Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Is religious fundamentalism a disease of the mind?
Topic Started: Apr 7 2007, 12:38 AM (5,016 Views)
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
JBryan
Apr 11 2007, 11:44 AM
After all that the light bulb still hasn't been changed.

Since when did we ever manage to change even a single light bulb in this sort of discussion? :wink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Fundamentally it may have started as a light bulb- but qualitatively turned in to a Disco Ball.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Actually, I think it all started when someone asked if people who believed in the existence of light bulbs had a mental disorder.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Only invisible, untasteable, immutable, silent, odourless, light bubbles.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Goodnight, Gracie.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Apr 11 2007, 01:35 AM
ivorythumper
 

Jon: the non sequitor was in removing a predicate and then expecting a valid syllogism.


No, I was expecting no syllogism since I don't believe dignity is predicated on the existence of God.

But - speaking of sequiturs - if dignity were predicated on God, wouldn't it follow that if God ceased to exist then so would dignity?

Jon:

If God is understood conventionally (creator, ground of all being, etc), then if God ceased to exist then all being would cease to exist. At that point your question becomes all but meaningless, nonsequitur. But I will nevertheless hazard an answer:

Would "dignity" cease to exist? Perhaps not in the abstract, but even "abstract" requires a mind to consider the abstract.

Perhaps you can help me by answering -- before biomachines evolved to the self conscious state, did "dignity" exist? Did "justice" exist? For that matter did 2+2=4?

But let's get to the heart of the matter. Earlier you wrote:
Quote:
 
The purpose of my hypothetical was to demonstrate that dignity is a mental state.


Whose mental state? The subject or the object? Is dignity something we ascribe to someone, or is dignity something we recognize in someone because it is already there? Or is it something that one biomachine asserts in order to force another biomachine to recognize?

Is human dignity something already there that we recognize? If so then where does it come from, and where does it reside? (I don't think you hold this position, if so you don't need to answer it).

If it is something we ascribe, then why *ought* we ascribe it? What is wrong with not ascribing it?

If it is something that one biomachine asserts of itself, then why *ought* another biomachine recognize it if it is strong enough to not need to do so?


What causes "dignity"? In our materialistic existence it can only be a particular sequence of electrochemicals in the individual biomachine. To give you a direct example:

Jeff's biomachine does not produce the "human dignity" response to the stimulus "human embryo", my biomachine does.

[I am assuming the the Jeffrey Biomachine® would not allow for the intentional destruction of another developing biomachine to which he responds with "human dignity"]

Jeff's biomachine only recognizes "human dignity" in response to the stimulus "person" and is programmed to recognize person when his biomachine perceives another biomachine to be "self aware" or "capable of dreaming, hoping, thinking, self-relfection" or whatever his X is. My biomachine is programmed to recognize "human dignity" in response to the stimuli "human being" -- regardless of the state of development, from the moment of conception to natural death. My biomachine includes "person" in its understanding, but does not limit "person" to "self aware".

Which is correct? Not a meaningful question is it? After all, it is just one set of physical reaction against another set of physical reactions. Physics does not lie, physics cannot be wrong.

This is why in a purely materialistic existence there can be no real ethics (in the sense of recognizing moral imperatives to which all persons *ought* to conform). There is no universal *ought*. In fact, if it is all biochemical reaction, then there is no personal *ought*, there is only the personal *can do no other* -- just as if you jump from a table you *can do no other* than fall. We just don't understand yet the mechanism by which this occurs.

Ethics is now the purview of the neurochemist, not the philosopher.

How do you work around that?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
 


There is no universal *ought*.
You would be wrong to think that atheist-scientists/phycisists think that there is no "universal *ought*." The Grand Unified Theory is the "universal *ought*" that they're looking for.

ivorythumper
 


This is why in a purely materialistic existence there can be no real ethics (in the sense of recognizing moral imperatives to which all persons *ought* to conform).
It seems rather strange to me that you define "real ethics" that way. As it is, there is scant evidence to suggest that all persons conform to the same set of "moral imperatives." Do you not take this as obvious indication that perhaps there is *no* universal set of "moral imperatives," and hence, no "real ethics" going by your definition?

ivorythumper
 


Ethics is now the purview of the neurochemist, not the philosopher.

How do you work around that?
I don't see why this constitute a "problem," much less one that needs to be worked around. I mean, if indeed one day the neurologists/neurochemists figure out which chemicals to inject or which parts of the nervous system to cotorize to enhance or eliminate one's sense of justice, of empathy, of mercy, of love, etc., what's the problem? :huh:

(For all you know, there may be a "God switch" in every one's neural system that can be activated using a particular code sequence transmitted using a particular carrier frequency that will make him a believer. When the neural scientist makes that discovery, spreading the "good news" for every one's salvation can be done using satellites to beam that special code sequence -- and I'll bet you some one will claim to have decoded that special code sequence from the Scripture, so it's really part of the Grand Perfect Plan all along. :wink: )
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Axtremus
Apr 11 2007, 09:52 AM
....For all you know, there may be a "God switch" in every one's neural system that can be activated using a particular code sequence transmitted using a particular carrier frequency that will make him a believer......

They're working on that relay switch as we bicker:

August 30, 2006

Nuns go under the brain scanner
Imaging study shows that godly experiences trigger a network within the brain.

by Helen Pearson


Neuroscientists have identified a network of brain regions activated when nuns feel that they are at one with God. Artificially stimulating the brain in this way, they say, might allow people to have mystical experiences without believing in God themselves.

Lead author Mario Beauregard at the University of Montreal, Canada, says that he wanted to know what was going on in the brain during spiritual, mystical or religious episodes because of his own personal experiences. During such moments, people feel that they are in union with God and feel peace, joy and love.

Beauregard and his colleague Vincent Paquette recruited 15 nuns from Carmelite monasteries, slid them into a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine and asked them to fully relive the most mystical moment in their lives. They didn't scan the subjects when actually praying, because the nuns told the researchers that they could not connect with God at will.

As a comparison, the nuns also relived an experience in which they felt at union with another person.

Light up my life
The researchers found a collection of brain areas that were more active during the recollected mystical experience than the emotional one, they report in Neuroscience Letters. The caudate nucleus, for example, which is associated with positive feelings such as happiness and bliss, appeared more active during the mystical memories.

The team also saw particular activity in regions thought to integrate physical feelings from the rest of the body, which perhaps explains the perception that the nuns had become one with God and their surroundings. They also found an increase in certain types of electrical activity associated with deep sleep and meditation.

Earlier studies have suggested that such experiences might originate in one specific part of the brain. Work with epileptic patients who are intensely religious has suggested that the temporal cortex, dubbed the 'God spot' or 'God module', could be largely responsible for religious feeling. There has been controversy over experiments suggesting that stimulating the temporal lobes can induce spiritual experiences.

The new study also found activation in the temporal cortex, one of many regions that were involved. Beauregard says that this is what might be expected of a complicated emotional and cognitive experience.

It is possible that differences between the previous and current experiments might account for the differing results. For example, the new study analysed memories of mystical experiences rather than the actual moment.

The God switch
Beauregard says that it might be possible to use machines to mimic the type of brain activation the nuns experienced, and he wants to test whether this is possible. "It's feasible to bring people into such a state where the brain is receptive to such experiences." This might be used to mimic the health effects that some studies have linked to religion, he suggests.

Many theologians and people with religious beliefs would be opposed to such an idea because it suggests that religion can be reduced to a set of neurological events, says Richard Sloan, professor of behavioural medicine and an authority on religion and medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

"I don't know what useful information can be gleaned from this study," Sloan says. "Just because we have an advanced diagnostic technique doesn't mean we should use it on anything that comes to mind," he says.

Beauregard says that neuroscientists are keen to explore the brain activity that underlies spiritual experiences because such experiences are an important part of all cultures. The study cost US$100,000 and was funded by the John Templeton Foundation, an organization that pays for research into the relationship between science and religion.

Source: http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2758





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Whose mental state? The subject or the object? Is dignity something we ascribe to someone, or is dignity something we recognize in someone because it is already there? Or is it something that one biomachine asserts in order to force another biomachine to recognize?


Well both. One can feel undignified and one can view someone else as being in an undignified position. (presumably the latter involves supposing we were in such a position and reasoning that we would not be feel dignified in such a position and then supposing the other person doesn't either)

Generally people like to feel dignified, if one cares about people then i guess their digniity is something worth considering.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Apr 11 2007, 10:52 AM
ivorythumper
 


There is no universal *ought*.
You would be wrong to think that atheist-scientists/phycisists think that there is no "universal *ought*." The Grand Unified Theory is the "universal *ought*" that they're looking for.

Sorry, Ax, but all scientists (no need for hyphenation here) can ever tell us is the universal *is*. "Ought" means moral imperative -- you can't tell atoms that they ought to act in a certain way and expect them to conform.


Quote:
 

ivorythumper
 


This is why in a purely materialistic existence there can be no real ethics (in the sense of recognizing moral imperatives to which all persons *ought* to conform).
It seems rather strange to me that you define "real ethics" that way. As it is, there is scant evidence to suggest that all persons conform to the same set of "moral imperatives." Do you not take this as obvious indication that perhaps there is *no* universal set of "moral imperatives," and hence, no "real ethics" going by your definition?


Yes, as a modern soulless biomachine, that is all we have. There is no universal imperative to say that Hitler was *wrong* to kill the Jews. Had his side won, it would be *right*.

Are you comfortable with that?

Quote:
 


ivorythumper
 


Ethics is now the purview of the neurochemist, not the philosopher.

How do you work around that?
I don't see why this constitute a "problem," much less one that needs to be worked around. I mean, if indeed one day the neurologists/neurochemists figure out which chemicals to inject or which parts of the nervous system to cotorize to enhance or eliminate one's sense of justice, of empathy, of mercy, of love, etc., what's the problem? :huh:


Exactly -- you get it. Jeff does not. Ethics is over. I have contended all along that in a post-theist world (the world view in which ethics predicated on "human dignity" and "justice" developed), that ethics (classically understood) is impossible. Thank you for acknowledging it.

Now all we have is some homonymic use of the term "ethics" to describe how the human biomachines *should be* (not *ought be*) manipulated by more powerful biomachines to produce whatever is desired by those more powerful biomachines (social stability, military might, environmental consciousness, tolerance for other biomachines, enslavement of weaker biomachines, etc -- it really does not matter).

Are you comfortable with that?
Quote:
 


(For all you know, there may be a "God switch" in every one's neural system that can be activated using a particular code sequence transmitted using a particular carrier frequency that will make him a believer. When the neural scientist makes that discovery, spreading the "good news" for every one's salvation can be done using satellites to beam that special code sequence -- and I'll bet you some one will claim to have decoded that special code sequence from the Scripture, so it's really part of the Grand Perfect Plan all along. :wink: )

That is precisely why I acknowledged above that we are soulless biomachines and that "religion" and "spirituality" are just memes, along with "ethics" and "justice" and "love" and "compassion" and "dignity". Throw the switch to turn off the God response or throw the switch to turn it on. Throw the switch to turn off the compassion response or throw the switch to turn it on. It does not matter.

We are simply autonomous until some scientist figures out the sequence to turn us into automatons. Ethics is the purview of the neurochemist, not the philosopher.

Are you comfortable with that?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Apr 11 2007, 12:09 PM
Quote:
 

Whose mental state? The subject or the object? Is dignity something we ascribe to someone, or is dignity something we recognize in someone because it is already there? Or is it something that one biomachine asserts in order to force another biomachine to recognize?


Well both. One can feel undignified and one can view someone else as being in an undignified position. (presumably the latter involves supposing we were in such a position and reasoning that we would not be feel dignified in such a position and then supposing the other person doesn't either)

Generally people like to feel dignified, if one cares about people then i guess their digniity is something worth considering.

That's a very nice phenomenological approach to the question, but entirely misses the point.

You have not gotten to any grounding for ethics beyond the response to stimulus in your own biomachine that governs your sense of compassion. That, however, is entirely immanent to the particular atoms and electrochemical activity in the Moonbat Biomachine®, and has no necessary implications (read "moral imperative") for another biomachine.

Compassion? Is it anything more than a meme? Some bit of cultural information that some other biomachine processed and spread to other biomachines, and is generally found to be conducive to stable society and is so promulgated by biomachines in charge of programming other biomachines to respond to stimuli in a certain way?

"Human dignity"? Why should one biomachine ascribe it of another? We already accepted that biomachines still developing in utero have no human dignity and can be destroyed at will. Why no developing in the first few weeks/months/years of existence ex utero, or when that biomachine no longer provides a positive economic benefit to the larger complex of biomachines, or whatever other arbitrary conditions are applied?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Axtremus
Apr 11 2007, 10:47 AM
JBryan
Apr 11 2007, 11:44 AM
After all that the light bulb still hasn't been changed.

Since when did we ever manage to change even a single light bulb in this sort of discussion? :wink:

Did anyone ever expect the light bulb to get changed?


So how many does it take to change a light bulb?

Charismatics: Only one; Hands already in the air.

Pentecostals: Ten; One to change the bulb, and nine to pray against the spirit of darkness.

Presbyterians; None. Lights will go on and off at predestined times.

Roman Catholics: None; Candles only.

Baptists: At least 15; One to change the light bulb, and three committees to approve the change and decide who brings the potato salad.

Episcopalians: Eight; One to call the electrician, and seven to say how much they liked the old one better.

Mormons: Five; One man to change the bulb, and four wives to tell him how to do it.

Unitarians: We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that light bulbs work for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your personal relationship with your light bulb, and present it next month at our annual light bulb Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, three-way, long-life and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.

Methodists: Undetermined; Whether your light is bright, dull, or completely out, you are loved — you can be a light bulb, turnip bulb, or tulip bulb. Churchwide lighting service is planned for Sunday, August 19. Bring bulb of your choice and a covered dish.

Nazarene: Six; One woman to replace the bulb while five men review church lighting policy.

Lutherans, Missouri Synod: None; Lutherans don’t believe in change.

Lutherans, ELCA: See Methodists, above.

Amish: What’s a light bulb?

Pagans: Six;. One to change it, and five to sit around complaining that lightbulbs never burned out before those Christians came along.

Witches: Into what?

Evolutionists: One: but it takes eight million years.

YECs ("Young Earth" Creationists): 3; one to research scripture for light references, one to search for the appropriate ‘kind’ of bulb, and one to explain to the clerk that any variations in bulbs are micro-adaptation, not a fundamental change in bulb technology.

OECs ("Old Earth" Creationists): One, to search scripture until finding a verse that indicates the Lord God created all light, thus moving from doctrine to evidence, we find that the Lord put the light in the bulb, and the Lord is infallible, thus the darkness is a curse put on us by the Lord, in his might and love. Evolutionists should stop ignoring such evidence, and stop teaching electricity in the schools.

IDists (Intelligent Design adherents): One; but with the understanding that an Intelligent Agent informed and inspired the creation and development of all bulbs, and created filaments.

Atheists: One; but they are still in the dark.

"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

You have not gotten to any grounding for ethics beyond the response to stimulus in your own biomachine that governs your sense of compassion. That, however, is entirely immanent to the particular atoms and electrochemical activity in the Moonbat Biomachine®, and has no necessary implications (read "moral imperative") for another biomachine.


Well if the other biomachine has the empathy function then my ethics works for them as well as for me. If they don't then they will be unable to grasp it. If they can't grasp it. :shrug:
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Apr 11 2007, 01:30 PM
Quote:
 

You have not gotten to any grounding for ethics beyond the response to stimulus in your own biomachine that governs your sense of compassion. That, however, is entirely immanent to the particular atoms and electrochemical activity in the Moonbat Biomachine®, and has no necessary implications (read "moral imperative") for another biomachine.


Well if the other biomachine has the empathy function then my ethics works for them as well as for me. If they don't then they will be unable to grasp it. If they can't grasp it. :shrug:

So would you mark yourself in the "no universal ethics" camp? Do you agree with me that ethics is now the sole province of the neurochemist, and no longer of the philosopher?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Quote:
 
Baptists: At least 15; One to change the light bulb, and three committees to approve the change and decide who brings the potato salad.


As in many jokes, a little truth helps make it funnier. :lol2:
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dewey, :clap:

:lol2:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

So would you mark yourself in the "no universal ethics" camp? Do you agree with me that ethics is now the sole province of the neurochemist, and no longer of the philosopher?


Well i don't think ethics is "out there" written into the laws of physics. In that sense there is no universal ethics and that is the reason science can not determine ethics for us (Nor do i really grasp what a universal ethics could actually mean),

However one can ask the question what is good for X person, or what is good for X group of minds? or what is good for everything that exists which the term "good" can be applied to. These are objective questions, and have objective answers.

As for it being the sole province of the neurochemist (have yet to meet any of those yet) and not the philosopher. Well isn't ethics the province of all of us? And hasn't that always been the case?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Apr 11 2007, 02:03 PM
Quote:
 

So would you mark yourself in the "no universal ethics" camp? Do you agree with me that ethics is now the sole province of the neurochemist, and no longer of the philosopher?


Well i don't think ethics is "out there" written into the laws of physics. In that sense there is no universal ethics and that is the reason science can not determine ethics for us (Nor do i really grasp what a universal ethics could actually mean),

So you don't think one can validly state that Hilter's treatment of the Jews was objectively immoral? Or that is is not intrinsically unethical for an attorney to take advantage of his client and change the will so that the attorney becomes the beneficiary? No universal norms that are binding on the conscience (of course, conscience itself is problematic, huh?)
Quote:
 


However one can ask the question what is good for X person, or what is good for X group of minds? or what is good for everything that exists which the term "good" can be applied to. These are objective questions, and have objective answers.

Define "good". Is it the power to survive and thrive at all costs? Then Hilter's actions were "good", even if he later lost. The the US's global policies are "good".
Quote:
 


As for it being the sole province of the neurochemist (have yet to meet any of those yet) and not the philosopher. Well isn't ethics the province of all of us? And hasn't that always been the case?

You will meet one someday if you live long enough. After all, the "mind" is electrochemical activity. (Maybe it will be a neuroengineer, or a neurophysicist, or a neuroelectrician).

Classically, ethics was the province of us all. However, if we are atomic biomachines, and as Ax suggests someone develops the mechanism for tweaking the machine to get the desired output, then ethics is no longer the province of us all. Besides, those "ethics" according to materialism must be material processes. It was only therefore a delusion that they ever were *our province* -- rather we are the province of chemistry and physics. Rather like the God delusion, huh?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Or the Allah delusion - I don't see a lot of ethics in either the classical or the present fundamentalist approach to that illusion of divine wisdom and mercy.

...after all, that is what the thread was initially about. Was it not?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Unitarians: We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that light bulbs work for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your personal relationship with your light bulb, and present it next month at our annual light bulb Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, three-way, long-life and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.


BAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
As for it being the sole province of the neurochemist (have yet to meet any of those yet) and not the philosopher. Well isn't ethics the province of all of us? And hasn't that always been the case?


I curious, Moonbat - in all the billions of years of evolution, why is there only one species that is even concerned with ethics?
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
IT - The answer to your question of how an objective ethics can be had in a naturalist world is called ethical naturalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism. I am sure there are several books on the subject at a local library (e.g. David Brink, Richard Boyd): ethical facts are objectively true or false by virtue of other natural facts in the world. For example, hitting someone is (usually) wrong, because it hurts them. Hurting someone is bad due to facts about our nervous systems, not some command of God.. This is the assumed meta-ethics of Aristotle, Mill, and many others. You assume that only a non-naturalist ethics can provide objectifity or truth.

Your main objection to ethical naturalism is the Argument from Disagreement (you use the abortion example). But this is a bad argument. People also disagree about biology (evolution), physics (will the universe expand indefinately, contract, or do something else), and history (what caused the Russian Revolution?), and even religion. The objectivity of science is not undermined by the Argument from Disagreement, so neither is ethical naturalism. The mere fact that people disagree about something, does not mean that there is no objective truth to be had on that matter.

Also, above you assume that to describe something as morally right, is to describe it as something that by that very description compells us to have a reason to do it (e.g. your stuff about the nature of "ought" above). This is also a fallacy. The question "Why be moral?" is intelligible. So to say something is right and to say someone has a reason to do it, is to answer two questions, not one.

All your stuff above about ethics being over is based on some very simple misunderstandings of introductory level meta-ethics. (Sheesh, to think I actually got a doctorate and published on this stuff at one point.) Both the ancient Greek and the ancient Chinese ethical systems largely (not exclusively, but largely) were based on ethical naturalism, as were many of the non-Kantian thinkers of the enlightenment.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

So you don't think one can validly state that Hilter's treatment of the Jews was objectively immoral? Or that is is not intrinsically unethical for an attorney to take advantage of his client and change the will so that the attorney becomes the beneficiary? No universal norms that are binding on the conscience (of course, conscience itself is problematic, huh?)


If you define your terms i'll tell you.

Hitler's treatment of the Jews was a net bad event.

An attorny taking advantage of his client is usually a net bad event. (And certainly if we wish seek net good then we would seek to prevent attornies from taking advantage of their clients).

Quote:
 

Define "good". Is it the power to survive and thrive at all costs? Then Hilter's actions were "good", even if he later lost. The the US's global policies are "good".


Good is positive experience, e.g. for you i would guess love Mozart, joy, etc. bad is negative experience, etc. e.g. for you i would guess stubbing your foot, losing your loved ones to a car accident, etc.

Some elements of conscious experience are positive, some elements are negative this trivially true. There is thus an objective concept of positive and negative. It's objective because it takes into account the inherent subjectivity. That is i define good for you, based on your own positive experience, i define what is good for me based on my own positive experience. etc. etc.

Good is positive. Positive experiences exist and they define what one means by "positive".

Quote:
 

You will meet one someday if you live long enough. After all, the "mind" is electrochemical activity. (Maybe it will be a neuroengineer, or a neurophysicist, or a neuroelectrician).


Maybe i'll be one. Won't make ethics any more my domain than anyone elses.

Quote:
 

Classically, ethics was the province of us all. However, if we are atomic biomachines, and as Ax suggests someone develops the mechanism for tweaking the machine to get the desired output, then ethics is no longer the province of us all. Besides, those "ethics" according to materialism must be material processes. It was only therefore a delusion that they ever were *our province* -- rather we are the province of chemistry and physics. Rather like the God delusion, huh?


People have already developed a "mechanism" for tweaking us. It's called education. But it's still the province of us all. As for the delusion they ever were our province... i don't really understand what you're saying.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Apr 11 2007, 06:35 PM


Quote:
 

Define "good". Is it the power to survive and thrive at all costs? Then Hilter's actions were "good", even if he later lost. The the US's global policies are "good".


Some elements of conscious experience are positive, some elements are negative this trivially true. There is thus an objective concept of positive and negative. It's objective because it takes into account the inherent subjectivity. That is i define good for you, based on your own positive experience, i define what is good for me based on my own positive experience. etc. etc.

Good is positive. Positive experiences exist and they define what one means by "positive".


Wow. So if Hitler took over the world it would be a "positive" thing for Hitler--and therefore a "good" in it's own way.

Pretty cute.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Apr 11 2007, 03:25 PM
IT - The answer to your question of how an objective ethics can be had in a naturalist world is called ethical naturalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism.  I am sure there are several books on the subject at a local library (e.g. David Brink, Richard Boyd): ethical facts are objectively true or false by virtue of other natural facts in the world.  For example, hitting someone is (usually) wrong, because it hurts them.  Hurting someone is bad due to facts about our nervous systems, not some command of God.. This is the assumed meta-ethics of Aristotle, Mill, and many others.  You assume that only a non-naturalist ethics can provide objectifity or truth.

Once again you are arguing from authority -- weak argument. Neither Aristotle nor Mill understood the human being to be an autonomous biomachine. Their respective anthropologies were deficient. They had no knowledge of the workings (or even the intuition of) electrochemical activity that we now know governs our biomachines. They had no intution that "love" was a chemical process, as you yourself readily point out. Whatever the chemical sequence that surely creates what we call "free will" also was beyond their intution.

Furthermore, it is an error to say that "Hurting someone is bad due to facts about our nervous systems."

We will ignore the more obvious point that it would be due to the other person's nervous systems (assuming you could create an ethical imperative out of that), not ours. It is clear from previous discussions that you think torture is acceptable. By that, it is clear that you do not think that hurting someone is necessarily bad at all, and the fact of our nervous system has nothing to do with it.

Quote:
 


Your main objection to ethical naturalism is the Argument from Disagreement (you use the abortion example).  But this is a bad argument.  People also disagree about biology (evolution), physics (will the universe expand indefinately, contract, or do something else), and history (what caused the Russian Revolution?), and even religion.  The objectivity of science is not undermined by the Argument from Disagreement, so neither is ethical naturalism. 
Nice try, but you missed the point of electrochemistry.

Your autonomous biomachine responds one way, another's another way. Biomachines that produce similar outputs with each other tend to group together. Biomachines that don't produce similar outputs don't tend to group together. So? A truism based on an illusion of objectivity. Why "an illusion of objectivity"? Because if materialism is correct about the operations of the person, the person is governed by the physics of it. Just because we don't yet know what it is, the "billiard ball determinism" seems closer to what is probably going on than anything else -- after all, the operations of physical elements don't change simply because we wish them to.

Quote:
 

The mere fact that people disagree about something, does not mean that there is no objective truth to be had on that matter.

Do you really believe in a universal ethic? That there are *oughts* that ought to govern human activity so that a person acts *morally*? I can never tell with you, since you seem equally at ease arguing both sides, whatever is expedient.

But getting back to the strict materialism of the soulless biomachine that you've convinced me of, it seems far more likely that any divergence of *opinion* is not really that, just a biochemical difference that produces different responses to the same stimulus. Again, physics can't be wrong.

At that point, the goal of society should be to figure out what characteristics it wants in its biomachines, program them toward those characteristics, attempt to reprogram those that resist, and destroy those that have the State-determined undesirable set of electrochemical reactions -- sort of like the eugenics programs that the materialist tried in the 20s and 30s.

Quote:
 

Also, above you assume that to describe something as morally right, is to describe it as something that by that very description compells us to have a reason to do it (e.g. your stuff about the nature of "ought" above).  This is also a fallacy.  The question "Why be moral?" is intelligible.  So to say something is right and to say someone has a reason to do it, is to answer two questions, not one. 

I have no idea what you are getting at. People seem to do things for all sorts of "reasons", but if we are to be consistent with the soulless biomachine theory that you've convinced me of -- where even "love" is chemicals -- then "reasons" are also products of electrochemical response to stimuli. All your talk about "reasons" and "right" are really just two considerations 9and manifestations) of the same chemical reactions. No fallacy on my part, but on yours in assuming that these are two different things.

Quote:
 

All your stuff above about ethics being over is based on some very simple misunderstandings of introductory level meta-ethics.  (Sheesh, to think I actually got a doctorate and published on this stuff at one point.)  Both the ancient Greek and the ancient Chinese ethical systems largely (not exclusively, but largely) were based on ethical naturalism, as were many of the non-Kantian thinkers of the enlightenment.

Meta-ethics? You have got to be kidding me. That is just latter day angelic pinpoint choreography. Ethics can only be the domain of the neurochemist. Find the right chemistry, get the desired response.

It seems a waste that you got your doctorate in a subject that has been antequated by science (or will soon be), but my biomachine produces a "commiseration" response to that stimulus since mine was in a similar field. :wink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply