make them wrong, especially as testing confirms this.
No, it does not make them wrong. Neither does it make them right. What we need is evidence, and you seem to suggest that this is forthcoming, hence your claim that "testing confirms this". Could you be so kind as to provide a link to this evidence?
If all human ideas - including reason itself - is simply the product of the mindlessly and purposelessly contrived human brain, then they are inherently subjective. So on what basis can naturalism claim any objective knowledge, when even the idea of objectivity is itself subjective within this philosophy?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
I cannot see how the mere configuring of atoms and molecules can produce mind, but anyway this is what many people believe. Clearly there needs to be a method by which matter can achieve this incredible (and, in my view, impossible) feat, and this method is, of course, known as natural selection.
However, the more this apparent impossibility is investigated, the more it is found to work. The very fact that it happened - and had millions of years in which to happen - shows that it is possible.
That, I'm afraid is a completely circular argument. You assume that this happened, and then assert that because it happened that is proof that it is not impossible for it to happen!! That is a classic case of "begging the question". You seem to fail to realise that I am actually questioning whether this did happen.
Also you say that it works. How? Please show me the experiments that prove that the mere configuring of atoms and molecules can produce mind. We know that ideas are conveyed through the actions of neurons, but that does not prove that the neurons themselves produced the ideas, any more than the pixels on this screen produced the information that I am writing. Pixels, neurons, paper and ink etc convey information. They do not create it.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
The mechanism of natural selection is unashamedly utilitarian. The various aspects of life develop according to their usefulness under the purpose of survival. Does this organ work according to this agenda? Is this limb useful and viable to help this organism survive? Those elements of life which are most useful will survive and those less useful will die out.
But none ever has a prior purpose; they happen by chance mutation etc. Can you think of one thing throughout the millions of years of evolution which developed with a purpose?
You misunderstand. I am not saying that there had to be a prior purpose. In fact, I agree with you. If the naturalistic view of the origin of life is true (not something I accept at all), then there would be no agenda at all - not even a survival agenda. A bundle of molecules has no reason at all to remain in that configuration and replicate itself rather than become another configuration, which we would describe with the word 'die'. That is why the whole idea of the survival instinct in natural selection is incoherent, and this calls into question the entire theory.
However, survival advantage drives natural selection. I know Wikipedia isn't always the most reliable of sources, but for ease of reference I will quote from this article, and if you disagree with this, then please say, and direct me to a more reliable source:
quote:
Natural variation occurs among the individuals of any population of organisms. Many of these differences do not affect survival (such as differences in eye color in humans), but some differences may improve the chances of survival of a particular individual.
...
The concept of fitness is central to natural selection. In broad terms, individuals that are more "fit" have better potential for survival, as in the well-known phrase "survival of the fittest". However, as with natural selection above, the precise meaning of the term is much more subtle. Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing.
It's quite clear from these two quotes that a survival agenda drives natural selection. A survival instinct within living organisms is presupposed. Why conglomerations of atoms and molecules would have this instinct from the start is beyond me. Why would a bunch of molecules have any need to remain in one particular configuration rather than another? Why would a pattern of molecules need to replicate itself, rather than simply become permanently disassembled. You are right in saying there is no purpose within naturalism. So why is a purpose being read into it then? That is illogical. A case of eating one's cake, and yet wanting it to remain uneaten.
This survival agenda is utilitarian. Whatever variation comes into being may or may not be useful for survival. Does this trait work to aid survival? So those elements that possess the utility of aiding survival therefore survive and those that do not, die. What is true of physical traits, is also true of ideas, if ideas are merely the product of a material brain.
That is why I say that the naturalistic understanding of the emergence of ideas is utilitarian. Therefore 'truth' cannot exist within naturalism, because utility does not presuppose truth.
quote:
It's the brain that produces the ideas, they don't float in from somewhere else. Information comes in via the senses and is stored, re-arranged, put together in different forms and so on. The difference is that we are in control of ideas and can decide whether they are useful or not.
Information doesn't just come in via the senses, because there are ideas we have which are non-empirical. For example, even the idea of empiricism itself ("all knowledge comes via sense perception") is non-empirically derived. If you don't agree with me, then show me how we can see, hear, touch, taste or smell 'empiricism'. So this idea must have "floated in from somewhere else".
You also say that we can decide whether they are useful or not. Yes, we can, because we have free will. But we would not be able to do this if naturalism were true, because nature is deterministic. We would not be able to make any decisions at all, because all the thoughts associated with that decision making would have been entirely determined by our material environment or genes. That fact we do have free will, and that we can make these kinds of decisions, proves that naturalism is not true as an explanation for the origin of ideas.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
At some point "the idea of God" emerged, ...
It is fairly easy, with long hind sight, to see that natural events would cause fear and wonder and an assumption would be made that there must be something with a thinking mind behind it.
That is pure speculation. Do you have any evidence for this theory? I find it bizarre that a bunch of molecules would possess "fear and wonder". Why would the product of nature not feel comfortable within the environment which formed it? Why would nature feel alien to nature? That is truly absurd reasoning.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
When we get into recorded human history, we discover that this idea dominated human thinking for thousands of years. Now obviously (according to the theory of naturalistic evolution) this idea thrived because it was incredibly useful. This usefulness tells us nothing about the truth or falsehood of the idea, because truth and falsehood are of no relevance to natural selection. Only what is useful survives.
But that is a very weak argument for the continuing belief in a God though.
Of course it is! I thoroughly agree with you on that point. So you agree with me that the naturalistic explanation for the survival of ideas is nonsense, yes?
I am showing what ideas would be like if naturalism were true. It is problematic, as you yourself can clearly see.
I have tried to explain that the utilitarian view of the emergence of ideas is not coherent. But this is how ideas must have developed within an entirely naturalistic paradigm. In fact, even Richard Dawkins suggests that our minds have evolved simply to cope with our limited environment (which he calls "middle world"), although ironically that doesn't prevent him from making an exception of his own mind, given that he feels at liberty to make assertions about the nature of the whole of reality! You can find his comments here.
The sense I get when reading your posts is that you simply assume that naturalism is true, and then argue that, of course, naturalism must have produced all that we take for granted, such as free will, truth, objectively valid reason etc. I look at things differently. I start with the reality of our lives, and then ask: "Could this have arisen by purely natural means?" Many things clearly could not have done, and that is why I do not accept naturalism as a philosophy.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@SusanDoris
Atheism and Theism are ideas, but IMO they are both "big picture" ideas. World views. Meta-narratives, to quote the term used by postmodernists.
I do not think I can agree with This as I'm not sure how atheism is an idea in the same way as theism, but I don't have the philosophical language to explain! and it sounds as if you are equating them. Theism has mountains of stories and dogmas, a vast number of different versions of the god/s involved which are believed to be true by the adherents of the group concerned, rules devised , etc. Atheism has none of those things, it is a simple lack of belief in, or acceptance of, those things. Atheists may choose to meet in groups to discuss why they have this lack of belief, but that's it, isn't it? The phrase 'world view', is a bit too vague for me! I think that atheism is definitely not a narrative.
quote:
In "The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge" the postmodernist Lyotard summarises his sceptism about metanarratives (and their reliance on some form of transcendent and universal truth) as follows:
"Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives"
Mmmm, yes, I think I agree with that.
quote:
I'm not sure if, like me, you really see atheism as a "big picture" idea, a world view, a meta-narrative which colours the way you look at everything else. Or is it for you simply a specific critical rejection of the specific "big picture" idea of Theism?
I don't really tthink the word 'rejection' applies to me because I'd always questioned, 'Is this TRUE?' even when I was sure there was a God/force/power, so the idea of God became an absent one, not a rejected one. This sounds far too vague too, I know!
quote:
If it's the second, do you actually have a "big picture" view? Or, like the postmodernists, are you sceptical of all "big picture" ideas?
I'm not sure, but I think, as a practical person, I realise that until there is a strong enough and generally wide-spread atheist x*, then if the background CofE culture in UK for instance turned into a vacuum, there would be plenty of fanatics to step in and take over. It has to be a natural movement, not a forced one.
(* x = ethos? not sure ..)
quote:
Hope that is sufficiently clear. These issues are not always easy to discuss.
Thank you. As I tell my friends, you have to think hard when joining discussions on SofF! And it's definitely easy to sound vague and waffly!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
[QUOTE][qb]
We have come to the conclusion that we are special by observation and reflection.
Unfortunately, having only one universe to observe, our reflections may be a bit parochial.
You can have all kinds of fun with this. We are observers of a particular kind of universe. But if you think about it, other kinds of universes are possible that don't have to be half as complicated as ours. There is, for example, the physical possibility of the existence of an observable world in which a single brain forms by means of a quantum fluctuation in the vacuum - the so called Boltzmann Brain. A brain like that would be able to fluctuate into existence even in worlds which are not finely tuned for embodied, interacting agents.
We have a universe fine tuned for interacting agents. It would be a lot easier to have universe no bigger than the size of our solar system which is observable by non-interactive agents.
Other universes less complicated than ours may exist. But if they're smaller, simpler, and are made up of non interactive disembodied minds, then I'd still say that makes us more special than them.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks, SusanDoris. There is nothing wrong with being sure about what you don't believe, but still working out what you do!
It is interesting that you gave a tick to Lyotard. Might be worth your while to look at postmodernism and its critics. If you've got the time.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
The way the universe, from the very microsecond of its inception has been fine tuned to be life-permitting is literally incredible.
The pedant in me says that if something is "literally incredible" it really, really can't be believed. So I don't!
The pedant in me says that if you don't believe the universe is life permitting then you don't believe you're alive .
Touché. It was the "has been fine tuned" that I found difficult.
I've always had trouble with the anthropic principle. Suppose a universe were created randomly, if life didn't evolve there wouldn't be beings to discuss the fact; if it did they'd probably conclude it couldn't have been random. But we have no way of knowing.
Your posting sent me to the physics archives to see if I could find a resumé of current physicists' views. I found one and also discovered an anti-anthropic principle: beings with forty year old physics degrees may observe the universe without any idea of what's going on. I did however find a physics joke - in my experience as incredible as any fine tuning.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Thanks, SusanDoris. There is nothing wrong with being sure about what you don't believe, but still working out what you do!
It is interesting that you gave a tick to Lyotard. Might be worth your while to look at postmodernism and its critics. If you've got the time.
Not wishing to intrude on a private conversation but can't resist Terry Eagleton's comment (can't remember where, possibly in 'After Theory') that Postmodernism is the sort of thing that Her Majesty's Customs & Exercise used to impound at Dover as a dangerous foreign idea which should only be allowed into England when it was known to be unlikely to influence anyone.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Conversations are very public here; intrusion is normal!
Personally, I think pomo is itself a kind of metanarrative (rather than just a critique of all the others). That produces an interesting internal incoherence (along the lines of "all generalisations are wrong, even this one").
But pomo is by no means all bad; it contains some rather good insights and challenges. There's some value in considering religious beliefs as social constructs, even if you are sure there is something more profound at work. It helps a more detailed consideration of that which is of abiding value. There is eternal wheat and there is temporary chaff, and they are growing together.
[ 02. November 2012, 18:29: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
