Interesting article includes 3 short protheistic arguments
Offline RationalResponders: Try not to just skip to the three arguments. The rest of the article is interesting too, though perhaps a little wordy.
A Theo-Philosophical Defense of a Pseudo-Naturalism
Inasmuch as many have taken the philosophical stance that all inquiries must be done according to secular principles, it behooves me also to consider whether such a position is consistent with non-secular people. And in this I feel inclined to answer in the affirmative. For what does it mean to ask whether all inquiries must be done according to secular principles? Only that no appeal to divine and/or supernatural beings ought to be used in explanations of phenomena. And this doctrine seems to invite the support of all the reasonable religious; for what would such an appeal accomplish? To answer, keep this scenario in mind:
The scientist asks a question, How did phenomena "P" happen?
Suppose that the religious person answers, God accomplished "P".
Then how are we left? The question has not been sufficiently answered. For the lead "How...?" used in such inquiries is only shorthand for, "In what manner...?" and that is not to ask "Who...?". Therefore the answer "God" is insufficient; for it answers the question of "Who did phenomena 'P'?" when that question was not asked. If, in the above scenario, the religious man answered as we supposed, the scientist might be inclined to reply, "Very well; how (or in what manner) did God accomplish 'P'?" and then the inquiry would continue.
So it seems foolish to answer scientific inquiries with an appeal to the divine or supernature, even for a religious person. Therefore without rejecting the action of God a religious person can -- and should, for the sake of efficiency -- support the secularization of scientific inquiries.
However there is a very related core issue displayed on this front, and it centers around two competing worldviews. On the one hand there is the secular mindset; on the other is the religious mindset. Above I have proposed a way to reconcile the two on this front (namely, for the religious to adopt the secular praxis while substituting the mindset behind it with their own); however the root issue is much deeper. The secularist wishes to push the religious mindset unto the fringes of society because he has an affliction of triumphalism. On this front, namely science, he seeks to portray his worldview as having an advantage, for science is conducted precisely via deduction from empirical evidence, which seems to have connections with empiricism, which in turn is optimally compatible with secularism. However the connection between science and empiricism is only an apparent one; it has no substance. In truth, scientific inquiry as presented above is optimally compatible with the religious mindset directly, rather than through some medium (e.g. empiricism, as is supposed with secularism). This can be demonstrated in three ways.
1. On the scientific question of whether the cosmos is purely self-existent (i.e. naturalism, which is optimally compatible with secularism), having popped without aid into existence out of nothing, we are inclined to answer in the negative. For by its very nature the cosmos is transient; we understand from the second thermodynamic principle (fundamental to the nature of the cosmos and by extension to all scientific inquiry) that in an isolated system not in equilibrium (such as the cosmos must be, according to traditional naturalism), entropy will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. Thus the cosmos' entropy naturally passes from a state of imbalance to a state of balance.
However, by the same token the cosmic entropy cannot have reached a state of imbalance of its own nature, for otherwise it would not naturally tend toward equilibrium. Thus the cosmos must have reached the state it is in via help from an existence outside or beyond the cosmos (and such a being can be rightly categorized as "supernatural"
. This conclusion is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular.
2. The principle of identity (that any given thing is itself and not something else entirely; this is fundamental to scientific inquiry) is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular one. For if the secularist wishes to inquire into the nature of the identity principle, he must use it even in his inquiry and thus he loses all objectivity from the start. However the religious may presuppose the principle of identity before all rational inquiry without contradicting himself; for he is already sure that there is something -- a divine something -- who freely chose to create the cosmos according to the principle of identity. Thus for the religious the identity principle is an objective reality which's origins can be traced to the nature of God, whereas for the secularist it is a subjective presuppoition which's truth can only be ascertained pragmatically. The identity principle therefore is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular one.
3. The "ought" problem (that certain inclinations under specific situations should [objectively] be acted upon whereas others should not; this is fundamental to the scientific study of socialism) is solvable to the religious whereas to the secularist it is not. For the secularist can only study the morality of actions insofar as they are natural and no further. He may say, The potential action "A" is not in accordance with the way things work apart from the influence of persons. However he may not rationally conclude, Therefore action "A" ought not to be done, for to so conclude would be to commit precisely the "is/ought" fallacy. However the religious presupposes a divine being who has ordered the cosmos collectively for a specific purpose (in other words, a divine being who has given us specific things that we "ought" to do) and included the nature of the cosmos in his overall scheme. Thus to act in a way that is not in accordance with nature is contrary to what people, collectively, "ought" to do, ie. immoral. Thus the nature of society is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular mindset, in which it is paradoxical (i.e. it has an unsolvable problem)
These three arguments should show that scientific inquiry is directly and optimally compatible with the religious worldview over the secular worldview. Nonetheless religion cannot rationally be appealed to in answer to scientific inquiries; it can at best be presupposed. Therefore I conclude that all triumphalistic ideologies -- both that which perverts religion into a supposed answer to scientific inquiries and that which perverts secular inquiry into atheism -- must be discarded as inconsistent and contrary to human progress.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
- Login to post comments
Offline However, by the same token the cosmic entropy cannot have reached a state of imbalance of its own nature, for otherwise it would not naturally tend toward equilibrium. Thus the cosmos must have reached the state it is in via help from an existence outside or beyond the cosmos (and such a being can be rightly categorized as "supernatural". This conclusion is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular.
The current state of the universe is not presumed by cosmologists to be the only state of existence that has ever been. We know nothing of the state of existence before the big bang, and you presume too much by saying that it could not have been in a state which could give rise to our current state. You have no basis for making such a statement. All that you can say is that within the current state, it would be reasonable to suppose that a new higher state of entropy would necessitate an outside source. This would be a correct observation, but before the Big Bang, existence was NOT in the current state, so you can draw no such conclusion.
For the secularist can only study the morality of actions insofar as they are natural and no further.
This is patently false. (As an aside, I prefer the term "materialist" to secularist, as the latter includes positions to which I do not hold.) Science can indeed give us the mechanics of how and why we have morals, and can (and has!) described which moral tendencies are innate in our species, and which are derived from socialization. However, reason can also evaluate normative statements based on the goal of any proposed action. I submit to you that this is, in fact, far superior to theist morality, which removes cause/effect from morality and assigns it an arbitrary outside origin.
If you have not considered the idea that theist morality MUST steal from naturalism, you need to read this article:
christians must steal from secular morality
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline science is conducted precisely via deduction from empirical evidence, which seems to have connections with empiricism, which in turn is optimally compatible with secularism.
The scientific method involves deduction but also abduction and induction.
In truth, scientific inquiry as presented above is optimally compatible with the religious mindset directly, rather than through some medium (e.g. empiricism, as is supposed with secularism). This can be demonstrated in three ways.
1. On the scientific question of whether the cosmos is purely self-existent (i.e. naturalism, which is optimally compatible with secularism), having popped without aid into existence out of nothing, we are inclined to answer in the negative. For by its very nature the cosmos is transient; we understand from the second thermodynamic principle (fundamental to the nature of the cosmos and by extension to all scientific inquiry) that in an isolated system not in equilibrium (such as the cosmos must be, according to traditional naturalism), entropy will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. Thus the cosmos' entropy naturally passes from a state of imbalance to a state of balance.
However, by the same token the cosmic entropy cannot have reached a state of imbalance of its own nature, for otherwise it would not naturally tend toward equilibrium. Thus the cosmos must have reached the state it is in via help from an existence outside or beyond the cosmos (and such a being can be rightly categorized as "supernatural". This conclusion is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular.
At one moment he says the linking of science and empiricism is illusory. The next, he says the 2LoT supports theism. The 2LoT was infered from empirical testing through the scientific method. His argument in favor of theism relies on a non-illusory linking of science and empiricism. He's either contradicting himself or he's using empiricism in a way that most people don't use it, in which case he would be caricaturing opponents and misleading readers.
Regardless, the 2LoT argument relies on a subtle special pleading fallacy. He says the universe naturally progresses to a state of not being able to do work, so God did work to make the universe able to do work. But how would God be eternally capable of work, though? He essentially argues that God is a perpetual motion machine. But if we accept the reality of perpetual motion, why not assign such qualities to a cosmic spacefoam from which our universe bubbled off and henceforth lost its perpetuity? He argues that God should be held exempt from the constraints he places on the natural world, which makes the God explanation work. When stated so bluntly, the special pleading fallacy in his argument is obvious.
2. The principle of identity (that any given thing is itself and not something else entirely; this is fundamental to scientific inquiry) is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular one. For if the secularist wishes to inquire into the nature of the identity principle, he must use it even in his inquiry and thus he loses all objectivity from the start. However the religious may presuppose the principle of identity before all rational inquiry without contradicting himself; for he is already sure that there is something -- a divine something -- who freely chose to create the cosmos according to the principle of identity. Thus for the religious the identity principle is an objective reality which's origins can be traced to the nature of God, whereas for the secularist it is a subjective presuppoition which's truth can only be ascertained pragmatically. The identity principle therefore is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular one.
You cannot have an entity planning a universe without axiomatically accepting the principle of identity because nothing but gibberish would result if the entity didn't. To argue otherwise is to offer incoherent nonsense.
3. The "ought" problem (that certain inclinations under specific situations should [objectively] be acted upon whereas others should not; this is fundamental to the scientific study of socialism) is solvable to the religious whereas to the secularist it is not. For the secularist can only study the morality of actions insofar as they are natural and no further. He may say, The potential action "A" is not in accordance with the way things work apart from the influence of persons. However he may not rationally conclude, Therefore action "A" ought not to be done, for to so conclude would be to commit precisely the "is/ought" fallacy. However the religious presupposes a divine being who has ordered the cosmos collectively for a specific purpose (in other words, a divine being who has given us specific things that we "ought" to do) and included the nature of the cosmos in his overall scheme. Thus to act in a way that is not in accordance with nature is contrary to what people, collectively, "ought" to do, ie. immoral. Thus the nature of society is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular mindset, in which it is paradoxical (i.e. it has an unsolvable problem)
Compare two societies where one has people going around killing eachother and the other does not. Which is better? Obviously, the one you don't have to worry as much about being murdered in. It therefore follows that we should act in accordance with the society we agree is better. I see no paradox. Also, the mere existence of a deity dictating things does not establish any shoulds or oughts, for why should or ought one follow what the deity dictates? The being who considers the shoulds or oughts is the one who must establish the answers. The buck cannot be passed to an external entity. To think it can is paradoxical.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
- Login to post comments
Offline 1) The universe is not ex-nihilo. This has been dealt with ad nauseam.
2) This is almost nonsense.
3) Makes no sense at all. How does the theist know what the god intends? If morality is in accordance with nature and immorality is not, how do we define what is and is not natural? If all that is natural is all that exists and if all that exists is the universe then nothing can be unatural in the universe.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
Offline I laud your post. Well-articulated; it is very thought-provoking and I like it.
dmar198 wrote:RationalResponders: Try not to just skip to the three arguments. The rest of the article is interesting too, though perhaps a little wordy.
A Theo-Philosophical Defense of a Pseudo-Naturalism
Inasmuch as many have taken the philosophical stance that all inquiries must be done according to secular principles, it behooves me also to consider whether such a position is consistent with non-secular people. And in this I feel inclined to answer in the affirmative. For what does it mean to ask whether all inquiries must be done according to secular principles? Only that no appeal to divine and/or supernatural beings ought to be used in explanations of phenomena. And this doctrine seems to invite the support of all the reasonable religious; for what would such an appeal accomplish? To answer, keep this scenario in mind:
The scientist asks a question, How did phenomena "P" happen?
Suppose that the religious person answers, God accomplished "P".
Then how are we left? The question has not been sufficiently answered. For the lead "How...?" used in such inquiries is only shorthand for, "In what manner...?" and that is not to ask "Who...?". Therefore the answer "God" is insufficient; for it answers the question of "Who did phenomena 'P'?" when that question was not asked. If, in the above scenario, the religious man answered as we supposed, the scientist might be inclined to reply, "Very well; how (or in what manner) did God accomplish 'P'?" and then the inquiry would continue.
So it seems foolish to answer scientific inquiries with an appeal to the divine or supernature, even for a religious person. Therefore without rejecting the action of God a religious person can -- and should, for the sake of efficiency -- support the secularization of scientific inquiries.Up to this point, I am in complete agreement.
Quote:
However there is a very related core issue displayed on this front, and it centers around two competing worldviews. On the one hand there is the secular mindset; on the other is the religious mindset. Above I have proposed a way to reconcile the two on this front (namely, for the religious to adopt the secular praxis while substituting the mindset behind it with their own); however the root issue is much deeper. The secularist wishes to push the religious mindset unto the fringes of society because he has an affliction of triumphalism. On this front, namely science, he seeks to portray his worldview as having an advantage, for science is conducted precisely via deduction from empirical evidence, which seems to have connections with empiricism, which in turn is optimally compatible with secularism. However the connection between science and empiricism is only an apparent one; it has no substance. In truth, scientific inquiry as presented above is optimally compatible with the religious mindset directly, rather than through some medium (e.g. empiricism, as is supposed with secularism). This can be demonstrated in three ways.Actually, for myself, the real reason to push the religious mindset to the fringes of society is because it is founded on the premise that someone else has had all the answers to the Great Questions of existence, and you should stop looking for your own answers.
I'm not sure which religion you are talking about. Mine preaches the very opposite; that we should inquire into answers to all of the Great Questions of existence because this leads us to a greater appreciation for Creation and (by extension) the Creator.
This premise has a corruptive tendency to spread beyond metaphysical issues; the religious are often not content with their own feelings that they don't need deeper answers, they actively seek to press that position, and more, the position of *their* specific religion, onto others. The 'Scientific Creationism/Intelligent Design' flap in various schools around the US has shown that. I know people who are Norse Reconstructionists in their religious belief. If ID can be taught in science class as a valid 'this is how the world got made' theory, why can't they insist that children should be taught that the world was fashioned from the body of the giant Ymir by Odin?
You are complaining about triumphalism, the tendency of people to expand particular viewpoints broader and broader until they conceive of it as the only feasible worldview, and subsequently militantly attack all other incompatible worldviews. You have identified this as something essential to religion; I think that is an unwarranted charge. Religion is not inherently intolerant; it's just that too many people who espouse religion, are.
The big problem with the religious mindset is that religion presupposes that it has the answers. What made Reality? God. Which God? Mine. If you follow a different God, then you're wrong. Can I prove my God is right? No. What makes it right? It's mine, sod off.
That's not a foundation for seeking the truth, only for making the truth fit the entirely subjective framework of religion.
If that's what religion truly was, you would be right to try and push it to the fringes of society. But whatever has led you to see religion as such was simply a scandal; this is a caricature of true religion. Religious people are supposed to seek answers, not presuppose them. They ask, What made Reality? and conclude that it was God. They ask, Who is he? and draw inferences about Him, as well as affirm Revelation about Him. When they encounter a competing view of God, they are NOT supposed to tell the other guy to sod off. They are supposed to seek common ground in a mutually understanding way and explain their inferences and Revelations. If all goes well, the other guy will be converted. No bloodshed.
That's what it's supposed to be. Scandalously, it has often fallen short of that standard.
Quote:1. On the scientific question of whether the cosmos is purely self-existent (i.e. naturalism, which is optimally compatible with secularism), having popped without aid into existence out of nothing, we are inclined to answer in the negative. For by its very nature the cosmos is transient; we understand from the second thermodynamic principle (fundamental to the nature of the cosmos and by extension to all scientific inquiry) that in an isolated system not in equilibrium (such as the cosmos must be, according to traditional naturalism), entropy will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. Thus the cosmos' entropy naturally passes from a state of imbalance to a state of balance.
However, by the same token the cosmic entropy cannot have reached a state of imbalance of its own nature, for otherwise it would not naturally tend toward equilibrium. Thus the cosmos must have reached the state it is in via help from an existence outside or beyond the cosmos (and such a being can be rightly categorized as "supernatural"Except that entropy is a function of Time, and so far as we know, Time has only existed since, well, the beginning of Time in the Big Bang.
Granted.
What form and state Reality had that caused the transition into our current arrangement of dimensions, we do not know.
Granted.
We do not know which dimensions, if any as we currently understand them, were expanded and which were compressed, and so cannot say what the axis of progression for that form of Reality was.
Granted.
Without this knowledge, we cannot even speculate on whether entropy itself existed in the conditions that gave rise to the beginnings of our current arrangement.
Granted.
Without knowledge of that state, we cannot make any claims that the cosmos required the aid of any entity beyond the cosmos in order to make that transition.
This is not a warranted rejection. Even without presuming to know the state of Reality before Creation, we can know that Reality did indeed exist. And since this cosmos is naturally ordered to tend toward entropic equilibrium, and it has to be ordered to serve a general function, it follows that something provoked its existence, ordering it to be the way it is.
Quote:2. The principle of identity (that any given thing is itself and not something else entirely; this is fundamental to scientific inquiry) is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular one. For if the secularist wishes to inquire into the nature of the identity principle, he must use it even in his inquiry and thus he loses all objectivity from the start. However the religious may presuppose the principle of identity before all rational inquiry without contradicting himself; for he is already sure that there is something -- a divine something -- who freely chose to create the cosmos according to the principle of identity. Thus for the religious the identity principle is an objective reality which's origins can be traced to the nature of God, whereas for the secularist it is a subjective presuppoition which's truth can only be ascertained pragmatically. The identity principle therefore is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular one.
Except that this, like the 'first cause' argument, doesn't actually resolve the issue: the religious mindset requires the enactor of the principle of identity to adhere to it, as well: God must be God, and not something else, in order to achieve this.
God must indeed be God in order to have enacted the cosmos' being ordered in accordance with the principle of identity. I think I'm following.
Saying this 'is an objective reality which's (sic) origins can be traced to the nature of God' is meaningless. The secularist can just substitute 'existence' for 'God' and be just as comfortable never actually trying to answer the question as the the theist already seems to be.
I would agree with any such secularist. But the problem for the secularist remains even granted this substitution: for he has just conceded that there is a cosmic existence with a specific, logical nature. Since we saw in the last argument that this existence extends beyond the cosmos, the secularist has unintentionally conceded a supernatural cause of the universe which is related to the Creation.
Even here, "God did it" just isn't an answer. It's a 'Shut up, we don't have an answer'.
That's a bit disingenuous. I hardly said "God did it", you must see that. This argument was purely deductive.
Quote:3. The "ought" problem (that certain inclinations under specific situations should [objectively] be acted upon whereas others should not; this is fundamental to the scientific study of socialism) is solvable to the religious whereas to the secularist it is not. For the secularist can only study the morality of actions insofar as they are natural and no further. He may say, The potential action "A" is not in accordance with the way things work apart from the influence of persons. However he may not rationally conclude, Therefore action "A" ought not to be done, for to so conclude would be to commit precisely the "is/ought" fallacy. However the religious presupposes a divine being who has ordered the cosmos collectively for a specific purpose (in other words, a divine being who has given us specific things that we "ought" to do) and included the nature of the cosmos in his overall scheme. Thus to act in a way that is not in accordance with nature is contrary to what people, collectively, "ought" to do, ie. immoral. Thus the nature of society is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular mindset, in which it is paradoxical (i.e. it has an unsolvable problem)
This is really just the same 'where does morality come from if not a Higher source?' question we've discussed on these boards many times.
Yes, but it is concisely articulated here.
Each time, it's presented as some kind of trump card, and each time, it gets stomped on. To summarize:
A)'Morality' (ie: 'ought') comes closest to actual objectivity when it remains in broad strokes. It's very hard to look a grieving parent in the eye and tell them that morally, it's better for the rapist and murderer of their six year old son to go free than it is for a society to care more about punishing the guilty than protecting the falsely accused. In broad strokes, we understand the idea that it's better to risk letting a guilty man go free than unjustly convict an innocent man, in order to preserve the value of virtue. Once innocence is no defense against imprisonment, where is the worth of it? But tell that to the parents of the six year old.
Your idea of morality is completely inductive. You have argued from a specific case to a general conclusion; yet your case can hardly be construed as a majority-example. Most cases are not so difficult. Thus I fail to see how you can call this an "objective" morality; it seems subject to the difficulty of the case.
Edit to add: That, in fact, is one of the great draws of religion: The parents of that child don't want morality. They want Justice. But Man is incapable of delivering perfect Justice in all cases. Our ability to determine the truth is incomplete. And so we must err on the side of protecting individuals from other individuals, or err on the side of protecting individuals from the State, which is far, far more powerful than even the most organized and capable Organized Crime operation. We can't deliver perfect Justice. Religion promises to do just that: Even if the rapist/murderer gets away with it in this life, God is watching. God will make sure he gets what's coming to him, just like God will give the victim the peace and happiness they were denied by the crime. It's a salve, a balm on the grief, and a reassurance that in the end, the guilty will be punished for their crimes. It just happens to be one that can never be verified by those to whom the promise is being made.
This is a tad polemical; there is no dichotomy between morality and justice. In fact, bringing people to justice is one of the major forces of morality. However it is true that Man is incapable of delivering perfect justice every time, and religion does indeed give us a way to reconcile this inability with a preconception of cosmic justice.
B)Secularly speaking, morality is an outgrowth of the social structures we developed as our species evolved: what is moral, generally, is protecting the helpless (usually children, the repository of our lineage and genetics, and really, the entire purpose behind life: the continuation of ourselves) or limiting behavior that is detrimental to the group. Beyond, and sometimes conflicting with that is our inherent nature to resist limitations and restrictions; whence comes our love of liberty. It is in the careful paths we wend between these poles: benefits to the group, and doing what we want, that our complex systems of society have developed. As we become more technically able to store and pass along knowledge, these systems become increasingly complex, and more 'special case' minutiae develop. Naturally, and without any presupposition of higher authority than ourselves, one another, and our hopes for the future.
I agree that morality can be summarized as a categorization of what is "good" (i.e. beneficial to society/the individual) and "bad" (i.e. malficient to society/the individual). This is compatible with religious perceptions of morality; pragmatically, that is indeed how we apply moral doctrines: socially and also on the personal level. But this praxis presupposes that we "ought" to do what is beneficial to ourselves/society; as you yourself said, "that is, if you'll pardon the pun, as it 'ought' to be." You've run right into the is/ought fallacy, just as I predicted. How can you justify the leap from "Mr. Smith's action isn't beneficial to society" to "Mr. Smith's action should be beneficial to society"? You cannot, unless you presuppose a God who has ordered the cosmos collectively toward benefiting society.
Quote:
These three arguments should show that scientific inquiry is directly and optimally compatible with the religious worldview over the secular worldview. Nonetheless religion cannot rationally be appealed to in answer to scientific inquiries; it can at best be presupposed. Therefore I conclude that all triumphalistic ideologies -- both that which perverts religion into a supposed answer to scientific inquiries and that which perverts secular inquiry into atheism -- must be discarded as inconsistent and contrary to human progress.Except, of course, that atheism does not require the formation of judgment. This is a common mistake, and is part of what leads many theists to consider atheism a religion: There needs be no 'faith' that there is no deity, only a lack of faith that one or more is real. Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s), not a belief in the lack of God(s).
I agree with these statements, but I do not see where I implied the contrary. I discouraged triumphalistic secularism but not secular inquiry of itself.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
- Login to post comments
Offline 2. The principle of identity (that any given thing is itself and not something else entirely; this is fundamental to scientific inquiry) is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular one. For if the secularist wishes to inquire into the nature of the identity principle, he must use it even in his inquiry and thus he loses all objectivity from the start. However the religious may presuppose the principle of identity before all rational inquiry without contradicting himself; for he is already sure that there is something -- a divine something -- who freely chose to create the cosmos according to the principle of identity. Thus for the religious the identity principle is an objective reality which's origins can be traced to the nature of God, whereas for the secularist it is a subjective presuppoition which's truth can only be ascertained pragmatically. The identity principle therefore is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular one.
you don't have to presuppose a god to accept the principle of identity because its axiomatic, it's defended through retortion, any denial of the law of identity would rely on it and would be self refuting.
3. The "ought" problem (that certain inclinations under specific situations should [objectively] be acted upon whereas others should not; this is fundamental to the scientific study of socialism) is solvable to the religious whereas to the secularist it is not. For the secularist can only study the morality of actions insofar as they are natural and no further. He may say, The potential action "A" is not in accordance with the way things work apart from the influence of persons. However he may not rationally conclude, Therefore action "A" ought not to be done, for to so conclude would be to commit precisely the "is/ought" fallacy. However the religious presupposes a divine being who has ordered the cosmos collectively for a specific purpose (in other words, a divine being who has given us specific things that we "ought" to do) and included the nature of the cosmos in his overall scheme. Thus to act in a way that is not in accordance with nature is contrary to what people, collectively, "ought" to do, ie. immoral. Thus the nature of society is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular mindset, in which it is paradoxical (i.e. it has an unsolvable problem)
some models of objective morality are monotheistic some are polytheistic or deistic or atheistic. religious people don't have an exclusive claim to objective morality. furthermore some models of relative morality are theistic.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
- Login to post comments
Offline dmar198 wrote:1. On the scientific question of whether the cosmos is purely self-existent (i.e. naturalism, which is optimally compatible with secularism), having popped without aid into existence out of nothing, we are inclined to answer in the negative. For by its very nature the cosmos is transient; we understand from the second thermodynamic principle (fundamental to the nature of the cosmos and by extension to all scientific inquiry) that in an isolated system not in equilibrium (such as the cosmos must be, according to traditional naturalism), entropy will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. Thus the cosmos' entropy naturally passes from a state of imbalance to a state of balance.
However, by the same token the cosmic entropy cannot have reached a state of imbalance of its own nature, for otherwise it would not naturally tend toward equilibrium. Thus the cosmos must have reached the state it is in via help from an existence outside or beyond the cosmos (and such a being can be rightly categorized as "supernatural"The argument against secularism in the instantaneous existence of the universe is based on poor understanding of the current state of our own knowledge. This argument essentially falls prey to the same thing warned against in the introduction -- to resist the impulse to fill blank spaces in our knowledge with "God did it."
This is an unwarranted conclusion. The argument in the article is purely deductive; the God of the Gaps can only be affirmed inductively, that is, when His existence is presupposed, when specific cases of His miraculous intervention are presupposed, and when those specific cases are (irrationally) used to assume His intervention in the "blank spaces".
Essentially, our knowledge of "the Big Bang," as it is colloquially called, extends right up to the first instants of the existence of the universe. It seems that the universe was formed chaotically -- that is, it began in a state of near-zero entropy, and has been moving to a state of maximum entropy ever since. However, since we don't know much about the first few femtoseconds of the universe, we still don't know as much as we'd like. (There's the question of whether or not time is even relevant to the discussion.)
Remember that entropy tends toward equilibrium, not necessarily maximization. The argument in the article is that, because the cosmos is transient in terms of entropy -- which is fundamental to its nature --, therefore it is transient by nature and needs a creator. This is true whether or not the Big Bang is true or Creationism (for example) is true; it doesn't rely on time's contribution.
Argument 3 has been addressed ad naseum in other forums, but to sum up: you can arrive at objective morality by the judicious application of game theory. This morality can dictate what "aught" to be done in a particular society.
I have not seen this argument. I will have to study it. Thank you.
Further, there is the complication of comprehension. How are we to surmise God's purpose? By simply observing nature? If so, then how is that significantly different from secular empiricism?
It's not. That's why the article is called, "A...Defense of a Pseudo-Naturalism". The only difference between this argument's naturalism and traditional naturalism is that it presupposes God.
His argument glosses over the entire issue, and offers no insight into the nature of God's objective morality, leaving one free to substitute any morality.
The insight as to what constitutes objective morality is indeed pointed out in the article, you simply must have missed it because most of it was in the words of the secularist. "The potential action 'A' is not in accordance with the way things work apart from the influence of persons. ... Therefore action 'A' ought not to be done". Then it is argued that the last part only works if God is presupposed. Nevertheless this is a form, advanced in the article, of objective morality.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:science is conducted precisely via deduction from empirical evidence, which seems to have connections with empiricism, which in turn is optimally compatible with secularism.
The scientific method involves deduction but also abduction and induction.
Uncontested. The statement in question was a summary, not an exhaustive definition, of the scientific method.
Quote:In truth, scientific inquiry as presented above is optimally compatible with the religious mindset directly, rather than through some medium (e.g. empiricism, as is supposed with secularism). This can be demonstrated in three ways.
1. On the scientific question of whether the cosmos is purely self-existent (i.e. naturalism, which is optimally compatible with secularism), having popped without aid into existence out of nothing, we are inclined to answer in the negative. For by its very nature the cosmos is transient; we understand from the second thermodynamic principle (fundamental to the nature of the cosmos and by extension to all scientific inquiry) that in an isolated system not in equilibrium (such as the cosmos must be, according to traditional naturalism), entropy will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. Thus the cosmos' entropy naturally passes from a state of imbalance to a state of balance.
However, by the same token the cosmic entropy cannot have reached a state of imbalance of its own nature, for otherwise it would not naturally tend toward equilibrium. Thus the cosmos must have reached the state it is in via help from an existence outside or beyond the cosmos (and such a being can be rightly categorized as "supernatural". This conclusion is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular.
At one moment he says the linking of science and empiricism is illusory. The next, he says the 2LoT supports theism. The 2LoT was infered from empirical testing through the scientific method. His argument in favor of theism [thus] relies on a non-illusory linking of science and empiricism. He's either contradicting himself or he's using empiricism in a way that most people don't use it, in which case he would be caricaturing opponents and misleading readers.
You seem to have misapproximated empiricism. To deduce conclusions from empirical evidence (such as was done for SLoT) is not empiricism; it is science. To equate science with empiricism as you seem to have done is just what was warned against in the prior quote.
Regardless, the 2LoT argument relies on a subtle special pleading fallacy. He says the universe naturally progresses to a state of not being able to do work, so God did work to make the universe able to do work. But how would God be eternally capable of work, though? He essentially argues that God is a perpetual motion machine. But if we accept the reality of perpetual motion, why not assign such qualities to a cosmic spacefoam from which our universe bubbled off and henceforth lost its perpetuity? He argues that God should be held exempt from the constraints he places on the natural world, which makes the God explanation work. When stated so bluntly, the special pleading fallacy in his argument is obvious.
If it argues that God is a perpetual motion machine, the article contradicts the universal application of the SLoT. Yet if it subsequently applies the SLoT to the cosmos, it commits the fallacy of special pleading.
Remember, entropy refers to matter, so you are assuming that God is material, which was not argued in the article. You have constructed a strawman.
So then for God to have created a world that goes by the SLoT, yet not conflict with the SLoT himself, he must be immaterial. I do not see how this conflicts with the article.
Quote:2. The principle of identity (that any given thing is itself and not something else entirely; this is fundamental to scientific inquiry) is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular one. For if the secularist wishes to inquire into the nature of the identity principle, he must use it even in his inquiry and thus he loses all objectivity from the start. However the religious may presuppose the principle of identity before all rational inquiry without contradicting himself; for he is already sure that there is something -- a divine something -- who freely chose to create the cosmos according to the principle of identity. Thus for the religious the identity principle is an objective reality which's origins can be traced to the nature of God, whereas for the secularist it is a subjective presuppoition which's truth can only be ascertained pragmatically. The identity principle therefore is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular one.
You cannot have an entity planning a universe without axiomatically accepting the principle of identity because nothing but gibberish would result if the entity didn't. To argue otherwise is to offer incoherent nonsense.
However if such an entity exists then the principle of identity has a cosmic being as its essential form, which gives it objectivity. To accept it pragmatically as the secularist must, on the other hand, is simply subjective and can lead to contradictions in how we understand the nature of the world. Which option seems more reasonable?
Quote:3. The "ought" problem (that certain inclinations under specific situations should [objectively] be acted upon whereas others should not; this is fundamental to the scientific study of socialism) is solvable to the religious whereas to the secularist it is not. For the secularist can only study the morality of actions insofar as they are natural and no further. He may say, The potential action "A" is not in accordance with the way things work apart from the influence of persons. However he may not rationally conclude, Therefore action "A" ought not to be done, for to so conclude would be to commit precisely the "is/ought" fallacy. However the religious presupposes a divine being who has ordered the cosmos collectively for a specific purpose (in other words, a divine being who has given us specific things that we "ought" to do) and included the nature of the cosmos in his overall scheme. Thus to act in a way that is not in accordance with nature is contrary to what people, collectively, "ought" to do, ie. immoral. Thus the nature of society is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular mindset, in which it is paradoxical (i.e. it has an unsolvable problem)
Compare two societies where one has people going around killing eachother and the other does not. Which is better? Obviously, the one you don't have to worry as much about being murdered in. It therefore follows that we should act in accordance with the society we agree is better. I see no paradox.
But your criteria are subjective, as you said, "the one you don't have to worry" in is better. So this is not an objective test of morality, as in the article, but a subjective one. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Also, the mere existence of a deity dictating things does not establish any shoulds or oughts, for why should or ought one follow what the deity dictates?
If the deity has dictated the nature of the universe (i.e. what it "ought" to do) and you are going against that, then you are objectively doing something you "ought" not to be doing, as long as you are a part of the universe. This is how the theist gets around the is/ought problem.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
- Login to post comments
Offline 1) The universe is not ex-nihilo. This has been dealt with ad nauseam.
The author of the article was not aware of this. He thanks you for enlightening him.
2) This is almost nonsense.
Goodness, what harsh judgment. Anything nonsensical in particular, or is this just a general observation?
3) Makes no sense at all. How does the theist know what the god intends? If morality is in accordance with nature and immorality is not, how do we define what is and is not natural? If all that is natural is all that exists and if all that exists is the universe then nothing can be unatural in the universe.
"Natural" was defined as "in accordance with the way things work apart from the influence of persons".
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:2. The principle of identity (that any given thing is itself and not something else entirely; this is fundamental to scientific inquiry) is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular one. For if the secularist wishes to inquire into the nature of the identity principle, he must use it even in his inquiry and thus he loses all objectivity from the start. However the religious may presuppose the principle of identity before all rational inquiry without contradicting himself; for he is already sure that there is something -- a divine something -- who freely chose to create the cosmos according to the principle of identity. Thus for the religious the identity principle is an objective reality which's origins can be traced to the nature of God, whereas for the secularist it is a subjective presuppoition which's truth can only be ascertained pragmatically. The identity principle therefore is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular one.
you don't have to presuppose a god to accept the principle of identity because its axiomatic, it's defended through retortion, any denial of the law of identity would rely on it and would be self refuting.
The article didn't say you have to presuppose a god to accept the identity principle; it said that the objectivity of the identity principle is consistent with religion but not with secularism.
1) On what grounds do you call the identity principle an axiom?
2) Please explain what you mean by "retortion", particularly how it relates to the identity principle.
3) I agree that any denial of the identity principle is inconsistent. But that does not make it objective; it makes its surety pragmatic, subject to the person using it.
Quote:3. The "ought" problem (that certain inclinations under specific situations should [objectively] be acted upon whereas others should not; this is fundamental to the scientific study of socialism) is solvable to the religious whereas to the secularist it is not. For the secularist can only study the morality of actions insofar as they are natural and no further. He may say, The potential action "A" is not in accordance with the way things work apart from the influence of persons. However he may not rationally conclude, Therefore action "A" ought not to be done, for to so conclude would be to commit precisely the "is/ought" fallacy. However the religious presupposes a divine being who has ordered the cosmos collectively for a specific purpose (in other words, a divine being who has given us specific things that we "ought" to do) and included the nature of the cosmos in his overall scheme. Thus to act in a way that is not in accordance with nature is contrary to what people, collectively, "ought" to do, ie. immoral. Thus the nature of society is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular mindset, in which it is paradoxical (i.e. it has an unsolvable problem)
some models of objective morality are monotheistic some are polytheistic or deistic or atheistic. religious people don't have an exclusive claim to objective morality. furthermore some models of relative morality are theistic.
There is only one consistent model of objective morality that I know of, and that is the appeal to the objective nature of things built upon the presupposition of a God who so ordered it.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
- Login to post comments
Offline 1. On the scientific question of whether the cosmos is purely self-existent (i.e. naturalism, which is optimally compatible with secularism), having popped without aid into existence out of nothing, we are inclined to answer in the negative.
If you were to ask me where the universe came from, I would like reply: "The same place God came from"
God is eternal, why can't the universe be?
The universe had a beginning? Then that was the beginning.
Either time is finite of infinite.
If infinite then God/Universe has been around forever.
If there was a beginning then there was a point that nothing comes before.
Whichever way you cut it, something just 'is'.
2. The principle of identity (that any given thing is itself and not something else entirely; this is fundamental to scientific inquiry) is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular one. For if the secularist wishes to inquire into the nature of the identity principle, he must use it even in his inquiry and thus he loses all objectivity from the start.
Not really. I agree that you start off with the concept of identity - it, and many other things, are necessary for thinking.
You say that trying to justify is loses all objectivity - that's because it's not something we justify.
It's something that has to be there before reasoning is possible.
Clearly to reason, something must already in place to reason with.
Clearly that ground work isn't justifiable and isn't supposed to be justified.
Just things that are necessarily in place for this conversation to be possible.
3. The "ought" problem (that certain inclinations under specific situations should [objectively] be acted upon whereas others should not; this is fundamental to the scientific study of socialism) is solvable to the religious whereas to the secularist it is not. For the secularist can only study the morality of actions insofar as they are natural and no further.
The is/ought problem shows that you cannot infer an "I should do x" from a description on the world.
i.e. Our "oughts" are a separate topic to what "is"
This doesn't change for theists.
If there's a God, how do you infer an "ought" from that?
God will burn you in hell for disobedience? What does that change? That only infers an ought for obedience if you already have an "I ought to stop myself from ending up in hell"
That is, an "ought" needs to be in place already. We can't get an "ought" purely from an "is"
As it happens, there's more to life than "what is". Both theists and atheists alike have "oughts" that they don't need to infer from whatever "is".
- Login to post comments
Offline 1) On what grounds do you call the identity principle an axiom?
2) Please explain what you mean by "retortion", particularly how it relates to the identity principle.
3) I agree that any denial of the identity principle is inconsistent. But that does not make it objective; it makes its surety pragmatic, subject to the person using it.
it's an axiom because it's a necessary truth and it's self evident.
retortion is what i already said, an attempt to refute it would require an argument that relies on it.
it's not subjective there's no way to doubt it, you would only be verifying it if you did.
There is only one consistent model of objective morality that I know of, and that is the appeal to the objective nature of things built upon the presupposition of a God who so ordered it.
that isn't my fault. read any book about ethics and that will change.
also if morality can be derived from the objective nature of things then religious believers have no special access to moral truth anyway.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
- Login to post comments
Offline Uncontested. The statement in question was a summary, not an exhaustive definition, of the scientific method.
A summary is a concise presentation of the main points of a subject. "Science is conducted precisely via deduction" doesn't present the main points of the scientific method and is therefore not a summary. You offered a false proposition, nothing more.
You seem to have misapproximated empiricism. To deduce conclusions from empirical evidence (such as was done for SLoT) is not empiricism; it is science. To equate science with empiricism as you seem to have done is just what was warned against in the prior quote.
The second law of thermodynamics wasn't deduced, it was infered. Further, I didn't equate science and empiricism. I don't know where you got that idea from. I argued that they were linked, not that they were equivalent. And I don't know what you mean by empiricism. In the philosophy of science, empiricism is essentially about knowledge deductively, inductively, and/or abductively derived from sensory perception like those perceived through the process of experimenting. With that definition in mind, science is essentially the systematic employment of methodological empiricism. As I argued earlier, they are not equivalent but they are linked. If you disagree with that definition of empiricism in any substantial way, you'll need to tell us what definition of empiricism you're using. Considering that my earlier response questioned your use of the term "empiricism," it seems strange that you haven't already offered your definition of the term. Are you being intentionally vague?
Remember, entropy refers to matter, so you are assuming that God is material, which was not argued in the article. You have constructed a strawman.
I'm an atheist. By definition, I didn't assume God was anything. You're caricaturing my argument. Whether God is material or immaterial is not pertinent to this debate, hence the reason I never brought it up. What is pertinent is the fact that you assigned the property of perpetuity to some entities, i.e. god, while denying the property for other entities, i.e. everything that is not god, in a rather arbitrary manner except to the extent that it made your own position seem more palatable and the contrary position less palatable, which is an obvious employment of special pleading.
However if such an entity exists then the principle of identity has a cosmic being as its essential form, which gives it objectivity. To accept it pragmatically as the secularist must, on the other hand, is simply subjective and can lead to contradictions in how we understand the nature of the world. Which option seems more reasonable?
To presuppose the existence of a deity is to pragmatically accept the axiom of identity because you must accept the axiom of identity before you can reason about distinct beings.
But your criteria are subjective, as you said, "the one you don't have to worry" in is better. So this is not an objective test of morality, as in the article, but a subjective one. You are comparing apples to oranges.
I used "you" in the general sense of "persons." The existence of pain is an objective fact. That two differing scenarios can cause different amounts of pain is an objective fact. If one scenario causes less pain than another, it's objectively preferrable. To argue otherwise would require arguing that the superiority of the nonexistence of pain over the existence of pain has not been demonstrated. Fair enough, but how does a deity alleviate that problem? If he declares the nonexistence of pain is better, how is that objective when it's only his whim that determines it? If it isn't his whim that determines it, then what does? If the deity and I disagree, who is right and what decides that? The problem with your argument is that you're seeking a completely objective morality when there's no such thing. You must lean back on subjective notions, like the preferrability of the nonexistence of pain, in making decisions about ethics. There's no way to avoid it.
If the deity has dictated the nature of the universe (i.e. what it "ought" to do) and you are going against that, then you are objectively doing something you "ought" not to be doing, as long as you are a part of the universe. This is how the theist gets around the is/ought problem.
If that's how theists think they're getting around the problem, theists are mistaken. People, being parts of nature, cannot go against nature. Nature is whatever natural things do, by definition. You are basically arguing that whatever people do is what they ought to do and what people cannot do is what they ought not do. So if some people cannabilize other people, those people ought to cannabilize other people. What you are offering is not a solution at all.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
- Login to post comments
Offline outside of the catholic church nobody accepts the theory of natural law anymore. it's a view of the world that conflicts with modern science. explanations of natural phenomena make no reference to value or purpose at all. it's just an excuse to say certain kinds of sex are wrong. even if it were true that god created things for specific purposes you couldn't derive moral principles from that anyway. a hammer is made for driving nails but if i use one to crack open a walnut i haven't done anything immoral. it's idiotic.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
- Login to post comments
Offline
If you were to ask me where the universe came from, I would like reply: "The same place God came from"
And no one would listen to you. Unless you are an authority on determining the origin of the universe... Are you?
God is eternal, why can't the universe be?
Actually, the fact that God is eternal makes the universe eternal, because God (being existent) is a part of the universe, the system of all existent things. The question is, Is the cosmos eternal? The answer is, No. It's not. It had a beginning.
The universe had a beginning? Then that was the beginning.
No, the universe (if properly defined as above) had no beginning. However the cosmos did.
Either time is finite of infinite.
If infinite then God/Universe has been around forever.
If there was a beginning then there was a point that nothing comes before.
Whichever way you cut it, something just 'is'.
Yup. Something always has been. The cosmos has existed for just as long as time. But is there something else that exists outside of the cosmos and outside of time? It would seem so, if the SLoT is true, as per the argument in question.
dmar198 wrote:2. The principle of identity (that any given thing is itself and not something else entirely; this is fundamental to scientific inquiry) is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular one. For if the secularist wishes to inquire into the nature of the identity principle, he must use it even in his inquiry and thus he loses all objectivity from the start.
Not really. I agree that you start off with the concept of identity - it, and many other things, are necessary for thinking.
You say that trying to justify is loses all objectivity - that's because it's not something we justify.
It's something that has to be there before reasoning is possible.
Clearly to reason, something must already in place to reason with.
Clearly that ground work isn't justifiable and isn't supposed to be justified.
Just things that are necessarily in place for this conversation to be possible.
Agreed. But the argument is not based on whether the principle of identity is true; it is based on whether it is objective. For you to say, We need it to think, does not prove its objectivity because that is entirely pragmatic and therefore insufficient proof. Also, it involves the subject, the thinker. If there were no people to reason, how would your argument go? You would have no argument. Thus you make the identity principle subject to the existence of people. That's not a solid case. Religionists can affirm that the principle is objective, based on a necessary being/the necessity of being.
3. The "ought" problem (that certain inclinations under specific situations should [objectively] be acted upon whereas others should not; this is fundamental to the scientific study of socialism) is solvable to the religious whereas to the secularist it is not. For the secularist can only study the morality of actions insofar as they are natural and no further.
The is/ought problem shows that you cannot infer an "I should do x" from a description on the world.
i.e. Our "oughts" are a separate topic to what "is"
This doesn't change for theists.
If there's a God, how do you infer an "ought" from that?
God will burn you in hell for disobedience? What does that change? That only infers an ought for obedience if you already have an "I ought to stop myself from ending up in hell"
That is, an "ought" needs to be in place already. We can't get an "ought" purely from an "is"
You have constructed a strawman out of the theist's response, although I don't blame you for it because the caricature of a reply you gave is the first thing that comes to mind, and is also false as you rightly pointed out. But for theists, you can surpass the is/ought problem just from describing the universe. The argument goes: The potential action "X" is in accordance with the way the world naturally works, that is, the way it works without the influence of people. The whole cosmos is ordered by God for a specific purpose (in other words, there are specific things that we "ought" to do) and God included the nature of the cosmos in this overall scheme. Thus to do action "X" is contrary to what people, collectively, "ought" to do.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
- Login to post comments
No comments? Doesn't some of this seem original, and well articulated at least? Nobody has anything to add, critique, etc.?
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
tl/dr.
I think you're not getting much interest because this isn't anything new. Rewording a bad argument does not make it valid. Presuppositionalism doesn't work, no matter how you dress it up.
Furthermore...
You are setting up a convenient position to use as a springboard for your argument. Why would a scientist (read: atheist, which is what you are implying with the above) assent to the proposition of a god for which no empirical data has ever been presented? Also, why must the scientist, who can back up the claims she makes regarding the natural world, bend their language (and therefore their reasoning) around this unsupported claim of a god?
I would like to point out that your proposed reconciliation is nothing short of requesting that nonbelievers simply assent to the existence of that which you call god. That is not reconciliation; that is appeasement. I will however give you credit for offering up the same number of reasons for belief on the part of the scientist as that of the believer: zero.
You are using loaded terms and anthropomorphizing "science" as having a goal of eliminating religious belief. This is untrue: science does not deal with the ins and outs of religion because there is nothing remotely scientific about it. Its ways cannot be duplicated, its mean are not open to peer review, and it is completely without unambiguous data.
Science sidelines religious belief because it has no explanatory power about either past events or future observations. In short, it is a broken tool.
My critique of this position must be light, as I lack a strong grounding in astrophysics. However, I can say that the current dating of the universe goes back to the big bang, beyond which it is impossible to know anything. Therefore my understanding is that any hypotheses about reality before that point are untestable, unverifiable and therefore useless, regardless of who makes them.
You have either misdefined or redefined the axiom of identity, which is "to exist is to exist as something". This definition rules out the existence of anything the religious would refer to as "immaterial", such as the soul.
Your definition is difficult to understand: are you saying that "A is A, and therefore cannot be B"? If so, you have ruled out the possibility of Christian trinitarianism: someone could not be both the son of god and god himself.
This is not a scientific position, but a sociological one. Science is not an ethical inquiry; it is about explaining how the material world works. Therefore, this is either a nonsequitir or a straw man.
The alternate explanation for this is that religion started as a way to codify maximally beneficial human behaviour in order to foster the growth of society. Religion is an effect of people living together, not a cause.
False conclusion, which was based on faulty premises. Religion cannot be used to answer scientific questions; this much is true, because the practice of religion can in no way be considered a scientific approach.
The scientific method is in opposition to wrong answers, whatever the cause, whoever the espouser. If you believe that the earth goes around the sun because it's pushed by fairies, science can be used to explain how you are right on effect but wrong on cause. If you believe that it's possible for sufficient water to fall from the sky to cover the whole world, science can show you how you are wrong to believe it possible. What you do with that newfound knowledge is up to you.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
Up to this point, I am in complete agreement. As I've said in other threads, as soon as you invoke the supernatural, you've abdicated participation in the scientific process, because no meaningful answers can be found, only 'Because we said so, now shut the hell up.'
Actually, for myself, the real reason to push the religious mindset to the fringes of society is because it is founded on the premise that someone else has had all the answers to the Great Questions of existence, and you should stop looking for your own answers. This premise has a corruptive tendency to spread beyond metaphysical issues; the religious are often not content with their own feelings that they don't need deeper answers, they actively seek to press that position, and more, the position of *their* specific religion, onto others. The 'Scientific Creationism/Intelligent Design' flap in various schools around the US has shown that. I know people who are Norse Reconstructionists in their religious belief. If ID can be taught in science class as a valid 'this is how the world got made' theory, why can't they insist that children should be taught that the world was fashioned from the body of the giant Ymir by Odin?
The big problem with the religious mindset is that religion presupposes that it has the answers. What made Reality? God. Which God? Mine. If you follow a different God, then you're wrong. Can I prove my God is right? No. What makes it right? It's mine, sod off.
That's not a foundation for seeking the truth, only for making the truth fit the entirely subjective framework of religion.
Except that entropy is a function of Time, and so far as we know, Time has only existed since, well, the beginning of Time in the Big Bang. What form and state Reality had that caused the transition into our current arrangement of dimensions, we do not know. We do not know which dimensions, if any as we currently understand them, were expanded and which were compressed, and so cannot say what the axis of progression for that form of Reality was. Without this knowledge, we cannot even speculate on whether entropy itself existed in the conditions that gave rise to the beginnings of our current arrangement. Without knowledge of that state, we cannot make any claims that the cosmos required the aid of any entity beyond the cosmos in order to make that transition.
Except that this, like the 'first cause' argument, doesn't actually resolve the issue: the religious mindset requires the enactor of the principle of identity to adhere to it, as well: God must be God, and not something else, in order to achieve this. Saying this 'is an objective reality which's (sic) origins can be traced to the nature of God' is meaningless. The secularist can just substitute 'existence' for 'God' and be just as comfortable never actually trying to answer the question as the the theist already seems to be. Even here, "God did it" just isn't an answer. It's a 'Shut up, we don't have an answer'.
This is really just the same 'where does morality come from if not a Higher source?' question we've discussed on these boards many times. Each time, it's presented as some kind of trump card, and each time, it gets stomped on. To summarize:
A)'Morality' (ie: 'ought') comes closest to actual objectivity when it remains in broad strokes. It's very hard to look a grieving parent in the eye and tell them that morally, it's better for the rapist and murderer of their six year old son to go free than it is for a society to care more about punishing the guilty than protecting the falsely accused. In broad strokes, we understand the idea that it's better to risk letting a guilty man go free than unjustly convict an innocent man, in order to preserve the value of virtue. Once innocence is no defense against imprisonment, where is the worth of it? But tell that to the parents of the six year old.
Edit to add: That, in fact, is one of the great draws of religion: The parents of that child don't want morality. They want Justice. But Man is incapable of delivering perfect Justice in all cases. Our ability to determine the truth is incomplete. And so we must err on the side of protecting individuals from other individuals, or err on the side of protecting individuals from the State, which is far, far more powerful than even the most organized and capable Organized Crime operation. We can't deliver perfect Justice. Religion promises to do just that: Even if the rapist/murderer gets away with it in this life, God is watching. God will make sure he gets what's coming to him, just like God will give the victim the peace and happiness they were denied by the crime. It's a salve, a balm on the grief, and a reassurance that in the end, the guilty will be punished for their crimes. It just happens to be one that can never be verified by those to whom the promise is being made.
B)Secularly speaking, morality is an outgrowth of the social structures we developed as our species evolved: what is moral, generally, is protecting the helpless (usually children, the repository of our lineage and genetics, and really, the entire purpose behind life: the continuation of ourselves) or limiting behavior that is detrimental to the group. Beyond, and sometimes conflicting with that is our inherent nature to resist limitations and restrictions; whence comes our love of liberty. It is in the careful paths we wend between these poles: benefits to the group, and doing what we want, that our complex systems of society have developed. As we become more technically able to store and pass along knowledge, these systems become increasingly complex, and more 'special case' minutiae develop. Naturally, and without any presupposition of higher authority than ourselves, one another, and our hopes for the future.
And that is, if you'll pardon the pun, as it 'ought' to be.
Except, of course, that atheism does not require the formation of judgment. This is a common mistake, and is part of what leads many theists to consider atheism a religion: There needs be no 'faith' that there is no deity, only a lack of faith that one or more is real. Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s), not a belief in the lack of God(s). The latter is certainly a form of atheism, just as Baptist Fundamentalism is a form of theism... but what many consider 'Agnosticism' is actually atheism. Agnosticism speaks not to the existence or nonexistence of the divine, but existence or nonexistence of surety. A theist who believes 'there's SOMETHING greater than us, but I don't know what it is' is an agnostic theist. An atheist who says 'I don't know if there is anything out there, so I'm not going to draw unprovable conclusions one way or the other' is an agnostic atheist.
And agnostic atheism, I would think, would be the mindset most in line with scientific inquiry: 'I don't know, and I won't claim to know until I have proof one way or the other'.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
The argument against secularism in the instantaneous existence of the universe is based on poor understanding of the current state of our own knowledge. This argument essentially falls prey to the same thing warned against in the introduction -- to resist the impulse to fill blank spaces in our knowledge with "God did it."
Essentially, our knowledge of "the Big Bang," as it is colloquially called, extends right up to the first instants of the existence of the universe. It seems that the universe was formed chaotically -- that is, it began in a state of near-zero entropy, and has been moving to a state of maximum entropy ever since. However, since we don't know much about the first few femtoseconds of the universe, we still don't know as much as we'd like. (There's the question of whether or not time is even relevant to the discussion.)
Argument 2 seems to be a case of special pleading, but I don't know enough about the philosophy of identity to know for sure.
Argument 3 has been addressed ad naseum in other forums, but to sum up: you can arrive at objective morality by the judicious application of game theory. This morality can dictate what "aught" to be done in a particular society.
Further, there is the complication of comprehension. How are we to surmise God's purpose? By simply observing nature? If so, then how is that significantly different from secular empiricism? This simply moves the search for an objective morality from the natural (which we can observe) to the supernatural (which is, by definition, unobservable).
His argument glosses over the entire issue, and offers no insight into the nature of God's objective morality, leaving one free to substitute any morality.
------------
It seems he starts off by stating that the scientific method fits right in with religious belief. This is entirely consistent with what I know about religious belief, and something I have always said: If there is a God, the only way to get to know the Mind of God is to study His creation. (I say this merely to provoke theists to think. I believe there is no God.)
So his introduction is logical. He then provides three attempts to show that a religious interpretation of the universe makes more sense than a secular viewpoint. At this he fails at least two of them, one by doing exactly the opposite of that which he espoused in his introduction, and in the second (point #3) by ignoring both current sociological research, and by failing to provide a reasonable method of determining God's intended morality.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Aww, I thought the second one at least was original. The other two, which seem well-articulated, should not be so easily dismissed. Please explain your problem with the argument, particularly in terms of the presuppositions.
I was not implying that the scientist would be an atheist, although I did contrast him with the religious, so I see where this may have misled you. No, but even if the scientist was devoutly religious and asked that question, he should still see that an appeal to God is not helpful.
Firstly, you are missing the point. The point was that the appeal to God did not do anything to answer the question. Secondly, the scientist was supposed to concede the point so as appease the religious so that he could return to his inquiry. He didn't care whether the religious believed in God, so he did not contest it. He just rephrased the question so that he could continue seeking information.
This was not a request for nonbelievers to assent to God's existence. It was a request for the believers to stop positing God as an answer to scientific inquiries.
This is just polemics. I'll ignore it.
I fail to see how that is an anthropomorphism. Did I make science into a person? No. I think you are just basing this on your assumption that the scientist in question was an atheist; that assumption was unwarranted in the first place.
Agreed.
Science sidelines religious belief on questions of knowledge for these reasons, granted. However this is a meaningless charge because religion does not ordinarily deal with scientific questions; it deals with assigning meaning to situations, mostly.
This is not a question of pre-cosmic causation, although that was briefly mentioned to identify traditional naturalism. The argument is that, because the cosmos naturally tends toward balance (implying that it is currently imbalanced), therefore it cannot have become imbalanced by natural processes. The only other option is that the universe became imbalanced by supernatural processes.
That is an unwarranted charge. The identity principle, in logic, states that a given object is the same as itself. See here for more info. Indeed, you have redefined it; for you say that, because everything must exist as something, therefore the soul must exist as material. That does not follow. For your argument to work, you would need to redefine the identity axiom to mean "to exist is to exist as something material".
Delete the "therefore" and yes. This is a principle, not an argument. "A is A and not B".
Only if you misunderstand Christian trinitatianism. Somewhat as a cube can exist in three dimensions, so a deity can exist in three persons.
I am using "science" more broadly than "a process to explain how the material world works"; I am using "science" to refer to "a systematic process of seeking knowledge" which includes socialism.
The alternate explanation for this is that religion started as a way to codify maximally beneficial human behaviour in order to foster the growth of society. Religion is an effect of people living together, not a cause.
You have missed the point. I am not here trying to identify the purpose of religion, only one of its doctrines which, if presupposed, solves the ought problem.
You fail to show either that my conclusion is false, or that my premises were faulty. Other than your first sentence, then, I agree with everything you have to say in the above post.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!