existential skeptic
This is one of the more naïve and pejorative essays I’ve read. First I would like to comment on the overarching theme of the paper (“the sun will still rise tomorrow”). This assumes that the sun rising tomorrow is sufficient basis for carrying on with the status quo. The sun would still rise tomorrow if I decided to commit mass crimes against humanity (and club baby harp seals!), but I would not use the sun as justification for those actions.
Our author asserts that the “righteous will live by faith,” without telling us what righteous means in this context. “To live by faith” is a vague and loaded concept. I could have faith in something that is wrong. That there are several large pluralities of people who live their lives by mutually exclusive faiths (example: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, I Ching), signals that at least one, if not all of them, are wrong. Thus, our author’s definition of righteousness is logically inconsistent.
“Faith is all that should concern us” is a sentence that does not speak to science. Science is a discipline which concerns itself with reason and empirical evidence to ensure validity. Faith has nothing to offer in the way of validity. To the contrary, our author defines faith as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” This is the opposite of science, and the opposite of reason by and large. If I am conducting a study that tests the efficacy of a medicine on a disease, should I have faith that it will work, without testing whether or not is actually does? After all, I hope that it will work. When we see no evidence that our test hypothesis is correct, should be believe it anyway? After all, we should be certain of what we do not see. These avenues lead to disaster.
"If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that."
Here, we dive straight into the logical fallacy of the theological justification for free will. If indeed there was some powerful being with a will, he must know the actions of all of his creations, lest his omnipotence is compromised. Thus, he must know the one possible future. This flies against the concept of individual free will, which calls for more than one possible future. Our author says “Unfortunately, with our own free will, we are not obliged to walk a righteous route and have the freedom to be as selfish as we’d please.” Therein lies the fallacy of the argument. It depends on free will and theological will, which are mutually exclusive.
So we have two choices. We 1) do not have free will, or 2) do have free will. In 1), there could be no more moral responsibility ascribed to humans as there is to rocks and sand, for each is just as much a cause of their actions as humans. In 2), there exists no possibility of an omniscient theological entity which could foresee the actions of all living beings. (regarding the argument from quantum mechanics, which attempts to call upon the existence of unforeseeable random events at the particle level, randomness does not equal free will).
“All such boasting is evil.”
According to what moral law?
“if it is ourselves that we are trying to gratify, then it’s not like we’d have mattered to the world anyhow.”
If the president of the united states decided ( in order to gratify his ego) to engage in heavy warfare that escalates to nuclear destruction of a portion of the world, it will have “mattered” to the world. Suppose it was not warfare. Suppose it was merely Bob’s decision to make money to gratify himself. He invents a super efficient fuel cell that becomes the trade standard for all engine-operated vehicles. This matters to the world. Hence, our author’s conclusion is baseless.
The perspective on morality and “good & evil” that actually includes evidence and a theory is the argument for the selection of these traits by socio-evolutionary selection. I suggest readings by Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins. Each of these authors are true scientists who do not appeal to fantasy or unprovavble notions of objective morality. Additionally, there is an entire branch of psychology (behavioral psychology) whose foundational ground is that all human behavior (and all animal behavior) can be reduced to a series of stimuli and responses. This extends into the physiological and biological sciences, which in turn depend on the chemical sciences, which reduces ultimately to physics. Physical laws determine the action of all particles in our universe, and we are comprised of those particles. Free will? Where does that get added into the mix. Objective morality? point to it. Righteousness? Stop trying to fool yourself, because you aren’t fooling me.
Our author asserts that the “righteous will live by faith,” without telling us what righteous means in this context. “To live by faith” is a vague and loaded concept. I could have faith in something that is wrong. That there are several large pluralities of people who live their lives by mutually exclusive faiths (example: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, I Ching), signals that at least one, if not all of them, are wrong. Thus, our author’s definition of righteousness is logically inconsistent.
“Faith is all that should concern us” is a sentence that does not speak to science. Science is a discipline which concerns itself with reason and empirical evidence to ensure validity. Faith has nothing to offer in the way of validity. To the contrary, our author defines faith as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” This is the opposite of science, and the opposite of reason by and large. If I am conducting a study that tests the efficacy of a medicine on a disease, should I have faith that it will work, without testing whether or not is actually does? After all, I hope that it will work. When we see no evidence that our test hypothesis is correct, should be believe it anyway? After all, we should be certain of what we do not see. These avenues lead to disaster.
"If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that."
Here, we dive straight into the logical fallacy of the theological justification for free will. If indeed there was some powerful being with a will, he must know the actions of all of his creations, lest his omnipotence is compromised. Thus, he must know the one possible future. This flies against the concept of individual free will, which calls for more than one possible future. Our author says “Unfortunately, with our own free will, we are not obliged to walk a righteous route and have the freedom to be as selfish as we’d please.” Therein lies the fallacy of the argument. It depends on free will and theological will, which are mutually exclusive.
So we have two choices. We 1) do not have free will, or 2) do have free will. In 1), there could be no more moral responsibility ascribed to humans as there is to rocks and sand, for each is just as much a cause of their actions as humans. In 2), there exists no possibility of an omniscient theological entity which could foresee the actions of all living beings. (regarding the argument from quantum mechanics, which attempts to call upon the existence of unforeseeable random events at the particle level, randomness does not equal free will).
“All such boasting is evil.”
According to what moral law?
“if it is ourselves that we are trying to gratify, then it’s not like we’d have mattered to the world anyhow.”
If the president of the united states decided ( in order to gratify his ego) to engage in heavy warfare that escalates to nuclear destruction of a portion of the world, it will have “mattered” to the world. Suppose it was not warfare. Suppose it was merely Bob’s decision to make money to gratify himself. He invents a super efficient fuel cell that becomes the trade standard for all engine-operated vehicles. This matters to the world. Hence, our author’s conclusion is baseless.
The perspective on morality and “good & evil” that actually includes evidence and a theory is the argument for the selection of these traits by socio-evolutionary selection. I suggest readings by Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins. Each of these authors are true scientists who do not appeal to fantasy or unprovavble notions of objective morality. Additionally, there is an entire branch of psychology (behavioral psychology) whose foundational ground is that all human behavior (and all animal behavior) can be reduced to a series of stimuli and responses. This extends into the physiological and biological sciences, which in turn depend on the chemical sciences, which reduces ultimately to physics. Physical laws determine the action of all particles in our universe, and we are comprised of those particles. Free will? Where does that get added into the mix. Objective morality? point to it. Righteousness? Stop trying to fool yourself, because you aren’t fooling me.
posted by ffpaladin at 9:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home