Home

A couple of quick comments:

While evidence-based-faith approaches the world of knowledge based on the premise that there is plenty of evidence for the hand of God in the Universe…

So you are saying that evidence based faith assumes the evidence for god exists? That explains a lot :)

…scientism starts by negating the non physical

It does no such thing as you should be well aware given your advertised field of research.

I’m sorry Ian, but that’s just patently deceptive. Scientism does exactly that in one way or another. Strong scientism negates it actively by holding to philosophical naturalism, which precludes the non-physical by fiat; and weak scientism negates it passively by holding to methodological naturalism, which precludes the non-physical by investigative default. And let’s be honest: strong scientism is usually what is under discussion when people talk about “scientism”.

If (and only if) you equate “physical” with “detectable” is your statement justified. And even then scientism is only becomes ambivalent to things that can’t be detected, it doesn’t need to (or even want to) explicitly exclude it. However I have no trouble excluding the undetectable from discourse because it is irrelevant pretty much by definition.

@Ian

I am sorry Ian, since I live across the world there is always a time lag in my communication.

Thanks for promptly posting a comment on my article. Though you oppose almost everything that I say, you have become an important part of my apologetic life. I must have purchased at least 50 books (the latest physics, maths and biochemistry textbooks plus several books on complexity, chaos etc as per your recommendation). So you have been helping to make me an apologist who keeps updating himself. Thanks for that once again.

Coming back to your question

So you are saying that evidence based faith assumes the evidence for god exists? That explains a lot :)

Please do check again! That is not exactly what I said !!

you then said

It does no such thing as you should be well aware given your advertised field of research.

You are wrong my friend. It indeed does such a thing!!

By the way, I notice that my physics background bothers you and many others very much!! Thus many of you occasionally slip in a mocking term or pejorative term in your statements. The word “advertise” is a good example.

It is obvious that the educational background of a Christian apologist definitely makes atheists uncomfortable. Thus I have been encouraging more of my students (and I do have several thousand students worldwide at present — this is also an advertisement) to go for the highest possible level of education!!

You guys teach us a lot, encourage us a lot, and help us make our ministry more effective!! A special thanks for that!!

with greetings from across the world,

Johnson C. Philip

Johnson,

I see that your post here follows from the previous ones on the second Law of thermodynamics. I take it that you concede that the agreed-upon entities in science – entropy, order, information – do not prove anything special about living organisms. In this post it appears that you are attacking these communally held definitions as being pre-defined so as to exclude evidence for the “hand of God”.

You could be correct! If you were able to have your concept “pre-coded order” accepted or make predictions then you would be on to something. I think you will find that William Dembski has already tried this, but he called his entity “specified complexity”. You willl see from the very name that he was shooting for the [very] same idea that you are. Unfortunately Dembski’s idea has been largely ignored by the academic community; there is no such thing as “specified complexity”.

———
You state that:

While evidence-based-faith approaches the world of knowledge based on the premise that there is plenty of evidence for the hand of God in the Universe…

You are saying that evidence based faith assumes as a premise that there is evidence for the hand of God – Ian has surmised your position exactly! How is this any less invalid than assuming that everything is physical/detectable?
———-

Your attempts to show that there is evidence of the hand of God have predictable resorted to Grand Conspiracy Theory: ‘all the non-theists are deluded’. This is perfectly natural. This is exactly what happens in conversation with others who have no evidence; Homeopaths and Holocaust Deniers etc.

@Simon

Simon, please do not add two with two to come up with an arbitrary result! No, this post of mine is not a continuation of the previous one.

Second, the “premise” depends upon things much more fundamental than the premise. So there is no need to read into it more than what I already stated.

Second, the “premise” depends upon things much more fundamental than the premise. So there is no need to read into it more than what I already stated.

Now I’m really confused. It is more than just a premise (which is what you stated) but I’m not supposed to read more into it than what was stated – i.e. that it is a premise?

Johnson,

So It just so happens that after making posts on entropy, finding that the definition of entropy is inconvenient; then asserting a definition for a ‘pre-coded order’ – you come out with a post accusing naturalists of playing games with definitions, and I’m supposed to believe these things aren’t linked. Come, now Johnson!

Second, the “premise” depends upon things much more fundamental than the premise. So there is no need to read into it more than what I already stated.

And the physicalist’s ‘premise’ that everything is measurable/physical is based on more fundamental things too! You are being sloppy – you can’t say that both worldviews have premises and then go on to assume that the premises of physicalism are unfounded while the theist’s premises are reasone.

@Ian

Ian, you said

Now I’m really confused.

Keep reading this blog regularly my friend, keep reading, and I am sure one day you will join me as a person who knows the Lord Jesus personally.

We need to look at the promise that any interaction holds, the way I told you the positive benefit of your critique on me!!

Keep reading this blog regularly my friend, keep reading, and I am sure one day you will join me as a person who knows the Lord Jesus personally.

Anything is possible but the odds aren’t high if you don’t take the time to clarify ambiguous statements and to have rigorous discourse rather than avoiding the guts of the subject.

Johnson, I realise that this is asking a lot but would you mind listing the 50+ books you recently purchased? I’m a bit of a book-lover like you and always interested in such topics.

@Damian

Damian,

I am sorry I made a mistake and lost the first response. So here is a second one:

It is impossible to post the list of 50+ but here is a sampling

*** Textbooks
Fundamentals of Physics (5 vols), Resenik and Helliday
University Physics, Sears and Zemansky
Concepts of Modern Physics, Beiser
Fundamentals of Modern Physics, Eisberg

*** Textbooks
A range of textbooks on biochemistry, probability, game theory, statistics

*** Semi Technical
I have ordered all the volumes of Feynman mainly to read physics and relax.

I have also ordered a couple of other books, and one of them has charged me with so much enthusiasm that I cannot explain.

*** Recommended

I have already reviewed two books that I purchased because of recommendation by those who responded to me in the past.

More are left from that set.

*** I picked up the title of an atheist writer from Open Parachute, but ended up ordering another book by that author.

These days I am reading the Atheist Debaters Handbook (my 4th reading). Here is a book that offered the best challenge to my theistic faith. Here is also a book that helped me to understand why atheistic arguments do not hold logical scrutiny. I am now planning to write a Theistic Communicators Handbook. The first chapter would be A New Christian Manifesto.

Johnson C. Philip

Surely not impossible my friend! I’m very keen to get an idea of the titles of the 50+ books you’ve purchased. If each book’s title is, on average, five words long then the list would be a mere 250 words to type out. Your previous comment was nearly 250 words and I only go the merest hint of the books you’ve been discussing!

Pleeeaaase? Do it for a fellow bibliophile!

@Damian

I am not at home and am helpless. But from the couple of emails on my laptop I have
retrieved the following names, not posted before. Sorry, it is not complete, and the email shipping notices do not have full info

*** Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time

*** Philosophy of Science

*** A Beginner’s Guide to Scientific Method

Hi,

I really enjoy reading your articles, thanks for writing them.

I’ve talked to a scientist who admitted that he doesn’t accept Intelligent Design because it implies that there is a designer and that the designer could well be God. He went on to say that ID is religious propaganda.

So basically from my conversation with him, he doesn’t accept ID for reasons other than from evaluating the evidence offered. To him it doesn’t matter what evidence ID has. He already made up his mind.

From scouring the net, reading about ID vs evolution, I find that this is a common theme.

I think those scientists need to at least be honest about their naturalism beliefs.

Johnson

Isn’t scientism spiritually neutral in that ‘God’ does not come into the equation, or do you see them as being theophobic and actually opposed to God?

Gould’s Non Overlapping Majesteria (NOMA) when discussing the realms of science and spirituality/theology I think has merit. I work in the field soil science and when examining the physical, chemical and biological properties of soils, do not consider soils have any spiritual property/quality. Historically some cultures may have considered their ground or soil cursed, because it failed to produce a crop, but today we would attribute crop failure to some known pest, disease, or nutrient deficiency, rather than from any spiritual interference. One can pray all one likes, but if the soil has a major potassium deficiency or there are toxic levels of aluminium or manganese, or a microscopic parasitic root nematode is causing major damage to the plant, all the prayers and incantations in the world are likely to be ineffective unless the actual finger of God changes the soil miraculously, which is something I have not yet observed. What I do find interesting, as one delves deeper into soil science how marvellously complex it all is. A teaspoon of soil can have billions of micro-organisms in it, and the vast majority of these micro-organisms even today have never been typed and identified, and without them life on Earth just would not be possible.

My spiritual encounters with God however transcend and baffle science. A Christian is ultimately defined not so much by their theological dogma, but by spiritual encounter which is experiential and relational. The Apostle Paul made this clear in Romans 8v9 where he wrote
‘You, however are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ’. (NIV)

With the creation-evolution debate, if one can be argued into belief in God, one can also equally be argued out of belief. In apologetics, one can prise open a person’s mind to accept the possibility of a Creator and through reading the Bible accept the historical Jesus, but unless a person receives the Holy Spirit in their heart, its all just religious dogma. This is not to dismiss apologetics, as I think there are very powerful arguments for God in the design of the universe and the complexity of living creatures. Even the Apostle Paul argued this in Romans 1v20

‘For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse’. (NIV)

Even Einstien made a similar claim, although he dismissed the God of his Jewish heritage, when questioned about belief in God, he stated that anyone who was unable to view the world without a sense of awe and wonder was like a blind man.

The realm of God is beyond our physical three dimensional universe we live in, and therefore cannot be measured within the framework of the sciences, and on these terms I think Gould’s NOMA principle is valid, but for those who refuse to see the design, architecture, order, form and beauty in this amazing world we live in, they’re missing out on so much.

Hi Johnson,

I think it would be good for you to list the 50 or so books as requested, and their authors. Surely you have them all listed on your computer somewhere? The Feynmann Lectures are not new (he is of course long dead). You should also get his “The meaning of it all” — I think that is the title.

Also, given this is a post about definitions, I think it would be good if you were to provide definitions of science and scientism as you have used both of these terms in your post.

I have no doubt your basic argument is correct (although rather too fuzzy for my liking). In fact William Dembski attacks the pro-Darwinist side in one of his books over the definition of evolution (IDer (and lawyer) Philip Johnson did the same).

Dembski accuses the other side of equivocation, then explains what that means. That is, they are talking out of both sides of their mouths. “Evolution” has such a broad meaning that its meaning is essentially meaningless.

Rob

PS. Recently we were told in the media that women are evolving to become more attractive to men, because attractive women produce more offspring, thus increasing the total percentage of attractive women. Yet other people (scientists) tell us that humans have stopped evolving (how convenient) due to advances in medical technology.

Not only do these two contradict each other, but in both cases I would like to know if there is an increase (or other) of information within the genome.

These kinds of claims, which are NOT refuted or clarified by scientists either that I know of, help to perpetuate the “creation myth” that our secular priesthood holds so dear. Repeat the myth enough times and people will believe it! Again, the usage of “evolution” is so broad when used like this that it no longer has any real meaning whatsoever.

Of course, if evolution does just means “change over time”, then even the cheese in your Big Mac is evolving, so watch out lest you consume a newly evolved entity!

@Robin

Thanks Robin for those comments. The following statement you made says a lot

The realm of God is beyond our physical three dimensional universe we live in, and therefore cannot be measured within the framework of the sciences, and on these terms I think Gould’s NOMA principle is valid, but for those who refuse to see the design, architecture, order, form and beauty in this amazing world we live in, they’re missing out on so much.

@Rob

Rob, the purpose of my blog posts are only to stimulate thought. They are not academic papers.

I did not claim that Feynman is alive. Nor is this the first time I am going to read him. I read him for the first time in 1971. I am going to reread him just to relax.

I do not have the list of 50+ books on my computer. Not everyone operates in the same way, nor does everyone prepares a written list. At least I do not do that. I simply buy everything that I feel will help me.

What I published is a good sampler for Damian. I might not want to disclose some of the book titles till I review them.

Greetings from India

Johnson C. Philip

Johnson: …scientism starts by negating the non physical

Ian: If (and only if) you equate “physical” with “detectable” is your statement justified.

If (and only if) you equate “detectable” with “observable under controlled condition” is your statement justified.

If (and only if) you equate “detectable” with “observable under controlled condition” is your statement justified.

That depends on what you are controlling for. If you are talking about god-like things then you must control for non-god-like causes of god-like things to be sure it is a god-like thing you are actually observing. In fact that process is at the heart of the scientific method and says nothing about the nature of the thing being observed other than it is observable in the first place. That doesn’t mean that science can necessarily explain the observation but we have no place to start if there is no observation in the first place.

Hello All,

I have preciously given definitions of the term Scientism on this blog before. There is the same link Bnonn supplied.

I think, as a methodological principle in written discussion, it would be good to clarify exactly what you mean by a term when you use it. That way, when next you clarify your view, you can articulate it with as little confusion as possible.

Robin,

I understand few people and philosophers of science actually hold that science and religion are NOMA (Non-overlapping magisteria). There are a few reasons for this, but the reason you give is sufficient enough: “if one can be argued into belief in God, one can also equally be argued out of belief.” Scientific claims can falsify religious claims. Think of Hinduism, where the world is poised on the back of a turtle.

I have qualms about what you are trying to say here;

With the creation-evolution debate, if one can be argued into belief in God, one can also equally be argued out of belief. In apologetics, one can prise open a person’s mind to accept the possibility of a Creator and through reading the Bible accept the historical Jesus, but unless a person receives the Holy Spirit in their heart, its all just religious dogma.

That’s not really accurate. One can accept the truth and rationality of the gospel (as more than just religious dogma) through apologetics, and yet still be uncommitted to those truths, unsaved and without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I think what you want to describe is that apologetics and reasoning can only get you so far, and the remainder is that persons will, where he makes a choice to ascent and believe in (or to cast in one’s lot with) Jesus. But you see, that doesn’t mean apologetics and reasoning was not influential in getting that person to where he needed to be, or that God cannot use apologetics and reasoning to achieve that. After all, the Christian faith is reasonable and evidence-based.

Now Ian and Simon,

Evidence-based-faith I construed very different to you. This is no doubt due to our very different perspectives. I believe what Johnson means is this;

1) There is evidence for x<
2) I give my ascent to believing that evidence, thus
3) I have an evidenced-based-faith with respect to x<

In my case x< will be Christian theism.

So we do not equivocate on the meaning of evidence; I do not mean empirical scientific evidence, for there is more to evidence that what empirical science has to offer. Neither do I mean to exclude empirical scientific evidence, for there is much empirical science can offer. I do not mean unreasonable evidence, for experiential evidence is reasonable evidence in the absence of defeaters. I mean also to include philosophical evidence, which in most cases is self-evident and actually undeniable, if not at least more probable than its contradictory.

So, in both of your cases, would you say your have evidence-based-faith with respect to your x, whatever that may be?

I do not mean empirical scientific evidence, for there is more to evidence that what empirical science has to offer.

I have asked this elsewhere so I might as well ask it here: I would like to see an example of any form of evidence which is not available to science that can be used to argue positively in favour of any position. (note: I am not asking for evidence of god or the supernatural or whatever, just a single example of useable “evidence” that science cannot use)

Now Ian,

What do you mean by science? If you mean simply “knowledge” then I can’t think of an answer to your question. If you mean as I continualy clarified empirical science, in other words, knowledge that is only based on, concerned with, and verified by observation, then answering your question is easy and I can think of plenty of examples.

For instance, evidence #1: it is wrong to torture babies.
This is evidence for the existence of objective moral values and duties, and against various other moral theories.

For instance, evidence #2: traversing an infinite set of even intervals is impossible.
This can be used as evidence for the beginning of the universe.

Examples multiply. In both of the above cases we have knowledge (a justified true belief) that need not be obtained by, and could not be used by, empirical science.

I mean the latter version of science as observation based knowledge.

For instance, evidence #1: it is wrong to torture babies.
This is evidence for the existence of objective moral values and duties, and against various other moral theories.

Let us assume that it is in fact objectively wrong to torture babies. How could we know this? For science to be unable to use this information it would have to have no impact on the world. However if it was true then people’s behaviour would be different from how it would be if it were not true. In other words science could detect a pattern of behaviour that would reflect this objective or absolute moral position.

In fact I do not see how else you could identify the objectiveness of the morality in the first place without doing such studies. Even if you claim this objective morality is just a feeling of wrongness in the mind, you still need to check to see everyone has the same feeling (otherwise it might be a personal delusion) and if doing that isn’t empirical science I don’t know what is.

For instance, evidence #2: traversing an infinite set of even intervals is impossible.
This can be used as evidence for the beginning of the universe.

I am not sure what you mean by “traversing” here?

Ian,

“Traverse” means to travel accross.

What you have done is dispute the conclusion (that moral values and duties are objective) drawn from the most certain evidence that it is wrong to torture babies. That evidence itself is the answer to your question as it is not derived from science. The nature of moral knowledge is that you just know – you don’t need to know how you know. You dont have to consult a text book to know torturing babies for fun is morally repugnant. When you see a woman being victimized, abused and raped you don’t need to take a survey, you immediaty recognize that is wrong and cry “stop!” Any sort of moral skeptisism towards those properly basic intuitions is plainly unlivable.

Neither can a scientist tell you something is right or wrong without recourse to religion. All the observable data can give you is “is” and “is not”, but morality is not descriptive but prescriptive, with an “ought” and “ought not.” The most a scientist can do is describe what is or is not condusive to happiness and reproducing, but not prescribe to some action the moral property of rightness and wrongness.

There are a lot of things I disagree with in that post but I want to really focus on the nature of evidence and leave the discussion of morality itself for another time.

What you have done is dispute the conclusion (that moral values and duties are objective) drawn from the most certain evidence that it is wrong to torture babies.

All you have is evidence that, for some reason or another, you have a strong feeling that torturing babies is bad. It says nothing of the source, only that you have that feeling. In that I agree with you.

Where we disagree is where we can actually know things. All you know is what you feel, nothing else. You cannot comment on its objectivity or absoluteness, you can only say you have a strong feeling.

However with science we can take that as an observation and it becomes subject to scientific inquiry. In fact the mere act of observing that you have that feeling makes it amenable to scientific inquiry.

That evidence itself is the answer to your question as it is not derived from science.</blockquote<

All evidence comes from from observation and not “from” science in the sense you described it. Scientific methods can help refine the observations and to control the nature of what is observed but they can’t provide evidence (if for no other reason than that would create a circular system). Consider gravity:

1. Observe something falls to earth. That tells us very little.
2. Observe that everything we drop seems to fall to earth. That tells us more.
3. Observe exceptions (helium balloons). We learn even more.

We don’t know why gravity operates the way it does but we can predict how it operates to a great degree of accuracy. That is what science does.

Similarly:

1. Observe you think that torturing babies is bad. That tells us very little.
2. Observe that everyone thinks torturing babies is bad. That tells us more.
3. Observe exceptions (someone is forced to choose between torturing a baby and letting 1000 babies die and decides that in this case torturing the baby is a morally good act). We learn even more.

We may not know why people think torturing babies is wrong (although I think we know more than you give science credit for) but we can predict the social behaviour of people to some degree of accuracy. That is science.

What makes morality and gravity different?

Oops, i screwed up the blockquote – admins can feel free to edit it to fix that if they feel so inclined :)

To that last question, I’ve already answered.

What makes morality and gravity different is morality is prescriptive and gravity is merely descriptive. Science cannot prescribe certain actions. It can only describe them.

The subjectivist morality you espouse does not match the nature of moral intuitions. When you an encounter an X which is wrong, you KNOW X its wrong. Why would you cry out for justice when someone mugs you to steel your wallet if you believed that there was no objective standard of correct behaviour. Why else would you intervene to help an old woman on the street being victimised by someone with road-rage, if your values were just expressions of taste? Why would you prescribe duties as if people actually had an obligation to follow them, if there were no such thing as objective moral duties?

But you disagree and wish to put moral evidence aside? Very well – even though this is perfectly admissible evidence to prove and disprove certain ethical theories and answer different political agendas. What about the philosophical evidence (e.g., that traversing an infinite set is impossible). This is a justified true belief even though it was not derived by empirical means. It can be used to prove the universe had a beginning.

There are other sources of reliable evidence that can be marshalled to prove positions;
3) Memories. These are even admissible in court.
4) Self-evident truths can be used as evidence – such as the laws of logic, especially the law of non-contradiction, and that time passes even when your not thinking about it.
5) Mathematical equations. Empirical science does not include math, but obviously requires it to function.
6) Theological evidence, such as claims from the Bible. Excluding this from your base of knowledge is ad hoc without good reason to distrust it.

Just to name a few.

Again I am resisting entering the discussion of absolute versus objective morality because it isn’t central to whether or not the evidence is available for science. I’ll address some of the other examples after we get past this point.

What makes morality and gravity different is morality is prescriptive and gravity is merely descriptive.

Morality is the tendency (absolute or otherwise) of people to behave in certain ways. If it is prescriptive then the only way you could know this is by submitting personal feelings to scientific inquiry of some description. Otherwise you are just saying morality is prescriptive because morality is prescriptive because morality is prescriptive because I said so.

Gravity is as prescriptive as morality: things “ought” to fall. The difference is the universe actually obeys gravity ;)

Science cannot prescribe certain actions. It can only describe them.

You are quite correct that science is descriptive (and, importantly, also predictive) rather than prescriptive. That is a fact of life – all we can do is decribe what we see and fit it into patterns – we don’t have any other options.

It seems to me that you have leapt to the assumption that morals are prescriptive and are using that as evidence that science cannot contribute everywhere. However the only way I can see that you can get to that conclusion in the first place is via science leaving the prescription itself open to scientific prediction.

Either morality has an impact on the world or it doesn’t. If it does then science is involved, if it doesn’t then it is irrelevant.

Hello Ian

reflecting on what you had to say in your last comment I think what Johnson had to say above has been vindicated.

An attempt to obliterate the truth by redefining it is fine in drama and fiction, and it makes good reading, but such an approach leads to serious damages and hurts in the real world.

Here is why I think so. You say;

Morality is the tendency (absolute or otherwise) of people to behave in certain ways.

If you think that is all there is to morality is that then there is much to be desired in your learning of ethical theory. When someone beats your wife and you say “that is wrong” is it really the case that all you mean when you say it is “you are behaving a certain way”? I don’t think so. The statement “that is wrong” carries a prescription of correct behaviour: it means “you ought not do this!” That morals are prescriptive is almost by definition. Why I think your re-definitions (or perhaps your prodigious skepticism is a better way to put it) are so dangerous is because it is plainly unlivable. What if a child grew up thinking every moral value and duty was simply a descrpition of the way cartain people act, and were not taught that good and bad, right and wrong were prescritive of how they should and should not act? You’d probably raise a hedonistic monster.

I’d love for you to show how nature and/or “observable science” could give you an ought or ought not. These prescriptions seem to be non-physical, and the result of minds, and nature is purely physical and mindless. Neverthelessless there are moral intuitions thatcan be used
as evidence. If you don’t like the conclusion that the evidnce can be used for showing morality objective, than at least it can be uses as evidence to show you some form of subjectivism, which as far as I understand it is the least favoured view amoungst ethicists.

But as you want to stick with constructive evidence that observable science did not give you, how about the philosohical evidence that it is impossible totraverse an infinite set of evenly spaced intervals?

@Stuart

Dear Stuart,

I have been debating atheists and hard-agnostics for the last four decades and many of my posts here are made in the light of that experience. At times my fellow apologists on this blog are a bit perplexed about

*** Why I did not define the terms
*** Why I did not take the time to post a list of 50 books

The reasons is simple: observation of the way most non-theists behave. I have codified a good amount of these observation in 20 or so many Ebooks that are freely available from my websites such as www.BrethrenAssembly.Com and I urge all my fellow apologists to download and read them. (About 600,000 copies are downloaded per year and all our servers are overloaded).

Also, Stuart, the way Ian argued is exactly the I expected he would argue. That is why I held my pace while you had a dialogue with him. Finally you came to the right conclusion:

Reflecting on what you had to say in your last comment I think what Johnson had to say above has been vindicated.

Ian is the most objective among them all, often comes to the right conclusion by virtue of logical thinking, and then denies his conclusions through a “rider” in his next post. So you can assess how objective the rest of the lot is.

Have my fellow apologists on this forum been ignoring these simple and plain facts??

Greetings from India
Johnson C. Philip

If you think that is all there is to morality is that then there is much to be desired in your learning of ethical theory. When someone beats your wife and you say “that is wrong” is it really the case that all you mean when you say it is “you are behaving a certain way”?……………..What if a child grew up thinking every moral value and duty was simply a descrpition of the way cartain people act, and were not taught that good and bad, right and wrong…..

I largely agree with you Stuart. We seem to need to hold morality as more that just mass opinion. But on the other hand, what about stoning adulterers, Stuart? Stoning people has been dropped by mass opinion.

Also, there is a parallel to these moral arguments contained within the OP. Johnson opened by essentially claiming that scientismists define things purposefully to avoid certain conclusions. Ultimately, though, science is a self-righting enterprise: if Johnson can provide better definitions then they will ultimately win out.

Similarly, morality progresses, such that we practically live in a Utopia in NZ compared to ancient times. No doubt, though, that fan-dangled sophistry exists so as to ‘prove’ that biblical morality doesn’t evolve and had it correct all along. (roll eyes)

Firstly you’ve highlighted a problem with my definition of morality which is more a function of my laziness than anything else. A better way to view it (although ultimately it works out much the same) would be as the study of why people see certain behaviours as good or bad (rather than the actual behaviour itself). Of course this will naturally lead to people tending to behave in certain ways but that is a step removed from what we are talking about.

If you think that is all there is to morality is that then there is much to be desired in your learning of ethical theory. When someone beats your wife and you say “that is wrong” is it really the case that all you mean when you say it is “you are behaving a certain way”? I don’t think so.

We are interested in why people think it is right or wrong to do x. Perhaps there is some universal absolute set of rights and wrongs that is the source of people thinking this or perhaps it is environmental but to assume that it is absolute in defining the scope of the study is to assume the answer in the first place!

We can ONLY observe that people think X is right or think X is wrong, we do not and most likely cannot observe that X is right or X is wrong in the absence of people. The source of those judgements may or may not be outside people but the only way we can see it in the first place is via people.

The statement “that is wrong” carries a prescription of correct behaviour: it means “you ought not do this!” That morals are prescriptive is almost by definition.

Correct as far as it goes but it leaves out a very important step. It is always someone that says “you ought not do this!”. Why does that someone say that? It is this question that drives moral discourse.

Why I think your re-definitions (or perhaps your prodigious skepticism is a better way to put it) are so dangerous is because it is plainly unlivable. What if a child grew up thinking every moral value and duty was simply a descrpition of the way cartain people act, and were not taught that good and bad, right and wrong were prescritive of how they should and should not act? You’d probably raise a hedonistic monster

See earlier in this comment for why this doesn’t reflect my position.

I’d love for you to show how nature and/or “observable science” could give you an ought or ought not.

Only people can decide “oughts”. Science is not a person. Science can however figure out why people might decide on their “oughts” though and can potentially contribute to them by providing better information about situations.

These prescriptions seem to be non-physical, and the result of minds, and nature is purely physical and mindless.

There are minds in nature…

Neverthelessless there are moral intuitions that can be used
as evidence.

Exactly and these moral intuitions are found by observing peoples views on right and wrong. Nothing magic here, and perfectly susceptible to scientific inquiry.

If you don’t like the conclusion that the evidnce can be used for showing morality objective, than at least it can be uses as evidence to show you some form of subjectivism, which as far as I understand it is the least favoured view amoungst ethicists.

I am all for you getting the evidence and showing me an objective extra-human moral source but you’re going to have to use science to do it – or convince me there is another method that can. Just saying it is so will not cut it.

But as you want to stick with constructive evidence that observable science did not give you, how about the philosohical evidence that it is impossible totraverse an infinite set of evenly spaced intervals?

I am still not clear what you mean by this unless you are simply trying to say that you cannot travel infinite distance? If so then this is a prediction, not evidence.

Simon

That the bible reports God’s command to national theocratic Israel to stone adulterers is a total red herring to the discussion. And the evidence that there has been moral progress acutally serves to confirm the existence of objective moral values, as moral progress presupposes a standard that transcends both time, place, and cultural tastes.

Perhaps without realising that you were doing so, you have also used the evidence of moral progress to confirm that indeed you can obtain knowledge about the world through means other than empirical science – for empirical science did not give you the knowledge of this moral progress or standard, it was obtained by some other means available to you. Minimally this would have been your own innate moral conscience and should have been the hisorical sciences.

Ian

Your major problem is you conflate moral epistemology and moral ontology. Objective moral values speak not to ones moral knowledge (or as you put it, why we think certain things are wrong) but to the nature (specifically existence) of moral values and duties. It is to that metaphysical branch of moral philosophy that moral intuitions speak. Science can only describe what people believe is right and wrong, but morality is more than a sociological survey. When someone punches you in the face, it is your intuitions which provide strong evidence for the reality of the standard by which you judge that action, or any other action, unjust and wrong. Empericism and empirical science, especially when combined with methodological naturalism, cannot give you a prescription of what ought and ought not to be; a non-illusory standard necessary to meaningfully judge certain actions as right and wrong – as all are want to do.

Ian,

What I mean by “you cannot traverse an infinite set of even intervals” I’d really simple. It’s the claim that by a sequential series of evenly spaced intervals one cannot obtain an actually infinite distance from any starting point.

What you have done with distinguishig between a prediction and evidence is exactly what Johnson above comments on – redefining things in order to score your point. But it’s intellectually dishonest. Why should a prediction such as this not count as something you know and be used as evidence?

Johnson,

…a bit perplexed about
*** Why I did not define the terms
*** Why I did not take the time to post a list of 50 books
The reasons is simple: observation of the way most non-theists behave…

I suspect I’ve missed something here or at least misinterpreted what you are saying. But I’d still love to see that list of books you purchased. (am also beginning to wonder why this is becoming such an issue)

Stuart,

It’s the claim that by a sequential series of evenly spaced intervals one cannot obtain an actually infinite distance from any starting point.

I had a great conversation with a colleague today around the concept of infinity. We came to the conclusion that it’s quite possible that there is no such thing. That it’s an abstract concept and ne ver reflected in reality. Sort of like the word “nothing”. Sort of like ?274.15°C (just because I can minus 1 doesn’t make it possible in the real world). That because our minds are able to abstractly conceive of it we feel that it must be real but that we have no evidence otherwise to support the concept.

Sorry, that probably doesn’t add to the conversation you’re having with Ian but I found the notion stimulating.

(that should be “-274.15″ instead of “?274.15″ and “never” instead of “ne ver”; I need to take better advantage of this blog’s compulsory preview function)

Damian,

I’m inclined to agree re your observation of actually infinite sets. As the notion leads to absurdities it shows that it is just an idea in the mind and therefore completely abstract. Therefore, re my conversation with Ian, we can use valuable information as evidence for the temporal finitude of the universe.

Stuart,

That the bible reports God’s command to national theocratic Israel to stone adulterers is a total red herring to the discussion. And the evidence that there has been moral progress acutally serves to confirm the existence of objective moral values, as moral progress presupposes a standard that transcends both time, place, and cultural tastes.

Perhaps without realising that you were doing so, you have also used the evidence of moral progress to confirm that indeed you can obtain knowledge about the world through means other than empirical science – for empirical science did not give you the knowledge of this moral progress or standard, it was obtained by some other means available to you. Minimally this would have been your own innate moral conscience and should have been the hisorical sciences.

Obviously I think that the stoning adulterers issue is very pertinent to a discussion on morality. (I don’t know what it says about your god that you agree that there has been moral progress)

You make a good point that for moral progress to be recognised there must be some innate sense of it. I put it to you that this sense is made up of two parts. One part is imparted upon us because we are children of our age; we adopt values and justifications of the culture in which we grow. I think that if you or I were born a few thousands of years ago we would hold to certain moral edicts which we today find abominable.
The second part is the part not culturally determined – it is universal to all (or almost all) humans. This is well known to academia. However, this aspect of our morality is no more surprising that the fact that when we are born we are innately drawn to look at faces, that we all find the taste of sugar pleasing, that we can agree that a chair is not made of liquid, and that we can almost all agree on science. We are all very similar, being human, and so we have similar behaviours, vistas and even morality.

I think that several thousand years ago a human would largely have been like us in makeup; genes, and so will have had largely the same innate sense of morality to us. But I think that the cultural part; the empirical part has come a long way sinse then. And I think that a static god-like figure (with static morality) is most certainly not the best way of interpreting the changing morals in the story of christianity.

Objective moral values speak not to ones moral knowledge (or as you put it, why we think certain things are wrong) but to the nature (specifically existence) of moral values and duties. It is to that metaphysical branch of moral philosophy that moral intuitions speak.

You have drifted from the topic now – remember you are trying to convince me that somewhere in morality is evidence that science cannot use. You have shown me that science cannot say what people “ought” do and I agree but that is irrelevant to the question we are working on.

Science can only describe what people believe is right and wrong, but morality is more than a sociological survey. When someone punches you in the face, it is your intuitions which provide strong evidence for the reality of the standard by which you judge that action, or any other action, unjust and wrong.

That would be true regardless of whether the morals came from universal magic or environmental conditioning or anywhere else. It still isn’t evidence however.

Empericism and empirical science, especially when combined with methodological naturalism, cannot give you a prescription of what ought and ought not to be; a non-illusory standard necessary to meaningfully judge certain actions as right and wrong – as all are want to do.

I mostly agree. However that is entirely aside from the point which is about the notion of evidence that science cannot use. I still don’t see any.

What I mean by “you cannot traverse an infinite set of even intervals” I’d really simple. It’s the claim that by a sequential series of evenly spaced intervals one cannot obtain an actually infinite distance from any starting point.

This is not evidence, it is inference. We have never observed any set of intervals going out to infinity or failing to do so which means that this notion is merely a result of other observations which are actual evidence.

What you have done with distinguishig between a prediction and evidence is exactly what Johnson above comments on – redefining things in order to score your point. But it’s intellectually dishonest.

This is only true if I have previously defined evidence in such a way that what you describe is included, changed my mind, and are now equivocating. I don’t think I have ever done anything of the sort. In fact I could equally charge you with redefining evidence to include predictions and I would be equally as wrong to do so.

Why should a prediction such as this not count as something you know and be used as evidence?

This I think is crucial to our differing opinions: in my opinion something you know does not equate to evidence. The fact that you know something is an observation and admissible as evidence in sociology, neurology and the like. What you know is not evidence for the thing that you know however.

My knowledge of gravity for example is not evidence for the accuracy or reality of gravity. It does however reflect the knowledge I have gained from other people who did make all those observations in the past and therefore could be considered shorthand for a much more complex array of observations and evidence underlying the concept. I can then of course use that concept as short hand in other discussions but it isn’t evidence in and of itself.

Damian’s point about infinity is a good one and the same applies.

Hey Dr. Johnson!
Thanks for the link to BrethrenAssembly.
What a great work!
I wonder if I’d be allowed to translate some of this great material or some of your posts here into portuguese and share it in a particular blog.
How could I get this assent?

Thank you!
God bless!

Greetings from Brazil!

My knowledge of gravity for example is not evidence for the accuracy or reality of gravity.

What? Did people before Newton have evidence for gravity, or when things went up wre they skeptics as to if those things came down? Would you like to clarify?

What? Did people before Newton have evidence for gravity, or when things went up wre they skeptics as to if those things came down? Would you like to clarify?

I am not sure I follow what you are saying in the context of what you quoted…

Is it in fact the case, that before Newton articulated his theory of gravity, people did not understand gravity? Were people in – say Ancient Rome – sceptical when they threw something up in the air if it would come down again?

You say your knowledge of gravity is not evidence for the reality of gravity.

But when I walk into a room and see a chair that is red, I don’t think “my senses are giving me the impression of a chair that appears red,” and I certainly don’t think, “I’ll withhold judgement because my sense perception is neither evidence for redness nor the existence of a chair.” What I do is I immediately think “red chair” convinced that there is indeed a red chair there. It seems to me my knowledge of the red chair is evidence for the reality of the red chair.

Is it in fact the case, that before Newton articulated his theory of gravity, people did not understand gravity?

Leaving aside from earlier attempts to try and understand it, pretty much yes. They did observe that things tended to fall though and would have lived their lives based on this. (see below for clarification)

Were people in – say Ancient Rome – sceptical when they threw something up in the air if it would come down again?

The crucial point here is that gravity and things falling after being thrown in the air are two different things. One is an observation (evidence if you will) and the other is a model or inference used to explain or predict these and future observations.

My observations of things falling are evidence in favour of gravity. My knowledge of gravity itself is not evidence in favour of gravity.

At the risk of equivocation: gravity is not a model or an inference. Gravity is the phenomenon. The theory of gravitation is the inference from which you can make predictions. Things falling is the effect of gravity.

So the evidence of gravity is the observation, and this confirms the theory or inference.

I can accept that terminology. Using that, my point is that knowledge of the theory of gravity is not evidence for the accuracy of the theory of gravity.

Hi Ian,

That point is very modest. And in my opinion completely reasonable. To expand so I can see more where you are coming from, would you say that gravity (the phenomena itself – things falling) is evidence for the theory of gravity?

Thinking about it more, we need to be really carefully about what exactly the phenomenon is and what the model is. We now call things falling gravity because we have had models that explain it called gravity. However gravity could be disproven in some sense (as indeed Newtonian gravity was) but the observations don’t change. In that sense it is more proper to talk about observations of things falling (or more precisely objects of mass attracting) rather than just calling it gravity. But provided we are clear on that point then your terminology is close enough to proceed.

would you say that gravity (the phenomena itself – things falling) is evidence for the theory of gravity?

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: The phenomena itself is both the source and the confirmation of the theory. To explain: we observe that things fall which then leads us to seek a pattern or explanation. We come up with a model that suggests all things are attracted via the various equations for gravitation which matches the observations to date. This then makes predictions of observations we haven’t yet made which we then try and make to see if they match the prediction. The more observations we get that match, the more accurate the model can be considered. As it happens the Newtonian model of gravity didn’t quite accurately predict everything we saw and relativity took over as a better model.

Hi again Ian. Excuse me for one post and I will let you get back to it. I was going to thank you for your last post in the other topic, but the topic closed. So … good job.

In regard to this discussion, I am pretty sure that the Christians here know how science works. But thanks for the run down. What you have just described is the fatality in the ability of science to recognise any objective morality. If something breaks the model, we have to adjust the model or find a new model.

Ian wrote (#45):
You have drifted from the topic now – remember you are trying to convince me that somewhere in morality is evidence that science cannot use. You have shown me that science cannot say what people “ought” do and I agree but that is irrelevant to the question we are working on.

Science is blind to objective morality. This is what we have actually been saying. If objective morality does exist, science cannot find it. If science could find it, it would be able to plainly tell people what they “ought” to do – with respect to good and evil. For objective morality is non-negotiable. You cannot change it. You cannot make up your own.

The conundrum arises because objective morality cannot exist without free choice. (Justice and a law-maker are also integral, but currently irrelevant) If you cannot choose to follow good or to follow evil, morality is meaningless. Robots do what they are told. They are not good or evil. As we have previously explored, objective morality cannot exist in a purely materialistic world.

So, what would happen if mass had the option to choose whether or not to follow this unseen force that draws it to other mass? In essence, you would not be able to observe gravity. The mass that chose not to obey would defeat any pattern recognition via observation and prediction, thus effectively hiding gravity from view. As you have correctly explained for science, if something breaks the rules, the rules need to be changed.

The only way you can identify an optional law, is it to acknowledge that it acts upon yourself. It is an internal identification. This is why science cannot find objective morality … but you can.

OK, I shall exit now. Cheers.

Science is blind to objective morality. This is what we have actually been saying. If objective morality does exist, science cannot find it.

For this to be true, objective morals can have no influence on the way people behave, their tendency to see things as good or bad, or the way that societies operate. If it does influence any of those things even slightly then science can identify it and work with it. If it doesn’t influence those things then do we really care?

If science could find it, it would be able to plainly tell people what they “ought” to do – with respect to good and evil.

Presuming that was actually discernible then yes, quite true. However it is important to note that it would not be science “deciding” how people should act but simply science “reporting” what the objective morals are or how they work.

For objective morality is non-negotiable. You cannot change it. You cannot make up your own.

That may be true (although I very much doubt it but that is another debate). Regardless, I am not going to accept it is true on your, nor anyone else’s “say so”. You’re going to have to provide evidence that such a thing actually exists and as soon as you do that science is going to be involved.

Ian,

Just so we cam be absolutly clear, are you saying then, that gravity (the phenomena of things falling) is evidence of the reality of the theory of gravitation, but only insofar as it is confirmed later by experiment, and untill then we cannot properly know of gravity – that things will fall?

In other words: should we only claim to know what science can teach us?

By the way, your very confused regarding objective morality.

In other words: should we only claim to know what science can teach us?

In a similar way that you, I imagine, would claim that nothing can be known without god, I think that Ian and I would claim that nothing can be known that is unobservable via science. And so we can only ever know what science knows; and anything that an be known is scientifically observable.

Science is blind to objective morality. This is what we have actually been saying. If objective morality does exist, science cannot find it.

I disagree with this. What is so special about morality that it is objective in a different way to physical reality? I dare say that no one would disagree with the statement ‘science can make objective models of physical reality’: No one would deny that, say, Newton’s gravity gives us an objective look at the workings of the universe. And if we are afforded an objective perspective of the physical workings of the universe, why not morality too?

Morality is an inherant and objective part of [being human in] this universe, just like our model of the atom is. Only the naive want to demand that the model of the atom is absolutely abjective. And only the naive – though well intentioned – want to demand that morality is absolutely objective.

SImon,

You have absolutely no idea what it “objective morality” means!

Its an objective fact that I have no idea what “abjective” means, but that has nothing to do with whether or not there there is an objective meaning to the word “abjective.”

Stuart,

I know what you mean by “objective reality”. I am putting forward the counter to your platonicly – I have to say – naive view: There is no such magical beyond-observable-reality world where Plato’s Forms exist. All we have are shadows. Our descriptions and models of these phenomena – these shadows – are working definitions. Only a very naive person would demand that the model of the atom was the end of the story. So too with morality! And my point much earlier about stoning adulterers is a perfect example of this.

Unfortunately Simon, you have not put forward any counters. What you have done is to engage in name-calling and ridiculing in order to justify your view. If we remain silent it is simply because such activities deserve no answer.

Way back in post 35 you said

Simon wrote (#45):I largely agree with you Stuart. We seem to need to hold morality as more that just mass opinion. But on the other hand, what about stoning adulterers, Stuart? Stoning people has been dropped by mass opinion.

A desire to make morality real does not make it so. Either there is a right and wrong or there is not. If humans invented morality, then there is no such thing as objective morality. If there is no such thing as objective morality, all we have are personal opinions that can be collated into group-opinions. A group-opinion has no more weight than a personal opinion. It is just more common. As such, you have no ground to stand on when condemning the stoning of adulterers. You are merely claiming that your opinion is a better opinion than that which the people had in the cultures that did stone peoples. Yet, without any objective standard, such a claim is meaningless. It cannot be “better”. For better has no meaning. Better means that you are getting closer to the correct standard, closer to the objective standard. What you actually mean is that you like not stoning adulterers, better.

What does objective morality require?
1. Free choice – if you cannot choose, you can not be held “wrong”
2. Intelligence and reason – you cannot have (1) without these things
3. A justified law maker – rules on behaviour could only be set by a valid authority
4. Another dimension – the matter based world does not have objective morality
5. A method of making the beings aware of the morality
6. A reward and penalty system – if there is no penalty for breaking the moral right why is there such a thing?

It is very clear that objective morality can only originate apart from our physical world.

How does the materialistic worldview approach these ‘requirements’
1. Free choice seems real but it is a wonderful illusion. We are really just a bunch of chemical reactions that somehow give us the illusion of being able to choose.
2. Intelligence and reason seem real. But we are just a bunch of chemical reaction that somehow developed the ability to reason. (The use of you own term – magical – might be appropriate here)
3. There is no justified Law-Maker. Saying that an intelligent being exists outside the materialistic world is just naive, Platonic thinking! Intelligence and reason only exist in matter – somehow?
4. There is no other ‘spiritual’ dimension. See 3.
5. See 3.
6. There is no Law Maker so there is no penalty. See 3.

With all this in mind, you dared to embark in a baseless condemning of the stoning of adulterers. Yes you can have your opinion. But so can they. Yet more importantly, you claimed that morality has changed because we (the followers of Christ and God) do not stone adulterers any more.

And again, you have totally missed the point. The “Objective Morality” has not changed at all. It has always been to love the Lord your God with all you heart and all your soul and all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself. Recall if you will, that objective morality can only be sourced outside of the materialistic world, so do not be surprised that it is not actually a list of what atomic being can and cannot do.

“on the other hand, what about stoning adulterers, Stuart?”

Yes, what about it? It was a penalty for breaking objective morality. No, the objective morality has not changed. Adultery is still wrong. The penalty may have changed, and it seems that it might be harder to bear now, than it was back then. We all still believe that people who do ‘wrong’ should face a penalty. It is only right. And that could only be true objectively speaking.

Jonathan,

I think you miss my argument. But I probably should have spelled it out better:

A desire to make morality real does not make it so. Either there is a right and wrong or there is not.

Bear with me for a minute: Humans are attracted to fatty foods. Certainly there will be exceptions – people will have different preferences when it comes to food, but en-mass it is an objective observation that humans are attracted to fatty foods. Now, WHY are we attracted to fatty foods? Well genetics, experience, upbringing….
Now who in their right mind would demand that there MUST be an absolute edict somewhere commanding humans to like fatty foods? Such a person could also demand that personal opinion counts for nothing and that either humans have been admonished to like fatty foods or there is absolutely nothing but personal opinion. But such a person is clearly blind to the obvious fact that the human attraction to certain foods is determined by their makeup.

SO TOO WITH MORALITY. It is determined by our genetics, the world around us, experience, and happenstance.

If humans invented morality, then there is no such thing as objective morality. If there is no such thing as objective morality, all we have are personal opinions that can be collated into group-opinions. A group-opinion has no more weight than a personal opinion. It is just more common.

Firstly, humans no more invented morality than they invented themselves (their genes). Personally I think that mass-opinion is very important, which is the main reason that I treat religion seriously (as opposed to being dismissive of it. It clearly has a purpose.) I can only hope that you will one day see that genetic-environmental – empirical, if you will – determined morality is no threat at all. Indeed, it is what has emancipated us from horrors of the likes of stonings.

As such, you have no ground to stand on when condemning the stoning of adulterers.

I do for the same reason that I can embrace the modern model of the atom as supeior to whatever came before. To embrace the modern model of the atom I have to accept certain philosophical axioms* – as many people here like to keep pointing out. Building upon these it can be ‘proven’ that the modern model is better. Similarly, using certain axioms, I can ‘prove’ that stoning adulterers is not the best policy.
Your claim that I have no ground to stand on is to question those moral axioms, and the scientific equivalent is argued by Dale……. *here:http://www.fruitfulfaith.net/2009/07/two-thomist-tasters/

Somehow, we know a better model of physical reality when we see it. The same is true with morality, I think. Some of us just get a little caught up in the models.

@Stuart (#57)

Just so we cam be absolutly clear, are you saying then, that gravity (the phenomena of things falling) is evidence of the reality of the theory of gravitation, but only insofar as it is confirmed later by experiment, and untill then we cannot properly know of gravity – that things will fall?

Gravity is far far more than a theory of things falling. Things falling is an everyday experience to us macroscopic inhabitants of earth. Things don’t really fall though, they are just attracted to other things and we happen to exist on a particularly massive object that we are very much attracted to. That is what the theory of gravity predicts. In other words things falling and gravity are connected but not synonymous. In fact one of the great things about gravity is that it actually predicts that if you get far enough away from earth you’ll actually fall “up” relative to the earth – i.e. towards bigger things like the sun.

In other words: should we only claim to know what science can teach us?

IMO we should only claim to know as objectively verified fact things that have been subjected to scientific study or some other valid method of determining the accuracy of claims.

By the way, your very confused regarding objective morality.

I suppose I probably am – but I attribute that to the concept itself not really making any sense :)

Ian,

First off the concept of objective moraility is perfectly coherent.It’s simply the idea that somethings are right weather or not anyone agrees or believes different, and somethings are wrong wether or not anyone agrees or believes differently. It is the opposite of subjective morality. You can dispute whether the definition applies but throwing aspertions on the coherence of the definition (well accepted and in common use within the philosophy of ethics and religion) is just a substitute for poor thinking.

That’s all I have time for now. I’ll get back to the rest later.

Its pretty clear I was in a rush when I wrote that last. I mean a substitute for good thinking, a.k.a. poor thinking. And I do know how to spell weather, whether or not it is spelt right above. :-)

Ian,

Gravity is far far more than a theory of things falling. Things falling is an everyday experience to us macroscopic inhabitants of earth. Things don’t really fall though, they are just attracted to other things and we happen to exist on a particularly massive object that we are very much attracted to. That is what the theory of gravity predicts. In other words things falling and gravity are connected but not synonymous. . .

For one you agreed on the terminology (and I qualified what I was meaning all along with parentheses) so all this is really backtracking. Gravity (things falling, objects attracting, etc.) is the phenomenon. In your thought, is the phenomenon itself adequate evidence for the theory of gravity? or must it be verified by science before it can be said the theory of gravity (which I take to be assurance that things will always fall down/attract – whatever -) is known?

IMO we should only claim to know as objectively verified fact things that have been subjected to scientific study or some other valid method of determining the accuracy of claims.

This statement is as slippery as can be. In your thought what is a permissible “valid method” other than science which can determine a claims truthfulness? Can experience be this? Why/why not?

I’m not getting into a discussion about objective/relative morality in this thread lol although I do concede that one was probably my fault for not being able to resist my comment ;).

In your thought, is the phenomenon itself adequate evidence for the theory of gravity? or must it be verified by science before it can be said the theory of gravity (which I take to be assurance that things will always fall down/attract – whatever -) is known?

All we can say is that relativistic theory fits known observations and has a great track record for accurately predicting future observations. Therefore at the moment the theory of relativistic gravity can be considered accurate and useful.

This statement is as slippery as can be. In your thought what is a permissible “valid method” other than science which can determine a claims truthfulness? Can experience be this? Why/why not?

I can’t think of any but I don’t rule out their existence hence the caveat. Experience alone is not sufficient because we have far too much evidence of the fallibility of individual perception, recall and interpretation hence the need for a method like science that tries to rule this out.

Moral issues are a good example of this . Let us say that I feel deep down that rape is fundamentally wrong. Does that mean that I now have evidence that rape is fundamentally wrong? No – I only have evidence that I think deep down that rape is fundamentally wrong. Why do I think that is the case? That is still an unknown, even to me, based on that experience I just presented.

Ian,

All we can say is that relativistic theory fits known observations and has a great track record for accurately predicting future observations. Therefore at the moment the theory of relativistic gravity can be considered accurate and useful.

I agree. But this is not answering the question. I want to know if observation of phenomena itself is efficacious for knowledge.

It seems to me you do accept – indeed know of – experiential evidence, for in your own words there is “evidence of the fallibility of individual perception, recall and interpretation.” How do you know this? Where did this evidence come from? And before you knew it, and used it to argue in favour of the claim that “reason alone is not sufficient,” was there a tested scientific hypothesis or theory to verify it?

Just because I can’t verify something, doesn’t mean I don’t know it!

I agree. But this is not answering the question. I want to know if observation of phenomena itself is efficacious for knowledge.

One observation is not very efficacious for knowledge. Lots of observations can reveal underlying patterns however which is much more useful.

It seems to me you do accept – indeed know of – experiential evidence, for in your own words there is “evidence of the fallibility of individual perception, recall and interpretation.” How do you know this? Where did this evidence come from?

Observations. Lots and lots of observations. Experiential evidence is very useful but we have to be wary. For a simple example, someone saying “I experienced god” when what they really experienced was a feeling of elation is a good example. Perhaps the elation was caused by god but to make that leap and then present that as a direct experience is flawed.

That is why lots and lots of observations are needed in controlled circumstances to narrow down just what is actually going on compared with what is being claimed.

And before you knew it, and used it to argue in favour of the claim that “reason alone is not sufficient,” was there a tested scientific hypothesis or theory to verify it?

I don’t follow – it seems to me you are asking whether there was a tested scientific hypothesis before there was a tested scientific hypothesis?

One observation is not very efficacious for knowledge.

Either it is or it isn’t. Which?

I met someone earlier today that I used to go to school with. I have no corroborative evidence of this however. But surely I do know it. The evidence for it is grounded in my own experience. Or – if you were in a similar situation – do you need many obeservations or lines of evidence before you accept that you can know it.

I agree with you Stuart, I think that experiential evidence is evidence (ultimately it is all we have, in a way). However, communal knowledge – e.g. religion or science – is far more potent (according to most poeple’s experiential knowledge (: )

I met someone earlier today that I used to go to school with. I have no corroborative evidence of this however. But surely I do know it. The evidence for it is grounded in my own experience.

From your point of view:

Observation: You have memories of meeting that friend which seem real.
Logic: The memories seem real, I had planned to meet this person for a while, I have a receipt from coffee, I recall a particular conversation, etc, so I assume it is true.
Inference: You met someone you used to go to school with.

Now internally we can shortcut all of that by simply assuming the observation is true and that is how we operate on a daily basis. Assumptions like that drive our perception of the world and rightly so. Nonetheless science can deal with this observation and potentially independently confirm the inference.

From my point of view:

Observation: You claim you met someone you used to go to school with.
Logic: Since you have nothing to gain by lying, it is a simple claim, and it is a common occurrence to meet people you used to go to school with, it is probably true.
Inference: You met someone you used to go to school with.

Science can deal with this observation too.

———————————————–
(slight aside)

The situation you gave is quite different from a broader statement however. The more general and/or more extraordinary a claim, the more corroborating evidence it needs before we will believe it.

If I said that I met a old school mate for lunch today you would probably believe me.
If I said that everyone meets old school mates for lunch on Tuesdays you’d question me because it is too general.
If I said that I met an old school mate who is an alien from alpha centauri, you’d question me because it is too extraordinary.

—————————————————–

So to return to our discussion, where is this evidence that science cannot use?

I get the sense you are trying to say that your knowledge that you met your friend cannot be used by science and I would tend to agree but only in the sense that no-one but you can actually use that for anything. What is more important is the fact that you think you met your friend, which can be used by science.

Ian,

To that last it seems to me as if you are equivocating on “science” – which has gone from meaning empirical investigation to simply the broad use of logic.

In any case, you can’t put a memory in a test tube. Neither can science dissect a moral ought (you admit as much above). Neither can you put a logical inference in a petri dish. In each of these cases knowledge is conferred and empirical science was unnecessary. Only in the case of the latter – the logical inference – could empirical science possibly offer corroborating evidence.

You misrepresented me above as well. I would say;
1) I have a memory of x
2) My memories are generally reliable.
3) In the absence of defeaters for x I am justified in believing x.
4) Therefore, I have knowledge of x.

Empirical investigation, scientific hypotheses and theorising and testing, making inferences, etc., was not involved at all in order that I might know. Any of those above are simply extra and therefore superfluous. At most I see them as adding justification, which I already have.

Science is hardly consistent. Theories and formulas of yesteryears are now falling under the weight of evidence -based faith. Dr. Johnson, You are a blessing to this generation. Thanks

Hi Simon. Firstly, excuse my tardiness in responding. I would love to be a more regular contributor, but am sadly (and happily) occupied in many other activities. Secondly, post 63 was a pretty good effort in avoiding derogatory comments and explaining your position. Congrats.

Now on to the meat …

You have made the definite claim that morality is an evolved attribute like an instinct or a desire to eat fatty foods. Then you claimed that your “preferred instinct” or “desire” is better for the same reason that the model of the atom is better than the model of, well, whatever came before it. And here is where you lost me.

The model of the atom is a representation of a physical entity that appears to have a very specific set of universal attributes. The model of the atom is better because it fits with these “physical laws” like a glove on my hand. On the other hand, you are trying to say that your model of what you hold as “right and wrong” (morality), is better than what anyone previously (different) held … because … well, “because it is different, and the model of the atom is different to what people held previously so what I hold as the correct morality is better than what people held before”. You did not tie your version of morality to a physical law like the model of the atom is tied to the physical entity. I am not ridiculing you here. I am expressing exact reasoning that I saw you make to claim that your current morality is better.

I understand you when you claim morality is just a product of genetics, the world, environment, experience, happenstance or instinct. It can be nothing more than this to you. What I do not understand is how after making this claim, you can engage in claiming that your taste, your genetics, your experience, your happenstance … is modern, and thus, is the correct one. The extent of your argument appear to be that your idea, (or the general consensus,) on what is currently morally right is correct because it comes “built-in”, it is the latest version.

My claim is that your morality is not, and can not be, more correct (or better). It is just different. You cut it lose from representing something real, like the model of the atom represents a physical entity adhering to physical laws. Thus your morality is merely personal taste. Today is again the day, where I see that this genetic-environmental determined morality is no threat at all. But that is because I see that it has no substance. Yet, it is a threat because the lack of substance allows it to wander, and this can best be illustrated by the modem adoption of wholesale abortions. Stoning adulterers may seem barbaric, yet how many people were stonned? And weren’t they aware of the ‘laws’ and prescribed penalty before deciding to risk the transgression? The same cannot be said about our propensity to indiscriminately kill, millions, today.

At this point it is worth explaining again that this is not what I know morality to be. What is “right” sits above and in judgement of my instincts. It is not an instinct itself. Behavioural laws, to be real, do not fit into a naturalist worldview. I accept right and wrong as real. I accept good and evil as real. This simply demands that I discard a naturalist worldview.

It is not modern morality that has freed us from the “horrors” of the past. It is the acknowledgment that there is a real good and that we should be living according to it. It is the acknowledgment that while justice is right, mercy and forgiveness are greater. It is the acknowledgment that I personally am in transgression of the real good.

If you want to have another crack at justifying your instance of relative morality, go for it.

@ Stuart

It seems we are going around in circles so I am going to have one last reply and then back out of this discussion.

To that last it seems to me as if you are equivocating on “science” – which has gone from meaning empirical investigation to simply the broad use of logic.

My point was not that the inference was “science” but that the inference and the observation were not the same thing. In terms of morality you observe that you think x is bad, not that x is universally bad. The latter is necessarily an inference and it is a testable one. Any such testing is science.

In any case, you can’t put a memory in a test tube.

No but there are whole academic journals dedicated to memory research so science does have a whole lot to say about memories.

Neither can science dissect a moral ought (you admit as much above).

No, I say that science cannot prescribe an ought. It can certainly dissect it if such a thing is possible. More important to our discussion however is that no other mode of discourse can offer any more than science can.

Neither can you put a logical inference in a petri dish.

Not literally but science thrives of logical inferences. If they didn’t work then science wouldn’t work and the fact I’m posting this comment is testimony to the contrary of that idea.

In each of these cases knowledge is conferred and empirical science was unnecessary.

We are not talking about the necessity of science, we are talking about the inaccessibility of certain realms of evidence to science and you still haven’t provided any that are accessible to other modes of discourse.

Thanks Stuart, it has been an interesting discussion and I look forward to your reply but I am not sure we can gain much more from the discussion continuing much further. If you disagree then let me know and I’ll re-engage :)

Hello Ian,

I’m keen to make this the last as well.

In terms of morality you observe that you think x is bad, not that x is universally bad.

I’ve never spoken of universal moral values. Rather, I have always spoken of objective moral values. I’m not sure what you mean by it, but if you think they are synonymous this might be the cause of all your confusion on the subject.

On morality:
1) Empirical science cannot prescribe or determine things to be right or wrong.
2) That which cannot prescribe or determine things to be right or wrong has no knowledge of the truth of moral statements.
3) Therefore, empirical science has no knowledge of the truth of moral statements.
4) There is knowledge of the truth of moral statements.
5) That which can be known can be used as evidence.
6) Therefore, there is evidence that is inaccessible to science.

No but there are whole academic journals dedicated to memory research so science does have a whole lot to say about memories.

Equivocating on “memory research”. Memory research cannot give you the specific content of any knowledge bearing memory. This research will be either psychological, sociological, or studying the electrochemical phenomena in the brain. Possibly also equivocating on “science” again, as an academic journal is not necessarily empirical science.

On memories:
1) I have a memory of x
2) My memories are generally reliable.
3) In the absence of defeaters for x I am justified in believing x.
4) Therefore, I have knowledge of x.
5) Knowledge of x can be used as evidence.
6) Empirical science cannot access the specific content of a memory.
7) Therefore, there is evidence that is not accessible empirical science.

(1) No, I say that science cannot prescribe an ought. (2) It can certainly dissect it if such a thing is possible. (3) More important to our discussion however is that no other mode of discourse can offer any more than science can. [numbers mine]

Regarding (2): how does empirical science analyse a prescription, as prescriptions are by nature non-physical?

You concede (1) and immediately contradict yourself in (3). If its true that science cannot prescribe an ought, then science is inept at moral discourse and blind to moral knowledge.

Not literally but science thrives of logical inferences. If they didn’t work then science wouldn’t work

So science relies on the logical laws of inference and cannot function without them. I agree. It follows then that the logical laws of inference epistemically precede empirical scientific investigation. And because that which we know can be used as evidence, it follows from the above that there is philosophical evidence that empirical science was unable to obtain. So the position “science is reliable” is only reasonable because there is philosophical evidence that underpins the entire discipline.

Related to philosophical evidence is theological evidence. For instance, empirical science is unable to determine if God is triune. Yet the Christian who holds scripture to be true is able to find ample evidence for the Trinity. So theological evidence is another realm of evidence that is inaccessible to science.

Lol I knew you’d save the good stuff for last :) Nonetheless I said I’d let it end unresolved here and that is what I shall do – thanks for an invigorating discussion and I’ll see you at the next one!

Whatever happened to Johnson C Philip? It seems that one minute we were asking for a list of books he claimed to have purchased and the next he was gone. He didn't get asked to move on by the keepers of this blog did he?

Definitely not. I suppose he thought he could make better use of his time elsewhere, rather than arguing with you lot.