I occasionally check in with the pro-ID blog Uncommon Descent, on the off chance they may have said something interesting. Sadly, the blog has mostly fallen on hard times. Nowadays it’s mostly just post after post whose only point is to demean and insult people, or to proffer absurd misunderstandings of thermodynamics.
Sometimes, though, they really come through. Every once in a while they present an argument so carefully reasoned, so cogently thought-out, that the rest of us must sit-up and take notice. Folks, one such post has recently appeared. It was authored by Barry Arrington, who has stirred himself to lay down some straight talk on the nature of morality.
The post is titled, “RDFish is an Idiot,” “RDFish” being the nom de plume of one of their commenters.
The important part of the post is this:
In my last post I challenged materialists to answer the following challenge:
Materialist premises lead ineluctably to the following conclusions. There is no such thing as “good.” There is no such thing as “evil.” There is only my personal preferences competing with everyone else’s personal preferences, and all of those personal preferences can be reduced to the impulses caused by the electro-chemical processes of each person’s brain.
My challenge to materialists was to show how any of the conclusions I’ve reached based on materialist premises are not in fact compelled by those premises.
This sort of thing is Arrington’s stock-in-trade. He writes short, sneering posts presenting what he imagines to be devastating challenges to “materialists.” When the materialists are less than impressed by his childish rants, and calmly explain why things might be a bit more complex than he suggests, he simply declares victory and heaps insults and ridicule on his opponents.
The last time we looked at an Arrington post, he was holding forth on thermodynamics. He had noticed, you see, that some discussions of the second law restrict it to closed systems. But only the universe as a whole is truly closed! He considered this so insightful that rather than, say, read the Wikipedia article on the second law, as a grown-up might, he rushed to his computer to present his latest challenge to materialists.
If you skim the comments to Arrington’s current post, you will find a handful of commenters very patiently explaining why he needs to think more carefully. This sent Arrington into a rage, to the point that he wrote a second post on the subject. This post contains assertions like this:
My argument rests on three main premises:
1. On materialism there can be no such thing as “good” and “evil.”
No fair equivocating on those words, which is the usual dodge we get. It is clear that in this context I am using the terms in the same sense that Dawkins used them: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden : A Darwinian View of Life (London: Phoenix, 1995), 133.
If you are going to refute the statement, you will need to show how Dawkins was wrong.
Now, we might note a small change from the first post to the second. What is presented in the second post as the first premise in his argument, was presented in the first post as a conclusion of his argument. That’s worth commenting on, since the second post begins with a lengthy and condescending explanation of basic logic to those who found his challenge less than impressive. It would seem that Arrington is the one who requires a refresher course in logic.
Arrington goes on to restate the rest of his premises, but there is really no need to get too far down in the muck. His first premise is simply false, you see.
But here’s the thing. It’s so obviously and transparently false that, if Arrington is presenting it seriously, then I must assume that he does not understand what the words “good” and “evil” mean. He decries equivocation regarding the meaning of the words, and then gives a quote from Richard Dawkins to clarify his intention. He means it the way Dawkins means it. But this intention is badly undermined by his assertion that to claim that good and evil exist is to claim that Dawkins was wrong.
That is such a childish misunderstanding of Dawkins’ point that we must wonder once more if Arrington is serious. Dawkins, obviously, was discussing the universe as a whole. He was not discussing the existence of good and evil in general. To do evil requires a malicious intent; it is not enough simply to produce a harmful effect. Dawkins was merely pointing out that the universe as a whole does not have intents. Things happen, and sometimes those things are good for living creatures and sometimes those things are bad for living creatures. He was noting that if there is a loving God behind it all then the relentless onslaught of harmful effects in nature is hard to understand.
What has that to do with the existence of good and evil in general?
Once again UDs commenters have anticipated me. They made precisely the point I just made. Arrington’s reply should be savored:
Are you suggesting that the earth is not part of the universe. How odd. Let me give you another hint: Just because you can say some idiotic thing in response to an argument, does not mean you should.
Since we’re quoting Dawkins, I’m reminded of his quip, in reply to a very snide but badly misinformed review of one of his books, that, “We are in danger of thinking that no one would dare to be so rude without taking the elementary precaution of being right in what she said.” Had the commenter pointed out that the universe as a whole is not green, Arrington would no doubt have replied that grass is green and grass is part of the universe. Then he would have called the commenter an idiot.
If you asked me to explain what is meant by an evil act, I would say that an act is evil if its primary intent is to cause harm to sentient beings. I have no doubt that scenarios could be contrived that would show my definition to be insufficiently precise or nuanced, but it surely captures what is generally meant by the term “evil.” Virtually everyone, including most religious people, would respond along similar lines. By contrast, you would have to journey into the darkest corners of religious fundamentalism to find anyone who would define “evil” in a way that entailed a belief in God, or in a way that entailed that materialism is false.
That is why Arrington’s little challenge is just silly. Why can’t a materialist, no less than a theist, note that people have intents and that sometimes those intents cause harm? And if you grant that–and how can you not?–then why can’t a materialist talk sensibly about good and evil?
Of course, you can challenge my definition. You can say that it’s just a product of my own subjective judgment that it’s bad to harm sentient beings. But so what? I can as easily challenge a theist’s subjective judgment that we have a reliable way of knowing God’s will, and that we should accede to that will even if we do. Any proposed standard of morality can be challenged by someone intent on denying it. The fact remains that my definition is in accord with what virtually everyone agrees “evil” to be. Take it up with all of us if you wish, but don’t be surprised if we decline the debate and instead suggest politely that you seek help.
In one of his comments, Arrington writes:
Not only does no one act as if materialism is true; the vast majority of those who adhere to materialism steadfastly avert their gaze from the logical contradiction between adhering to materialism and acting as if morality is an objective commodity.
Of course, the question of whether morality is objective or subjective is separate from the question of whether good and evil exist. It’s also entirely separate from the question of materialism versus theism.
But the more relevant point is that the reality is precisely the opposite of what Arrington suggests. Almost no one actually behaves as though the divine command theory, or anything like it, is true. When confronted with actual moral dilemmas, we all, religious or nonreligious, behave as though we can reason our way to the morally correct conclusion. We don’t go thumbing through scripture, or running to the local cleric, every time we face difficult questions about competing goods or the lesser evil.
Do you really want to argue that the ones who do go running to scripture and clerics are the ones who are thinking clearly about morality?
from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1CMcZVC
I occasionally check in with the pro-ID blog Uncommon Descent, on the off chance they may have said something interesting. Sadly, the blog has mostly fallen on hard times. Nowadays it’s mostly just post after post whose only point is to demean and insult people, or to proffer absurd misunderstandings of thermodynamics.
Sometimes, though, they really come through. Every once in a while they present an argument so carefully reasoned, so cogently thought-out, that the rest of us must sit-up and take notice. Folks, one such post has recently appeared. It was authored by Barry Arrington, who has stirred himself to lay down some straight talk on the nature of morality.
The post is titled, “RDFish is an Idiot,” “RDFish” being the nom de plume of one of their commenters.
The important part of the post is this:
In my last post I challenged materialists to answer the following challenge:
Materialist premises lead ineluctably to the following conclusions. There is no such thing as “good.” There is no such thing as “evil.” There is only my personal preferences competing with everyone else’s personal preferences, and all of those personal preferences can be reduced to the impulses caused by the electro-chemical processes of each person’s brain.
My challenge to materialists was to show how any of the conclusions I’ve reached based on materialist premises are not in fact compelled by those premises.
This sort of thing is Arrington’s stock-in-trade. He writes short, sneering posts presenting what he imagines to be devastating challenges to “materialists.” When the materialists are less than impressed by his childish rants, and calmly explain why things might be a bit more complex than he suggests, he simply declares victory and heaps insults and ridicule on his opponents.
The last time we looked at an Arrington post, he was holding forth on thermodynamics. He had noticed, you see, that some discussions of the second law restrict it to closed systems. But only the universe as a whole is truly closed! He considered this so insightful that rather than, say, read the Wikipedia article on the second law, as a grown-up might, he rushed to his computer to present his latest challenge to materialists.
If you skim the comments to Arrington’s current post, you will find a handful of commenters very patiently explaining why he needs to think more carefully. This sent Arrington into a rage, to the point that he wrote a second post on the subject. This post contains assertions like this:
My argument rests on three main premises:
1. On materialism there can be no such thing as “good” and “evil.”
No fair equivocating on those words, which is the usual dodge we get. It is clear that in this context I am using the terms in the same sense that Dawkins used them: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden : A Darwinian View of Life (London: Phoenix, 1995), 133.
If you are going to refute the statement, you will need to show how Dawkins was wrong.
Now, we might note a small change from the first post to the second. What is presented in the second post as the first premise in his argument, was presented in the first post as a conclusion of his argument. That’s worth commenting on, since the second post begins with a lengthy and condescending explanation of basic logic to those who found his challenge less than impressive. It would seem that Arrington is the one who requires a refresher course in logic.
Arrington goes on to restate the rest of his premises, but there is really no need to get too far down in the muck. His first premise is simply false, you see.
But here’s the thing. It’s so obviously and transparently false that, if Arrington is presenting it seriously, then I must assume that he does not understand what the words “good” and “evil” mean. He decries equivocation regarding the meaning of the words, and then gives a quote from Richard Dawkins to clarify his intention. He means it the way Dawkins means it. But this intention is badly undermined by his assertion that to claim that good and evil exist is to claim that Dawkins was wrong.
That is such a childish misunderstanding of Dawkins’ point that we must wonder once more if Arrington is serious. Dawkins, obviously, was discussing the universe as a whole. He was not discussing the existence of good and evil in general. To do evil requires a malicious intent; it is not enough simply to produce a harmful effect. Dawkins was merely pointing out that the universe as a whole does not have intents. Things happen, and sometimes those things are good for living creatures and sometimes those things are bad for living creatures. He was noting that if there is a loving God behind it all then the relentless onslaught of harmful effects in nature is hard to understand.
What has that to do with the existence of good and evil in general?
Once again UDs commenters have anticipated me. They made precisely the point I just made. Arrington’s reply should be savored:
Are you suggesting that the earth is not part of the universe. How odd. Let me give you another hint: Just because you can say some idiotic thing in response to an argument, does not mean you should.
Since we’re quoting Dawkins, I’m reminded of his quip, in reply to a very snide but badly misinformed review of one of his books, that, “We are in danger of thinking that no one would dare to be so rude without taking the elementary precaution of being right in what she said.” Had the commenter pointed out that the universe as a whole is not green, Arrington would no doubt have replied that grass is green and grass is part of the universe. Then he would have called the commenter an idiot.
If you asked me to explain what is meant by an evil act, I would say that an act is evil if its primary intent is to cause harm to sentient beings. I have no doubt that scenarios could be contrived that would show my definition to be insufficiently precise or nuanced, but it surely captures what is generally meant by the term “evil.” Virtually everyone, including most religious people, would respond along similar lines. By contrast, you would have to journey into the darkest corners of religious fundamentalism to find anyone who would define “evil” in a way that entailed a belief in God, or in a way that entailed that materialism is false.
That is why Arrington’s little challenge is just silly. Why can’t a materialist, no less than a theist, note that people have intents and that sometimes those intents cause harm? And if you grant that–and how can you not?–then why can’t a materialist talk sensibly about good and evil?
Of course, you can challenge my definition. You can say that it’s just a product of my own subjective judgment that it’s bad to harm sentient beings. But so what? I can as easily challenge a theist’s subjective judgment that we have a reliable way of knowing God’s will, and that we should accede to that will even if we do. Any proposed standard of morality can be challenged by someone intent on denying it. The fact remains that my definition is in accord with what virtually everyone agrees “evil” to be. Take it up with all of us if you wish, but don’t be surprised if we decline the debate and instead suggest politely that you seek help.
In one of his comments, Arrington writes:
Not only does no one act as if materialism is true; the vast majority of those who adhere to materialism steadfastly avert their gaze from the logical contradiction between adhering to materialism and acting as if morality is an objective commodity.
Of course, the question of whether morality is objective or subjective is separate from the question of whether good and evil exist. It’s also entirely separate from the question of materialism versus theism.
But the more relevant point is that the reality is precisely the opposite of what Arrington suggests. Almost no one actually behaves as though the divine command theory, or anything like it, is true. When confronted with actual moral dilemmas, we all, religious or nonreligious, behave as though we can reason our way to the morally correct conclusion. We don’t go thumbing through scripture, or running to the local cleric, every time we face difficult questions about competing goods or the lesser evil.
Do you really want to argue that the ones who do go running to scripture and clerics are the ones who are thinking clearly about morality?
from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1CMcZVC
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire