tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post86058572991807680..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Putting the Cross back into ChristmasEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger132125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28347537048707984522011-01-04T09:24:45.507-08:002011-01-04T09:24:45.507-08:00Crude said...
The ability to talk at length does ...Crude said... <br /><i>The ability to talk at length does not mandate that one taking serious what is being discussed in the relevant sense.</i><br /><br />The only evidence I feel I need to submit is the resulting review. You may peruse those posts, or not, at your leisure.<br /><br /><i>And saying that something doesn't look designed does not make it either A) not, in fact, be designed, nor B) not, in fact, look designed. </i><br /><br />I agree with A) unreservedly. B) seems like a quibble.<br /><br /><i>I seriously think the examples given are on the banal side with regards to the relevancy of what's being discussed, yes.</i><br /><br />I can accept banal and relevant. What sort of examples were you thinking could be presented, within a single lifetime?<br /><br /><i>Again, there has been a Nature study on supermodels and their breeding habits with fat people? </i><br /><br />As long as their childrens, or children's children, etc., interbreed, they are in the same populaiton. Why would I need a Nature study to verify what I have seen?<br /><br /><i>Go tell that to the NCSE and others who regularly refer to 'What Darwin thought' as a gold standard. </i><br /><br />How can I talk to mythical people (those at the NCSE who think Darwin's thoughts are preeminant).<br /><br /><i>The last time it was pointed out that Darwin was wrong about something (competition driving evolution as opposed to the opening of new niches), there were hysterics.</i><br /><br />I don't recall seeing that conversation. If the true reaction was merely to the notion that Darwin was wrong about something, I agree such people are misguided. Should I see that happening in the future, I will certainly point out that it's importantto remember Darwin started something that we have been improving for the last 150 years, and the start was hardly perfect (else no improvements would have been needed).One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87923397446753905742011-01-03T16:55:46.601-08:002011-01-03T16:55:46.601-08:00I took Dr. Feser's criticisms seriously enough...<i>I took Dr. Feser's criticisms seriously enough</i><br /><br />The ability to talk at length does not mandate that one taking serious what is being discussed in the relevant sense.<br /><br /><i>Saying everything looks designed doesn't undermine the position trying to determine whether things look designed, so much as trying toprevent the discussion at all by claiming no discriminatory powers.</i><br /><br />And saying that something doesn't look designed does not make it either A) not, in fact, be designed, nor B) not, in fact, look designed. Like I said, I'm just highlighting the lack of support.<br /><br /><i>Do you seriously think "relevant" means "thrilling"? Because, I would agree thrilling oberservations are not necessary for science.</i><br /><br />I seriously think the examples given are on the banal side with regards to the relevancy of what's being discussed, yes.<br /><br /><i>A natural extension of family history. Children of fat peple can be supermodels, for one thing.</i><br /><br />Again, there has been a Nature study on supermodels and their breeding habits with fat people? <br /><br /><i>I don't either of us is a position to say what Darwin would think, and I'm not sure why that would be relevant to begin with.</i><br /><br />Go tell that to the NCSE and others who regularly refer to 'What Darwin thought' as a gold standard. The last time it was pointed out that Darwin was wrong about something (competition driving evolution as opposed to the opening of new niches), there were hysterics.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68519976234893143522011-01-03T16:14:30.386-08:002011-01-03T16:14:30.386-08:00Sorry for the above wrong thread.
Sorry!Sorry for the above wrong thread.<br /><br />Sorry!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55905188245333358052011-01-03T16:11:39.200-08:002011-01-03T16:11:39.200-08:00I just lifted this from the Wikipedia on the FALLA...I just lifted this from the Wikipedia on the FALLACY OF COMPOSITION.<br /><br />Some properties are such that, if every part of a whole has the property, then the whole will, too. In such instances, the fallacy of composition does not apply. For example, if all parts of a chair are green, then it is acceptable to infer that the chair is green. Or if all parts of a table are wooden, it is acceptable to infer that the table is wooden. A property of all parts that can be ascribed to the whole is called an "expansive" property, according to Nelson Goodman.[1] For a property to be expansive, it must be absolute (as opposed to relative) and structure-independent (as opposed to structure dependent), according to Frans H. van Eemeren.[5]<br /><br />The meanings of absolutes do not imply a comparison, whereas the meanings of relatives do. E.g., being green or wooden are absolutes, whereas fast or heavy or cheap are relatives. We know whether something is green or wooden without reference to other things, whereas we do not know whether something is fast or heavy or cheap without implicitly comparing it to other things. Relative properties are never expansive. E.g., it does not follow that if all parts of a chair are cheap, then the chair is cheap.<br /><br />Absolute properties shared by all constituent parts of a whole are expansive only if they are independent of the nature of the whole's structure or arrangement. That is, if it does not matter whether the whole is a summation or integration, an unordered collection or a cohesive whole, then the property is said to be independent.[5] Consider the example, X is green. It does not matter whether X is a chair (an integration or coherent whole) or just a pile of twigs (a summation or unordered collection). Green is therefore an independent property. Now consider the example, X is rectangular. Rearrange a rectangular object—e.g., tear up the pages of a book—and it might not stay rectangular. Rectangularness is a structure dependent property and is therefore non-expansive.END QUOTEBenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15597683394263292592011-01-01T08:52:25.900-08:002011-01-01T08:52:25.900-08:00I think this thread has lost comments overnight.
...I think this thread has lost comments overnight.<br /><br />Crude said...<br /><i>You're not going to take them seriously anyway </i><br /><br />I took Dr. Feser's criticisms seriously enough to read his book three times through while reveiwing it, plus going over passages as needed in addition. I assure that if you think enough of an argument to present it seriously, I'll take it in that vein.<br /><br /><i>I'm just pointing out the lack of support there.</i><br /><br />Saying everything looks designed doesn't undermine the position trying to determine whether things look designed, so much as trying toprevent the discussion at all by claiming no discriminatory powers.<br /><br /><i>Apparently there are no specialists in speciation then, as the FAQ implies. He seemed downright surprised at the results he got - he just had a quick, funny excuse.</i><br /><br />Based on this and subsequent comments, it doesn't seem like you were responding to <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html" rel="nofollow">this page</a>, and iun particular the examples listed in 5.1 thourgh 5.8.<br /><br /><i>Good thing relevant observations aren't necessary for science!</i><br /><br />Do you seriously think "relevant" means "thrilling"? Because, I would agree thrilling oberservations are not necessary for science.<br /><br />So, people around here think I'm the sophist, eh?<br /><br /><i>Funny, they seemed pleased with their results - </i><br /><br />People can be pleased with unexpected, non-duplicated results.<br /><br /><i>Which issue of Nature did this pop up in?</i><br /><br />A natural extension of family history. Children of fat peple can be supermodels, for one thing.<br /><br /><i>But the current product would make Darwin spin in his grave</i><br /><br />I don't either of us is a position to say what Darwin would think, and I'm not sure why that would be relevant to begin with.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64122617848012518182010-12-30T14:42:39.963-08:002010-12-30T14:42:39.963-08:00@George R:
So... you have the authority of every ...@George R:<br /><br />So... you have the authority of every Pope and Saint on your side with regards to evolution, and if I were to cite any counterexamples (the current Pontiff, for example, or any number of saints of the past century), why, they aren't TRVE CHRISTIANS. Clever move, that!<br /><br />@Agnostic Anon:<br /><br /><i>(Any rational person realizes that libertarian free will, and no other watered-down notion of 'freedom,' is required for morality)</i><br /><br />Do you really mean to tell me that anyone who subscribes to some form of moral compatibilism is <i>irrational</i>? Really? Why? Do you have any arguments to support this contention? Because it's a pretty big assumption, so you had better be able to back it up well.<br /><br />At least one difficulty with such a claim is that it seems to set unusual standards for moral goodness, as opposed to goodness of other varieties. The truth of determinism, for example, would in no way negate the fact that blindness is bad for the eye, or that a child does truly well on his math exam. So, if you're going to claim different conditions for moral goodness, you had better be willing to explain why. All that is necessary for an account of objective good and evil is some form of finality, which is not imperilled by determinism as such. (I am not, incidentally, claiming that these objections are insuperable, merely that they must be met.)<br /><br />I could say more, but I'll stop before this gets too long.Leo Carton Mollicanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89884468476741970332010-12-30T13:09:56.324-08:002010-12-30T13:09:56.324-08:00If you think the series of results from 50 coin fl...<i>If you think the series of results from 50 coin flips shows design in the pattern of heads and tails, how do I take your other proclamations of design seriously?</i><br /><br />You're not going to take them seriously anyway - again, I'm not interested in convincing someone determined to disagree. But you're the one who said 'design can imitate non-design' and that obviously the designer 'intended to make things look non-designed'. I'm just pointing out the lack of support there.<br /><br /><i>Even a biologist needs to specialize.</i><br /><br />Apparently there are no specialists in speciation then, as the FAQ implies. He seemed downright surprised at the results he got - he just had a quick, funny excuse.<br /><br /><i>I would not expect to see "thrilling" examples within 150 years.</i><br /><br />Good thing relevant observations aren't necessary for science! Wait a minute...<br /><br /><i>Last I heard, their results were not confirmed by other scientists, and in fact didn't really match what they were expecting.</i><br /><br />Funny, they seemed pleased with their results - but of course more effort was needed. And 'not confirmed by other scientists'? Even Jerry Coyne admits his field of evolutionary science hardly ever sees much replication. Guess we can write off a lot of that work, eh?<br /><br /><i>More seriously, the kids and grandkids of the "fat guy" will frequently interbreed with those of the "supermodel", while the offspring of the popluaitons of the mosquitos will not.</i> <br /><br />They will? You've studied this? 'Kids of fat poor guys frequently sleep with supermodel children'? Which issue of Nature did this pop up in?<br /><br /><i>Further, if you had any larger differences that appear in such a short time, it would be proof against evolution (as currently understood), nor for it.</i><br /><br />'As currently understood.' We've been getting tremendous amounts of that for years now, from deep homology to HGT to mutational biases to convergence to more. All that results are changes to the theory, an assertion that 'this is how science works!', and a freak-out by some people whenever someone runs the (true) article title/headline of 'Darwin was wrong about (this particular part of evolution)'.<br /><br />It didn't look 'non-designed' even when Darwin's version of the theory was around - hence why Asa Gray thought it was not only a teleological theory, but a theological one. But the current product would make Darwin spin in his grave for how many concessions to his theory were made, what was added to it, and how much more the whole thing looks designed.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19221267702830984782010-12-30T12:56:17.796-08:002010-12-30T12:56:17.796-08:00anon,
crude, to be fair, he didn't exactly sa...anon,<br /><br /><i>crude, to be fair, he didn't exactly say that it all boils down to incredulity for him. he also gave the modus tollens "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" claim here:</i><br /><br />I think incredulity is clearly motivating a large part of his reasoning as displayed so far. And when he talks about 'observing the physical effects of the mystical presence' I'd like to know what that even means, even putting aside that expecting such is as near as I can tell a drastic misunderstanding of the thomistic and likely other dualist positions. Indeterminacy of the physical? Because <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy" rel="nofollow">we've got that</a>. If it's something else, then I have to ask what he's expecting to see.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91417519866660331052010-12-30T11:08:31.220-08:002010-12-30T11:08:31.220-08:00continued...
Now let’s relate this analogy back t...continued...<br /><br />Now let’s relate this analogy back to you(BTW FYI this is not an argument to believe or disbelieve in the Bible or Catholicism, one must learn to crawl before they can walk or fly). You statement implies the only valid knowledge you can have is that which you gain from science. The problem with that view is the concept is either itself trivially true or it is self-refuting (like the Baptist’s Sola Scriptura doctrine). The idea that the only valid knowledge is scientific knowledge is not itself a scientific statement (and it cannot be verified or falsified by science) it is a philosophical one. A really bad silly incoherent self-refuting one. A form of Positivism that even philosopher A.J. Flew abandoned as incoherent at the height of his Atheism. You can’t prove scientifically that only scientific knowledge is valid. Thus the very concept is false by it’s own standards.<br /><br />Feser examines this here<br /><br />http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174<br /><br />and here<br />http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1184 <br /><br /><br />Thus we don’t have to show you “how the soul moves biomolecules around” in the empirical panphysical sense(enough of the kneejerk Cartesian bulls*** already)! You’re killing me) Rather you either have to show us materialism is true or scientism is true. If you try either way you are making a philosophical argument not a scientific one. <br /><br />Science is <b> not the only or sole valid source of natural knowledge</b>. You need philosophy. Being anti-philosophy(as so many of the New Atheist Fundie skeptics are these days, thanks for nothing Dawkins) is not the same as being anti-religion. To argue against the validity of philosophy is to make a philosophical argument (& as such is self-refuting which is why Stephen Hawkings has his head up his arse. I would not dispute one legitimate scientific assertion made in his latest book but his philosophy is dumber than learning evolution from ANSWERS IN GENESIS, like I said Killing me). <br /><br />It all about the philosophy. Your statement science refutes the existence of the Christian God is comically false. If I rejected the existence of God tomorrow (on philosophical grounds) I would still reject your statement as comically false.<br /><br />So my unsolicited advice read the books Crude recommended.<br /><br />Cheers to you & Happy New Year.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57403963764782485652010-12-30T11:08:03.518-08:002010-12-30T11:08:03.518-08:00>Minus the patronizing snark, thanks for the le...>Minus the patronizing snark, thanks for the lengthy, informative quotes. <br /><br />You are welcome. <br /><br /><br />>At the end of the day, though, I need to be able to actually picture how the soul moves biomolecules around, since a break in the deterministic material chain is required for libertarian freedom.<br /><br />I was going to mention the Scientism Fallacy & give the link to Feser’s essay but it was late & I was tired. Now here you are rocking the Scientism Fallacy. If I may proceed to give my explanation by analogy. As a Catholic I’ve often argued Marian Doctrine with your average Baptist. Your response here reminds me when one of them answers my theological justifications for Marian Doctrine by exclaiming <b>“Yes that is interesting but at the end of the day, though, I need to be able to see where this doctrine is literally found in the Bible or I can’t believe it.”</b> Now unlike the Baptist, Catholics do not presuppose that religious doctrine must be justified by the Bible alone. Indeed I don’t have to prove Marian doctrine using the Bible alone(sans Tradition, Theological Inference, Church Authority etc) a presupposition I as a Catholic reject. <b>Rather the Baptist has to prove to me the Bible Alone presupposition from the Bible Alone</b>! Of course he can’t because the concept is not taught anywhere in the Bible and thus is false <b>by it’s own standards</b>! <br /><br />continue.....BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65873790991745647402010-12-30T10:37:04.892-08:002010-12-30T10:37:04.892-08:00Hype said...
You're reasoning is so ad hoc.
...Hype said... <br /><i>You're reasoning is so ad hoc. </i><br /><br />How very human of me.<br /><br /><i>You're wedded to your beliefs for more than empirical concerns (much like you criticized Feser in the comments of your blog).</i><br /><br />I fully acknowledge that I choose my intial beliefs subjectively.<br /><br /><i>So morality would be simply a deterministic outcome while the content of thoughts truly exhibit intentionality and have the ability of reflecting (to a greater or less degree) 'truths' about the nature of nature.</i><br /><br />From your comment, you seem to see a dissonance in that paragraph. I see no dissonance in the notion that the process of intentionality is deterministic, unless you build non-determinism into the definition to begin with.<br /><br /><i>Also, nice that you know this isn't the product of deterministic factors beyond your conscious control.</i><br /><br />You mean, I think they are deterministic factors within my conscious control? That's an interesting idea, although I'd guess many in here would call it an oxymoron.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15056971854184372962010-12-30T10:14:54.810-08:002010-12-30T10:14:54.810-08:00*hype, you are exactly that! all hype and vitupera...*hype, you are exactly that! all hype and vituperative bluster without a scintilla of substance!*<br /><br />I don't know what that means, anon, but it sure sounds right!jtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66123626356085954272010-12-30T09:56:16.246-08:002010-12-30T09:56:16.246-08:00hype, you are exactly that! all hype and vituperat...hype, you are exactly that! all hype and vituperative bluster without a scintilla of substance!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17307194315985065022010-12-30T09:19:05.685-08:002010-12-30T09:19:05.685-08:00I'm well-aware of this supposed rejoinder. So ...<i>I'm well-aware of this supposed rejoinder. So then I take it you disagree with my first premise that science implies determinism about the human body? Since the others...<br /><br />"determinism -> no morality" <br />"no morality -> no Christianity"<br />"no Christianity -> no Christian God"<br /><br />...are pretty damn air-tight. <b>(Any rational person realizes that libertarian free will, and no other watered-down notion of 'freedom,' is required for morality)</b></i><br /><br />What an obnoxious jump in your "air tight" logic.<br /><br />If science implies determinism about the human body (the entire body - mind included) then your thoughts/beliefs are not true because of some preternatural ability to apprehend the truth of nature/reality. It's simply pre-determined based off of the proteins that constitute your body (body and brain).<br /><br />If morality doesn't exist for the reasons you mentioned (your goofy rider allowing for libertarian notions of freedom/morality tossed to the side) then your entire house collapses.hypenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77970339253084367842010-12-30T09:09:02.326-08:002010-12-30T09:09:02.326-08:00I respectfully disagree. Intentionality may need t...<b>I respectfully disagree. Intentionality may need to function differently under a deterministic paradigm (unless you import a specific method of functioning into that definition), but that does not mean it is non-existant.</b><br /><br />You're reasoning is so ad hoc. You're wedded to your beliefs for more than empirical concerns (much like you criticized Feser in the comments of your blog).<br /><br />So morality would be simply a deterministic outcome while the content of thoughts truly exhibit intentionality and have the ability of reflecting (to a greater or less degree) 'truths' about the nature of nature.<br /><br />Very nice belief on your part, oneBrow. Also, nice that you know this isn't the product of deterministic factors beyond your conscious control.Hypenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88235797823327312662010-12-30T08:24:57.595-08:002010-12-30T08:24:57.595-08:00Hype said...
It's not just a defeater for mor...Hype said... <br /><i>It's not just a defeater for morality.... it's a defeater for intentionality.</i><br /><br />Hype,<br /><br />I respectfully disagree. Intentionality may need to function differently under a deterministic paradigm (unless you import a specific method of functioning into that definition), but that does not mean it is non-existant.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31956554261045651872010-12-30T07:42:36.966-08:002010-12-30T07:42:36.966-08:00I agree with Crude "Fat guys vs Supermodels&q...<i>I agree with Crude "Fat guys vs Supermodels" and all that(give it up to Crude on that one).</i><br /><br />And people think I'm a cynic. Let me respond with equal cynicism: enough money overcomes the difference.<br /><br />More seriously, the kids and grandkids of the "fat guy" will frequently interbreed with those of the "supermodel", while the offspring of the popluaitons of the mosquitos will not. Further, if you had any larger differences that appear in such a short time, it would be proof against evolution (as currently understood), nor for it.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85828828345190512372010-12-30T07:35:50.954-08:002010-12-30T07:35:50.954-08:00So, we're back to being able to identify and a...<i>So, we're back to being able to identify and assert what is in fact 'undesigned' after all. And when someone replies they've not seen anything that 'looks undesigned' in their life?</i><br /><br />Then it's difficult to use that criteria to convince someone something is designed. If you think the series of results from 50 coin flips shows design in the pattern of heads and tails, how do I take your other proclamations of design seriously?<br /><br /><i>It's a testament to how clear the answers to these questions are that biologists are so confident in it they don't even bother to learn about it!)</i><br /><br />Even a biologist needs to specialize. The details of speciation among eukaryotes don't mean too much if you are trying to eradicate guinea worms or fight HIV.<br /><br /><i>As for the TO examples of speciation, they're not exactly thrilling.</i><br /><br />I would not expect to see "thrilling" examples within 150 years.<br /><br /><i>Hey, I hear some of those guys hunting for Noah's Ark in the middle east have found some of what they were expecting to find in an area they were predicted likely to appear. Interesting scientists, those.</i><br /><br />Last I heard, their results were not confirmed by other scientists, and in fact didn't really match what they were expecting. Still, I have no objection to their attempts.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69444047685640319762010-12-30T07:06:32.510-08:002010-12-30T07:06:32.510-08:00(different anon)
crude, to be fair, he didn't...(different anon)<br /><br />crude, to be fair, he didn't exactly say that it all boils down to incredulity for him. he also gave the modus tollens "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" claim here:<br /><br /><i>"Secondly, if it were true, we should in principle be able to observe the physical effects of the mystical presence. But we haven't observed these effects yet. So, yeah, modus tollens (in a probabilistic way)."</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85464843712607138042010-12-30T06:59:54.400-08:002010-12-30T06:59:54.400-08:00Mr Hype
*So, in closing you're a fool.* Well...Mr Hype<br /><br />*So, in closing you're a fool.* Well, that’s better than jackass in some curcles. I suppose you are correct as I am silly enough to take a moment to respond to your singular attack above.<br /><br />I have no beef with God – my criticism (if you will look carefully) is with those whose theology of Him demeans the experience of His creatures.<br /><br />You also seem to think I am the anon raising materialist issues – nope.<br /><br />BTW, where’s the ‘my bad’ w/r to your jumping my shit over my assessment of a resume and how your own opinion of apologists is ironically, for a fan of Ed, to assume they are inferior morons.juth thayinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88868215285016635802010-12-30T04:16:42.801-08:002010-12-30T04:16:42.801-08:00(The simpering) Anonymous writes:
"The evolut...(The simpering) Anonymous writes:<br />"The evolution comment by George R. put me in a terrible, terrible mood."<br /><br />It's encouraging to see that my efforts are beginning to bear fruit.George R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39323811717648914942010-12-30T02:46:28.043-08:002010-12-30T02:46:28.043-08:00At the end of the day, though, I need to be able t...<i>At the end of the day, though, I need to be able to actually picture how the soul moves biomolecules around, since a break in the deterministic material chain is required for libertarian freedom.</i><br /><br />But libertarian freedom of the sort you're suggesting isn't viewed as necessary for morals or morality on many views. You may dislike that, you may reject it - fair enough, if so - but you can't rightly say that your objection is being ignored, or really, that it's somehow new. <br /><br />So the claim of "Any rational person realizes that libertarian free will, and no other watered-down notion of 'freedom,' is required for morality" seems to have as much weight as "Any rational person realizes that rationality itself requires libertarian free will". After all, if your decisions - whatever those can be on materialism - aren't caused by arguments and reason, but by chemical reactions that themselves are directed towards no reason, etc.. you're done anyway.<br /><br />Not to mention, I wonder what your take on quantum physics is. Not that I'd argue that indeterminacy at the quantum level 'solves' the free will problem, but you seem convinced that the only alternative to determinism is - I don't know, magic? In which case, hey, magic is a popular idea in science lately.<br /><br />That should especially drive the point home since you describe yourself as a mysterian, so you're already conceding that our understanding of matter and mind is radically incomplete on one subject (consciousness, and qualia I take it.) Further, if you're willing to play the mysterianism card with regards to the material, why wouldn't a libertarian about free will be open to playing the mysterianism card about lfw?<br /><br />Which, in turn, introduces problems for claims about violations of laws of physics. If the laws of physics as we know them were able to explain the mind obviously, you wouldn't be a mysterian would you? Just taking that position alone seems to at least open the door to either the laws of physics incomplete, or us radically misunderstanding them on some level. And even with the physics we have, what are these 'laws'? How do 'laws' "move stuff around"?<br /><br />Anyway, if this all comes down to personal incredulity, there's little conversation to be had here. You know the deal - be incredulous all you like, it doesn't mean the idea is wrong.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22633896205339113032010-12-30T02:12:14.723-08:002010-12-30T02:12:14.723-08:00Oh, just saw and read Crude's post. I need to...Oh, just saw and read Crude's post. I need to sleep on it, though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5711590677857652492010-12-30T02:09:57.143-08:002010-12-30T02:09:57.143-08:003:48Anon here. First, besides my previous post, I...3:48Anon here. First, besides my previous post, I should just apologize for my initial condescending, diagnostic remarks on this thread. The evolution comment by George R. put me in a terrible, terrible mood.<br /><br />--<br /><br />@Hype<br /><br />I'm well-aware of this supposed rejoinder. So then I take it you disagree with my first premise that science implies determinism about the human body? Since the others...<br /><br />"determinism -> no morality" <br />"no morality -> no Christianity"<br />"no Christianity -> no Christian God"<br /><br />...are pretty damn air-tight. (Any rational person realizes that libertarian free will, and no other watered-down notion of 'freedom,' is required for morality)<br /><br />So either (1)"science implies determinism about the material body" or (2)"determinism infinitely undercuts all rationality" is true.<br /><br />Assume for a moment that you're right and that (2) is true. Then we must conclude, by logical necessity, that it is <i>not</i> the case that science implies determinism about the material body. If that is true, however, then a break or interruption in the body's deterministic neural/cerebral pathways must in principle be observable, which means that <i>something immaterial</i> (i.e. something definitionally not bound by the laws of physics) must be what is ultimately moving my neurons, astrocytes, etc., around in some way whenever I engage in any act of genuine libertarian volition. It must be the wellspring of action.<br /><br />This 'something' is what I suppose is normally called the soul. Whatever version of "soul" is correct (Cartesian or Thomistic or whatever), some 'shifting of neuronal biomolecules' must occur at some physical level or another in order to break the deterministic chain of interacting matter. <br /><br />But again, I'm just gonna rely on incredulity here - I cannot picture some mystical presence within my body acting as a tireless dictator over my biomolecules. The very idea sounds absurd. Secondly, if it were true, we should in principle be able to observe the physical effects of the mystical presence. But we haven't observed these effects yet. So, yeah, modus tollens (in a probabilistic way).<br /><br />Thus, I currently am forced to reject (2) in favor of (1). (1) just seems to be a heck of a lot more plausible. So I must brush (2) off as word-play, an unfortunate consequence of our imperfect human language systems. Or maybe I don't. Maybe I see some plausibility in (2) after reading Ben Yachov's informative quotes. Either way, (1) seems stronger than (2), because of the aforementioned bizarreness that results from not-(1).<br /><br /><br />@LCM<br /><br />Thanks for the book recommendations. Peter van Inwaggen sounds interesting.<br /><br /><br />@Ben Yachov<br /><br />Minus the patronizing snark, thanks for the lengthy, informative quotes. At the end of the day, though, I need to be able to actually <i>picture</i> how the soul moves biomolecules around, since a break in the deterministic material chain is <i>required</i> for libertarian freedom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6434445365891470642010-12-30T01:59:05.371-08:002010-12-30T01:59:05.371-08:00Anon,
Looks like my comment isn't coming back...Anon,<br /><br />Looks like my comment isn't coming back, so I'll add this reply.<br /><br />First, again, you keep talking about determinism in neuroscience being a problem for Christianity. But as I've said, the particular problem you're discussing - determinism and morality - isn't some new issue that neuroscience created for Christianity. It naturally falls out from God being omniscient and omnipotent, and thus there have been all manner of replies and opinions about it over the centuries (calvinism, arminianism, etc.) Have you looked that up?<br /><br />Second, the claim made by Ed isn't that 'The whole world is materialist, except for humans. Humans have special spiritual matter' or something. Just as Bertrand Russell didn't say "I'm a neutral monist about human beings, but all the other stuff is physical", and Berkeley didn't say that humans are made of thought but everything else is made of matter. <br /><br />So when you talk about the 'total dominion of the natural order', keep in mind that philosophers and theologians aren't making arguments about 'humans' and refusing to consider anything else. The Aristo-Thomist, for example, doesn't just think materialists are wrong about human brains - they're wrong about matter, about nature, and about quite a lot more.<br /><br />Even to say that something is made of matter leads to asking, 'Great. What is the ultimate nature of matter? What is this material you speak of?'<br /><br />I say all this to note that the questions you're asking are either misplaced (The idea of a soul as 'that ghost which moves the particles in the brain around' is wildly off-target for Thomists, and even for Cartesians quite likely), or really are addressed (Determinism & morals) - they aren't new, and certainly aren't ignored. Philosophers and theologians often argue at length about minutae, they're not known for skipping big topics.<br /><br />I'd recommend Ed's "The Last Superstition" if you've not read it, to get a sample of some Aristo-Thomist understanding. Or even reading through the past blog entries on this site - you're already here after all, so to speak. It's a good start.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.com