tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post6052181663585180166..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: On Assessing Triablogue's Review of "The Christian Delusion"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger139125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58433344903028005872010-08-03T22:39:14.930-04:002010-08-03T22:39:14.930-04:00Me: "First, don't forget that the Vatica...Me: "First, don't forget that the Vatican accepts the theory of evolution as being compatible with Christian faith."<br /><br />Neal: "Irrelevant appeal to authority."<br /><br />I can stick my fingers in my ears and holler "LAA LAA LAA!", too. That you even said that shows that you got nothing except one book that doesn't say anything coherent about the subject.<br /><br />------------------------------<br /><br />Me: "Second, while there's still some debate about the mechanisms and rates pertaining to evolution, biologists are almost all in agreement that evolution is the correct explanation."<br /><br />Neal: "Agreement with does not establish the truth of a proposition."<br /><br />Those experts in biology aren't just standing around agreeing with each other. They're doing cutting edge research, and finding out how things really work. They're manipulating genetic instructions to turn genes on and off at different times and PROVING that <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news170426405.html" rel="nofollow">birds are descended from dinosaurs</a>. Keep on sticking your head in the sand. Makes no difference to the truth.<br /><br />-------------------------------<br /><br />Me: "There's just too much evidence supporting evolution, and none supporting creationism, which is the only "theory" in contention with evolution as an explanation."<br /><br />Neal: "Thank you for confirming what I just said about atheists and evolutionists proclaiming evolution a fact without having to argue for it."<br /><br />The evidence is all around you. I'm not going to attempt posting it here because <br /><br />a) there's literally mountains of evidence supporting evolution, and <br /><br />b) you would deny it was true out of hand, if you even bothered to read it. Not MY fault your mind is welded shut. I'm with Paul. You're too dense to reason with.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23388346174751702152010-08-03T10:59:14.433-04:002010-08-03T10:59:14.433-04:00GearHedEd, that brings up a good point. I often s...GearHedEd, that brings up a good point. I often see theists assuming that knowledge or morality has to be absolute, and if it isn't then everything is a 50/50 potshot. But, as you say, that isn't true either. Just because everything isn't completely and absolutely black and white doesn't mean that something can't be pretty dark or pretty bright.Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45772662080472344732010-08-03T10:56:17.875-04:002010-08-03T10:56:17.875-04:00Neal, I've enjoyed our conversation, too. I t...Neal, I've enjoyed our conversation, too. I think it's best if I make *that* the last word.<br /><br />Take care.Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75418822682638731022010-08-03T09:28:30.543-04:002010-08-03T09:28:30.543-04:00"First, don't forget that the Vatican acc..."First, don't forget that the Vatican accepts the theory of evolution as being compatible with Christian faith."<br /><br />Irrelevant appeal to authority.<br /><br />"Second, while there's still some debate about the mechanisms and rates pertaining to evolution, biologists are almost all in agreement that evolution is the correct explanation."<br /><br />Agreement with does not establish the truth of a proposition.<br /><br />"There's just too much evidence supporting evolution, and none supporting creationism, which is the only "theory" in contention with evolution as an explanation."<br /><br />Thank you for confirming what I just said about atheists and evolutionists proclaiming evolution a fact without having to argue for it.Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15030792638120558640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6502437721115386312010-08-03T00:19:45.412-04:002010-08-03T00:19:45.412-04:00Neal asked,
"...So why then do atheists and ...Neal asked,<br /><br />"...So why then do atheists and evolutionists keep proclaiming that evolution is "a fact" that is unassailable when its entire foundations are in quicksand? We are told over and over that the scientific method is the only reliable method for gaining knowledge."<br /><br />First, don't forget that the Vatican accepts the theory of evolution as being <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5705331.ece" rel="nofollow">compatible with Christian faith</a>.<br /><br />Second, while there's still some debate about the mechanisms and rates pertaining to evolution, biologists are almost all in agreement that evolution is the correct explanation. Just like Newton's theories were not thrown out by relativity (which builds on what Newton and others discovered), filling in the details about evolution will not render it "false".<br /><br />Last, Popper's commentary on science being like pilings driven into a swamp is accurate, but we need to remember that just like a piling, it moves less and less with each successive blow, until it reaches a point where more blows won't move it further. It's a matter of statistics: something that moves not at all given new discoveries of descriptive detail can still be called "factual" with some measure of confidence. This means that no one, including those doing all the cutting-edge research expect that the "theory" of evolution will ever be falsified to the extent that we'll need to start from scratch.<br /><br />There's just too much evidence supporting evolution, and none supporting creationism, which is the only "theory" in contention with evolution as an explanation.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67616301696092058632010-08-03T00:03:35.682-04:002010-08-03T00:03:35.682-04:00"So there's no ultimate sense in which a ..."So there's no ultimate sense in which a materialistic ought is an Ought. It's just a label for behavior that certain organisms try to get others (and themselves) to do. That's all an ought has to be."<br /><br />Or rather its all an ought <i>can</i> be. I understand what you are saying, but it still seems to me that this undermines rational ethical discourse. It leaves us only with descriptions, not prescriptions. It also I think doesn't take seriously the problem of evil. Most people intuitively have a sense that certain crimes are intrinsically evil, apart from any cost-benefit analysis for the human race or a simple "I don't want that to happen to me." The prime example being child rape and murder. In most people this sort of thing elicits a visceral anger that wants the perpetrator to pay for his crimes, not just because it would be good for the human race, but because they want due justice to be served.<br /><br />Anyway, it's been an enjoyable conversation. I appreciate your even-handedness in this discussion. It's been interesting. You may have the last word in this thread if you like.Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15030792638120558640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20485282853755684532010-08-02T19:21:44.576-04:002010-08-02T19:21:44.576-04:00One other thought, maybe this gets closer to my re...One other thought, maybe this gets closer to my reification issue:<br /><br />The ought that comes from materialism is not an ought ontologically, it's just a label for behavior that organisms with sufficient brains to label things want to encourage.<br /><br />So there's no ultimate sense in which a materialistic ought is an Ought. It's just a label for behavior that certain organisms try to get others (and themselves) to do. That's all an ought has to be.Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89784389404473959642010-08-02T16:38:19.516-04:002010-08-02T16:38:19.516-04:00Neal:
Your answer to the critique that under natur...Neal:<br /><i>Your answer to the critique that under naturalism all activity of the mind is reducible to physicalist deterministic descriptions is to reply with a physicalist deterministic description!</i><br /><br />That's kinda it, actually. That is, I'm trying to show that the supposed critique of naturalism and materialism and determinism is not a critique because the three of them describe a theory that fits the empirical state of affairs on the ground and is not contradictory, so there's no need to posit anything beyond what the theory shows. <br /><br />But that requires giving up what theists think Truth (tm) is, and accepting a "lesser" version (but not less accurate) in some sense (I admit I have not exactly defined what I mean by lesser, I'll keep working on it). <br /><br />I think I may have it. Theists accuse materialists of not having any grounding for morality because you can't get an ought from an is. This is an unfounded critique, because materialists are not supposing an ought, that is, an absolute Ought; they only say that whatever oughts we find are evolutionary, relative, changeable, etc. But they still function as oughts: they limit behavior to a greater or lesser degree, discourse about those oughts is still intelligible, etc.<br /><br />That redefines "Ought" down to the level that is consistent with materialism, but it is not illogical, it works, etc.Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15158058424698122962010-08-02T16:27:55.505-04:002010-08-02T16:27:55.505-04:00Neal:
If it wasn't adequately answered, how c...Neal:<br /><i><br />If it wasn't adequately answered, how could the ball be pushed down the road?</i><br /><br />But you haven't gotten to the end of saying why you think it isn't adequate. Your critique gets short-circuited by you merely restating your thesis. In essence, it's been<br /><br />Me: My idea A<br />You: A is wrong<br />Me: why?<br />You: reason #1 <br />Me: sub-argument B (=defense of A)<br />You: B is wrong<br />Me: my proof that B is right<br />You: A is wrong<br /><br />I'm not willing to quote chapter and verse here to prove this to you, it's just too tedious for me to do so. If we can't agree on this now, let's just drop it.Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35138767847434349342010-08-02T16:12:45.337-04:002010-08-02T16:12:45.337-04:00I understand your question, now, Neal. I didn'...I understand your question, now, Neal. I didn't mean to say that truth would be partial or accidental. I just wanted to prevent what I see as a reification of the truth by theists (or non-materialists, more strictly), making truth into something more than what would be needed by a material organism to control its behavior with neuronal configurations that fire when the conditions they encode for are matched by reality (whew, that's a horrible sentence, but I was just trying to sum up my argument here). I see theists trying to refute this idea on the basis that Truth somehow requires something more than what materialism can provide its definition, and I'm trying to scale down the definition (but the accuracy) of truth to fit materialism, and it then seems that this definition is perfectly fine.Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13775354466964538152010-08-02T13:57:19.052-04:002010-08-02T13:57:19.052-04:00Neal said: "So if I understand what you are s...Neal said: "So if I understand what you are saying here, under deterministic materialism, a belief doesn't actually have to be true, it just needs to be approximately true to reality in order for an organism to benefit from that belief."<br /><br />Paul said: "I'm not sure about this, mainly because I'm not sure what it means for something to be approximately true. I never said that, and it sounds like how someone is "a little bit pregnant." Something is either true or not."<br /><br />Indeed. I used that word in trying to elicit an understanding what you were trying to say. If you don't like that word, feel free to explain what you really meant. Again, this is the statement you made that I'm trying to understand:<br /><br />"Under determinism and materialism, a belief that X is true doesn't have to mean anything more, in order to function just fine within determinism and materialism, than a configuration of neurons that occur when an organism is about to behave in a way that matches the reality of X."<br /><br />I'll restate my previous response. You seem to be implying here that under deterministic materialism, a belief doesn't actually have to be true, it can be false in relation to reality but function well enough to benefit the organism. And yet this raises the question, is naturalism/materialism actually true, or is it false?<br /><br />Neal said: "I keep bringing it up because I don't think it was adequately answered."<br /><br />Paul said: "But your response as to what you think it isn't adequate is, in the end, merely to restate your critique again. That doesn't push the ball down the road at all."<br /><br />If it wasn't adequately answered, how <i>could</i> the ball be pushed down the road?<br /><br />Paul said: "Lastly, re-read by last paragraph in my last post. I didn't say you couldn't ask the question, merely that doing so doesn't invalidate the previous answers."<br /><br />It does if those previous answers themselves don't actually answer the question. Your answer to the critique that under naturalism all activity of the mind is reducible to physicalist deterministic descriptions is to reply with a physicalist deterministic description! It's like when David Hume despaired that there was no rational justification for causation, that the mind just expects it out of habit of thought, and is the true source of causality. Then along comes Kant who says, "yes! the mind is the source of causality!" It really didn't answer Hume, but took Hume's despairing conclusion and made it the basis of his philosophy of mind.Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15030792638120558640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43558668686552713582010-08-02T13:48:54.212-04:002010-08-02T13:48:54.212-04:00Ooops, some typos:
But your response as to what y...Ooops, some typos:<br /><br />But your response as to what you think it isn't adequate is, in the end, merely to restate your critique again. <br /><br />Delete the word "it" in the sentence above.<br /><br />Lastly, re-read by last paragraph in my last post. I didn't say you couldn't ask the question, merely that doing so doesn't invalidate the previous answers.<br /><br />"Last post" above should be "Second-to-last" post above.Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35291066268067766242010-08-02T12:40:58.683-04:002010-08-02T12:40:58.683-04:00"A critique toward what purpose? Toward findi..."A critique toward what purpose? Toward finding an ultimate basis for Truth? Certainly. But if the purpose is to merely use what works, then the critique fails."<br /><br />What works, for what end? Certainly one would have to know to what end before one could rightly judge whether or not it "works". And this discussion has always been about what is true, has it not? Or perhaps this blog needs to be renamed to something along the lines of "Disagreeing with Christianity". Somehow it doesn't have the same punch though, does it?<br /><br /><i>For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?</i><br /><br />"We're exactly at the point of Karl Popper's great analogy of knowledge being like pilings driven down into a swamp. They don't have to be secured into bedrock, they just have to be deep enough to support whatever structure we put on top."<br /><br />That is indeed a great analogy, and an interesting admission that science is not based on any objective foundation. So why then do atheists and evolutionists keep proclaiming that evolution is "a fact" that is unassailable when its entire foundations are in quicksand? We are told over and over that the scientific method is the only reliable method for gaining knowledge.<br /><br />The entire Popper quotation is great:<br /><br />"Science does not rest upon solid bedrock. The bold structure of its theories rises, as it were, above a swamp. It is like a building erected on piles. The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, but not down to any natural or 'given' base; and when we cease our attempts to drive our piles into a deeper layer, it is not because we have reached firm ground. We simply stop when we are satisfied that they are firm enough to carry the structure, <b>at least for the time being</b>."<br /><br />This is a great picture of why science is a poor foundation on which to build one's philosophy of life. If you'll indulge my Christianity for a moment, this is also reminiscent of something that Jesus said:<br /><br />"Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and {yet} it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell--and great was its fall." - Matthew 7:24-27Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15030792638120558640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74235831652738348902010-08-02T10:27:51.547-04:002010-08-02T10:27:51.547-04:00Neal:
So if I understand what you are saying here,...Neal:<br /><i>So if I understand what you are saying here, under deterministic materialism, a belief doesn't actually have to be true, it just needs to be approximately true to reality in order for an organism to benefit from that belief. </i><br /><br />I'm not sure about this, mainly because I'm not sure what it means for something to be approximately true. I never said that, and it sounds like how someone is "a little bit pregnant." Something is either true or not.<br /><br />Where did I say anything about things being approximately true?<br /><i><br /><br />I keep bringing it up because I don't think it was adequately answered.</i> But your response as to what you think it isn't adequate is, in the end, merely to restate your critique again. That doesn't push the ball down the road at all.<br /><br />Lastly, re-read by last paragraph in my last post. I didn't say you couldn't ask the question, merely that doing so doesn't invalidate the previous answers.Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62571806887803739032010-08-02T10:22:21.520-04:002010-08-02T10:22:21.520-04:00A critique toward what purpose? Toward finding an...A critique toward what purpose? Toward finding an ultimate basis for Truth? Certainly. But if the purpose is to merely use what works, then the critique fails.<br /><br />We're exactly at the point of Karl Popper's great analogy of knowledge being like pilings driven down into a swamp. They don't have to be secured into bedrock, they just have to be deep enough to support whatever structure we put on top.Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33395215984315894112010-08-01T19:11:46.247-04:002010-08-01T19:11:46.247-04:00Neal: "So is truth nothing more than a belief...Neal: "So is truth nothing more than a belief? Or are you saying that a belief is only true when it accidentally happens to correspond to reality?"<br /><br />Paul: "I don't know about accidentally or not, I think that accidentally or not has nothing to do with it. Beliefs are true when they correspond to reality, I hope that is non-controversial."<br /><br />It is non-controversial. But the reason I bring up beliefs being accidentally true, whether or not a given belief corresponds to reality is this: If there is no way to determine whether any given belief is true, what are we left with? Doesn't this bring into question whether the naturalism that one is assuming to be true really is true?<br /><br />Neal: "Yet there is no way to "know" that belief is true, even if it does happen to correspond to reality. This pushes the mind inescapably to solipsism."<br /><br />Paul: "We just went through the issue with "knowing" not too many posts ago, why do you keep bringing it up? I answer it, and then you ask it again."<br /><br />I keep bringing it up because I don't think it was adequately answered.<br /><br />In a previous post you stated: "Under determinism and materialism, a belief that X is true doesn't have to mean anything more, in order to function just fine within determinism and materialism, than a configuration of neurons that occur when an organism is about to behave in a way that matches the reality of X."<br /><br />So if I understand what you are saying here, under deterministic materialism, a belief doesn't actually <i>have</i> to be true, it just needs to be approximately true to reality in order for an organism to benefit from that belief. And yet this raises the question, is naturalism/materialism <i>actually</i> true, or <i>approximately</i> true? If it is approximately true, what does that mean? To what degree is it "approximately" true, and how would one determine this?<br /><br />Paul: I'll try one more time:<br /><br />"We know a belief is true when it corresponds to reality. If you ask how do we know that it corresponds to reality, and I answer "Because of X," then--and here's the crucial point--no matter what X is, you can then ask me "But how do we know X?" and we will never be done, but that surely cannot be the basis of a critique. When as child asks "Why," and keeps on asking after each answer, that doesn't invalidate each answer."<br /><br />If we are arguing about basic presuppositions, how can you just draw a line and say "no further questions"? If we both shared those basic presuppositions, perhaps it would be inappropriate to inquire further. But the basic presuppostions are what are under scrutiny, are they not? Atheists want to press Christians ad nauseum to justify their beliefs, so why should atheists not also be pressed to justify their own beliefs?<br /> <br />Naturalism is a particular belief system that is undergirded by the presupposition that empirical reasoning is the only way to acquire knowledge. If I point out as Hume did that empirical reasoning itself is being assumed without sufficient proof, why cannot that be the basis of a critique?Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15030792638120558640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73530577058630061032010-08-01T16:53:07.823-04:002010-08-01T16:53:07.823-04:00I'm back.
Neal:
So is truth nothing more tha...I'm back.<br /><br />Neal:<br /><i><br />So is truth nothing more than a belief? Or are you saying that a belief is only true when it accidentally happens to correspond to reality?</i><br /><br />I don't know about accidentally or not, I think that accidentally or not has nothing to do with it. Beliefs are true when they correspond to reality, I hope that is non-controversial.<br /><br />Neal:<br /><i><br />Yet there is no way to "know" that belief is true, even if it does happen to correspond to reality. This pushes the mind inescapably to solipsism.</i><br /><br />We just went through the issue with "knowing" not too many posts ago, why do you keep bringing it up? I answer it, and then you ask it again.<br /><br />I'll try one more time:<br /><br />We know a belief is true when it corresponds to reality. If you ask how do we know that it corresponds to reality, and I answer "Because of X," then--and here's the crucial point--<b>no matter what X is,</b> you can then ask me "But how do we know X?" and we will never be done, but that surely cannot be the basis of a critique. When as child asks "Why," and keeps on asking after each answer, that doesn't invalidate each answer.Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67707127592157314932010-07-31T23:57:23.192-04:002010-07-31T23:57:23.192-04:00Paul: "Neal, first could you please explain w...Paul: "Neal, first could you please explain what *you* think the naturalistic fallacy is? I don't want to respond to something that you're not talking about."<br /><br />I'm talking about pretty standard stuff here. There are dozens of websites that outline what the naturalistic fallacy is along with all the other formal and informal fallacies. I'm talking about the standard definition of the is/ought problem.<br /><br />Neal: "People do not come to believe things because they are true or rational, but because they couldn't help but come to believe those things given what they already believed and the enviornmental factors that manipulate the neurons in their brain."<br /><br />Paul: "First of all, people believe some things that are true, and some that are not true. If you want to talk about just the cases in which people believe things that are true, that's fine, but let's be clear that the other thing happens, too."<br /><br />Yes. Why would you think I disagree with that?<br /><br />Paul: "You're describing determinism, if I read you correctly."<br /><br />Yes, exactly. If the universe is explained purely by the operation of physical laws, determinism is unavoidable.<br /><br />Neal: "Good reasoning" is reduced to physical phenomena. Though one may come to certain beliefs (including evolution) there is no good "reason" to think it to be true, for any reason that one could give was also determined by those same environmental factors."<br /><br />Paul: "I think you're assuming a context or definition of a belief that something is true that is does far more than it has too, and which determinism and materialism don't need."<br /><br />I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.<br /><br />Paul: "Under determinism and materialism, a belief that X is true doesn't have to mean anything more, in order to function just fine within determinism and materialism, than a configuration of neurons that occur when an organism is about to behave in a way that matches the reality of X."<br /><br />So is truth nothing more than a belief? Or are you saying that a belief is only true when it accidentally happens to correspond to reality? Yet there is no way to "know" that belief is true, even if it does happen to correspond to reality. This pushes the mind inescapably to solipsism.<br /><br />Paul: "You're reifying truth beyond what materialism needs."<br /><br />How am I doing that? Are you saying that materialism only needs a belief that x is true, and not actual truth?Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15030792638120558640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2517194162937352452010-07-30T19:52:07.377-04:002010-07-30T19:52:07.377-04:00Neal, first could you please explain what *you* th...Neal, first could you please explain what *you* think the naturalistic fallacy is? I don't want to respond to something that you're not talking about.<br /><br />Neal:<br /><i>People do not come to believe things because they are true or rational, but because they couldn't help but come to believe those things given what they already believed and the enviornmental factors that manipulate the neurons in their brain. </i><br /><br />First of all, people believe some things that are true, and some that are not true. If you want to talk about just the cases in which people believe things that are true, that's fine, but let's be clear that the other thing happens, too.<br /><br />You're describing determinism, if I read you correctly.<br /><br />Neal:<i><br /><br />"Good reasoning" is reduced to physical phenomena. Though one may come to certain beliefs (including evolution) there is no good "reason" to think it to be true, for any reason that one could give was also determined by those same environmental factors.</i><br /><br />I think you're assuming a context or definition of a belief that something is true that is does far more than it has too, and which determinism and materialism don't need.<br /><br />Under determinism and materialism, a belief that X is true doesn't have to mean anything more, in order to function just fine within determinism and materialism, than a configuration of neurons that occur when an organism is about to behave in a way that matches the reality of X.<br /><br />You're reifying truth beyond what materialism needs.<br /><br />More in a few days.Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20161532236918080862010-07-30T09:38:06.585-04:002010-07-30T09:38:06.585-04:00Neal: "I didn't say that you were directl...Neal: "I didn't say that you were directly engaging in a fallacy. I said that if what you say is true, the implication is that it legitimates the naturalistic fallacy."<br /><br />Paul: "OK, if there's no fallacy in what I'm saying, then let's move on."<br /><br />First I would like to ask the question: Does attributing moral beliefs to evolutionary explanations legitimate the naturalistic fallacy? If you say no, why not? Is there an obligation that is binding on everyone to not engage in fallacious reasoning? Why or why not?<br /><br />Neal: "Your response included an admission that you weren't even sure what it means to say that the brain "knows" something."<br /><br />Paul: "That's not the context nor the implication at all. I was saying that it seemed that *your* sentence about the brain knowing something was incoherent. You could have offered a fuller explanation of what you meant."<br /><br />The point is this: On the evolutionary view, there is no "soul" or "spirit", "heart" etc. The mind is just brain, grey matter. The internal brain states are entirely determined by (1) the antecedent brain states, and (2) environmental factors, both of which are subject to the laws of physics. People do not come to believe things because they are true or rational, but because they couldn't help but come to believe those things given what they already believed and the enviornmental factors that manipulate the neurons in their brain. "Good reasoning" is reduced to physical phenomena. Though one may come to certain beliefs (including evolution) there is no good "reason" to think it to be true, for any reason that one could give was also determined by those same environmental factors.<br /><br />Neal: "I am happy to leave the argument there if you are."<br /><br />Paul: "I have defended evolutionary morality against every one of your critiques. You could at least acknowledge that."<br /><br />Yes, I agree that you have attempted to do that. Whether or not you were successful at it is another question.<br /><br />Neal: If this is what evolutionary theories of the mind leave us with, so much the worse for evolutionary theory."<br /><br />Paul: "Why? What's the problem that you have created for yourself? If you insist arbitrarily that morality can't be morality unless it's absolute, then you're right, we have a problem. But, on the other hand, you could give up your preconceptions."<br /><br />This particular comment was not about moral absolutes, it was regarding whether knowledge and rationality are even possible given purely evolutionary explanations. If not, evolutionary naturalism forfeits the right to be taken seriously.<br /><br />As for your statement that it is arbitrary to insist that morality is absolute, it doesn't appear to be coherent. My claim is that morality <i>is not</i> arbitrary. In essence you are saying that it is arbitrary to not be arbitrary. Now you might argue that it is arbitrary to choose any given set of moral absolutes, and we can argue that, but the statement that there are moral abolutes is not arbitrary, it is the opposite of arbitrary.Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15030792638120558640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45107834374010732102010-07-29T23:33:21.289-04:002010-07-29T23:33:21.289-04:00Neal:
Read Paul Tobin's original post here.
...Neal:<br /><br />Read Paul Tobin's original post <a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21219785&postID=4756527769949382424" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />Scroll down to item 12 if you don't want to read the whole thing, and read through to items 16 & 17, specifically this passage:<br /><br />"i. The Patriarchal Narratives, the story of Abraham up to the settlement in Egypt by Joseph, is mythological, and Abraham probably never existed. [Cline (2007) pp. 56-58, Dever (2001) p. 98, Finkelstein & Silberman (2001) pp. 27-47, Laughlin (2000) pp. 55-76 esp. p.75, Lemche (1998a) pp. 26-40,Van Seters (1975), Thomas L. Thompson (2002)]<br /><br />ii. There is no evidence to support the historicity of the Exodus and the details given in the second book of the Pentateuch are largely mythical. [Cline (2007) pp. 61-92, Dever (2003) pp. 7-21, Finkelstein & Silberman (2001) pp. 48-71, Laughlin (2000) pp. 90-92, Lemche (1998a) pp. 44-61 esp. p.57]<br /><br />iii. The narratives of the Conquest of Canaan, told mainly in the book of Joshua, is fictional. [Cline (2007) pp.93-120, Dever (2003) pp. 37-74 esp. pp.71-72, Finkelstein & Silberman (2001) pp.72-96, Laughlin (2000) pp. 113-118, Thompson (1999) p. 37]It is also important to note that one cannot simply ignore this consensus by labeling all these scholars “minimalists.” William Dever, for instance, is at loggerheads on many points with Thomas L. Thompson, Israel Finkelstein and Niels P. Lemche – calling them “revisionists.” Yet, as we can see – Dever is in agreement with them on the three points above."<br /><br />I'm not the only one saying this. There's a raft of Biblical Scholars who agree with my point of view.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81004711617076214322010-07-29T19:54:13.619-04:002010-07-29T19:54:13.619-04:00Neal: "Your accepting of a lack of evidence f...Neal: "Your accepting of a lack of evidence from "Egyptian records" over the positive Biblical evidence just confirms your own bias."<br /><br />Me: "Prove Moses DIDN'T have a hammer and chisel hidden under his burka when he went up on Mt. Sinai for forty days! Prove Moses even existed!"<br /><br />Neal: "You have absurd standards. If applied to Socrates, you can't prove he existed either. "Skeptics" once claimed that Pontius Pilate didn't exist either until they were proved wrong by archeaological evidence."<br /><br />We weren't talking about Pilate. We were talking about "the positive Biblical evidence" that DOESN'T exist. <br /><br />You're aware, I presume that most biblical scholars place the actual writing of the pentateuch to roughly the beginning of the Babylonian Exile, ~650 BC, or nearly 1,000 years after the events? No one in their right mind calls this chain of oral "tradition" evidence.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89590450129953473632010-07-29T19:41:53.474-04:002010-07-29T19:41:53.474-04:00"Most people would take "stamping them o..."Most people would take "stamping them out" as a campaign to exterminate them. But I understand. You want to move the goal posts now."<br /><br />You ought to understand. That's one of the oldest apologetics tricks.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28383294684536557352010-07-29T16:53:27.324-04:002010-07-29T16:53:27.324-04:00"The Bible isn't just one monolithic sour..."The Bible isn't just one monolithic source. It is a complilation of writings over centuries. By your logic, the combined writings of Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, Livy, Plutarch, Julius Caesar and all the other Roman historians are not sufficient evidence that the Roman Empire existed. It's also very uniformed. There's plenty of extra-Biblical evidence that corroborate the Bible."<br /><br />By the way, that's a false dichotomy. There are extant coins minted during Julius Caesar's reign, not to mention extant letters Caesar wrote with his own hand. Where are Jesus' writings? Why do contemporaries who were ON THE SCENE not mention Jesus (see the sections on Philo and Seneca).<br /><br />Why were there so many different interpretations (from the writings of early church fathers themselves!) before Constantine hammered out Roman Catholicism? <br /><br />Other people have thoroughly destroyed your arguments more efficiently than I. I've read the Bible. I was not impressed. I have read the OTHER side of the argument, and it has historical evidence and the writings of early churchmen BACKING UP the argument.<br /><br />Cherry-pick the Bible for verses that stroke your confirmation bias all you want; to see the TRUTH, you have to look at a bigger picture.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72391219748580527992010-07-29T16:44:44.895-04:002010-07-29T16:44:44.895-04:00"The Bible isn't just one monolithic sour..."The Bible isn't just one monolithic source. It is a complilation of writings over centuries. By your logic, the combined writings of Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, Livy, Plutarch, Julius Caesar and all the other Roman historians are not sufficient evidence that the Roman Empire existed. It's also very uniformed. There's plenty of extra-Biblical evidence that corroborate the Bible."<br /><br />Blanket assertion. Not convincing, even to most "informed Christians".<br /><br />Read through <a href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/" rel="nofollow">this</a> website.<br /><br />I can engage in ridiculous confirmation bias, too.<br /><br />Except that history confirms this one.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.com