During our fairly long history of discussion and debate, I have often accused him (most notably, here) of inconsistency with respect to the way he deals with questions of morality, of should and of ought. On the one hand, he'll say:
Which is why my opinions are not facts, nor do I pretend they are or otherwise mask them as such. (source)
One can passionately hold, and articulate, opinions without believing them necessarily to be facts. (source)
Again, though I cannot speak of moral facts or objective right and wrong, this doctrine is positively noxious and almost staggering in its inhumane cruelty. (source)
Then he'll turn around and say things like:
...a charlatan associated therewith vomited up nonsense about homosexuals living in sin and just begging to be thrown into the fire pit of hell (a place, incidentally, which I deconstruct in my own latest blog post). The individuals upon whom the vomit was spewed. (source)
...mindless theological inculcation...sexual-orientation-modification experiments...fire pit of eternal torture and savagery. What beneficence...who would be harming nobody, bothering nobody, making miserable nobody...To prostrate oneself before such a pristine conception of hideousness… I dunno… I find it sad...Again, though I cannot speak of moral facts or objective right and wrong, this doctrine is positively noxious and almost staggering in its inhumane cruelty. (source)
Throwing out a token "but it's not immoral" to cover his tracks, where his tracks clearly show a trail through Moral/Immoral-Land, is unconvincing. As I've said before, his inability to hold, even for one little blog comment, to his stated beliefs about morality is staggering. And again the throwaway "cannot speak of moral facts"; he knows exactly what he's trying to say.
And for the hundredth time, who cares what he thinks?
Let me propose extending his "not facts, just opinions, since there are no facts, but I still think what I have to say has value for others, else I wouldn't be saying these things, now would I?" passive-aggressive paradigm to other areas of life and knowledge.
So, since one can passionately hold, and articulate, opinions without believing them necessarily to be facts, I passionately hold and want to articulate that evolution is false and Intelligent Design is true. Now, according to the JN, there's no way to bring evidence for or against his assertions of what he finds morally praiseworthy or reprehensible. Similarly, because I say so, and because I passionately hold to this opinion, my viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's.
I passionately believe that the blue sky is a fuzzy blanket of happiness that God pulls over the despairing blackness of the night sky, and removes every evening. I also passionately hold that the stars are little pinpricks in the Dyson sphere-like canopy that envelopes the Earth, and God's glory, which is found in full force behind the canopy, shines through those pricks just a little bit, in order to put happy smiles on the faces of children throughout the world.
I passionately hold that mixing common household ingredients together will produce gold. (Next time, I vow to use just a little more Pine-Sol!) Last time, I mixed baking soda, vinegar, and dish soap. Even though the resulting sludge did not resemble gold as I usually experience it, that's OK b/c I know that what I passionately hold is worth expressing, and so it has value for myself and others. Hmm, where's the nearest pawn shop?
I passionately hold that since humans share a great deal of genetic code in common with broccoli, I can treat humans just like I treat broccoli. That is, I decapitate broccoli and eat it in salad. So...
I passionately hold that the President ordering the US Mint to print $3 billion in non-sequential $20 bills and giving them all to me will drastically improve the US economy. Drastically.
Remember another thing here - a very valid criticism I often level against atheists like the JN is that they frequently commit Hume's naturalistic fallacy and confuse IS statements with OUGHT statements. To wit - just because (for the sake of argument) gratuitous suffering IS/EXISTS gives us no information about any obligation, no directive as far as how we ought to respond to that suffering. Do we imprison the rapist, or do we join him in raping his victims? Without some external paradigm to provide moral direction to us, the bare fact of "this man is forcing these girls to have sex with him and they don't want to" leads neither to "I ought to stop him" nor "I ought to help him".
Thus, only IS statements exist. (Thus, atheism is the ultimate "Meh".) What else are IS statements? Everything I just said about science, evolution, chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics, and economics! Take the Jolly Nihilist's contention a little further than he has apparently thought it through and you arrive at a fantasyland where reality is limited only by your imagination, boys and girls!
56 comments:
A qualitative difference exists between moral statements (that is, statements about what is moral or immoral) and statements about the natural order (such as, for instance, statements about Darwinian evolution by natural selection or astronomy).
As you well know, my first principle--my starting point, axiom, postulate, what have you--is that evidence is the best, most reliable way for humans to approximate truth as we interrogate the world of experience. As such, and setting aside special cases such as mathematics, from that interrogatory starting point, “truth” about the world of experience can only be reliably approximated by marshaling evidence. When evidence does not apply to a concept, or when its application, though conceivable, is not yet grasped, we are left, at least provisionally, without truth.
In all my dealings, with Christians and non-Christians alike, I have never come across a single convincing argument for the idea that evidence is applicable to moral issues. For example, somebody might declare murder is immoral; I ask for the evidence. They might respond that murder is immoral because it causes suffering and pain; I ask for the evidence that suffering and pain have any relevance whatsoever to questions of morality. At its very foundation, then, it seems that unless a moral code is weaved into the fibers of the cosmos (a proposition for which no evidence exists), any moral system is based upon assumptions to which evidence is inapplicable.
As one interrogates the natural order, though, evidence very much is applicable. Through the science of astronomy, we can understand that which exists “above” us. Through the science of chemistry, we can understand what, besides gold, mixing common household ingredients might produce. One can quantify the genetic similarity between human beings and broccoli, though evidence will not help one decide how either one “ought” to be treated. Where evidence can be marshaled--where the world of experience is amenable to evidence-based interrogation--truth can be approximated. Where evidence cannot be marshaled--where evidence’s application to the world of experience is unclear--truth cannot be approximated, leaving us solely with opinions, should we wish to state them.
Whether my opinions, or anyone else’s, have value is a nebulous question to which I am not sure an answer exists. Nevertheless, being an opinionated individual, who has some measure of articulateness, I state my opinions with whatever force I can muster, whether they are “valuable” or are not.
No, that's fine. I simply take the other side of YOUR coin. Since it's not possible to assign factual values to moral questions, I don't see why not do the same for other questions.
Whether my opinions, or anyone else’s, have value on questions of chemistry and evolutionary biology is a nebulous question to which I am not sure an answer exists. Nevertheless, being an opinionated individual, who has some measure of articulateness, I state my opinions with whatever force I can muster, whether they are “valuable” or are not.
"Since it's not possible to assign factual values to moral questions, I don't see why not do the same for other questions."
Because other questions may have factual validity and can be empirically verified, while moral questions can not.
JN,
I find it interesting that Paul in his letter to the Romans argues that one evidence of humanity departing from his (God's) 'cosmic morality' is/was the switch from knowing and honoring God (R1:21) to preferring "images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things" (R1:23).
Thus, an "evidence" for Paul is the tendency to "worship and serve the creature rather than the creator" (R1:25).
A naturalist/athiest may not like this sort of evidence, but it is consistent with the presupposition.
Seth: explain how that constitutes evidence.
Merkur: Because other questions may have factual validity and can be empirically verified, while moral questions can not.
You sound like an official spokesperson for postmodernism.
Merkur: How are you defining evidence?
merkur,
I simply deny that those other questions are empirical verifiable, just like the JN has done with moral questions.
Thanks for playing, though. Maybe you should be criticising the JN's approach rather than mine.
empirically* verifiable
Seth: I think that you don't know what postmodernism is. My definition of evidence is not important at this point: I am asking you in what way Paul's evidence leads to his conclusion.
Rhoblogy: The problem with denying that they are empirically verifiable is that they aren't. I am a moral skeptic, but feel free to persuade me that moral facts exist. Point to one.
The problem with denying that moral facts are empirically verifiable is that they aren't. I am a skeptic of physical and chemical facts, but feel free to persuade me that thsee facts exist. Point to one.
Merkur,
My definition of evidence is not important at this point: I am asking you in what way Paul's evidence leads to his conclusion.
First things first. If you won't volunteer yours, let's use mine. Evidence: a warm tingly feeling whose duration you can empirically measure and statistically plot.
Rhology: If you heat water to 100 degrees centigrade, it starts to boil.
Seth 1: "I find it interesting that Paul in his letter to the Romans argues that one evidence of humanity departing from his (God's) 'cosmic morality' is/was the switch from knowing and honoring God (R1:21) to preferring "images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things" (R1:23)."
Seth 2: "Evidence: a warm tingly feeling whose duration you can empirically measure and statistically plot."
So Paul had a warm tingly feeling that was measured and statistically plot? Interesting.
"statistically plotted", obviously.
My apologies for not interacting more thoroughly with you on this point, Rhology, but I am honestly having trouble following the, shall we say, grammar of your argument. Clearly, you recognize my observation that moral issues, as a class, seem not to be amenable to evidence-based interrogation as a means of reaching truth. From this, though, you seem to conclude that no issues, of any class, are amenable to such evidence-driven interrogation as a means of ascertaining truth. You are taking two qualitatively different things--as qualitatively different as a dinosaur and a slice of pizza--and conflating them...pretending they are interchangeable. Inasmuch as none of my statements calls for or necessarily demands such extensions and conflations, you are pursuing a non sequitur.
You are taking two qualitatively different things--as qualitatively different as a dinosaur and a slice of pizza--and conflating them...pretending they are interchangeable.
No, I'm asserting that they are interchangeable. On my own authority, just like you've done with the question of moral facts.
I'm mocking your bizarre position by applying it more consistently than you are willing to do. You want to pretend that moral facts don't exist, fine. I'm just as happy to play pretend too, but with facts that are apparently nearer and dearer to your heart. Why accept the non-factyness of moral questions and assume some factyness of other questions? Don't tell me "evidence" b/c that's just another expression of your assumptions.
Much as you wish to command me not to cite evidence, evidence is, of course, the only answer I can give--and it is the proper answer. Moral statements are qualitatively different from statements about the natural order because moral statements are not amenable to evidence-based interrogation whereas, by contrast, statements about the natural order are amenable to evidence-based interrogation. To concretize this, consider Merkur's example about heating water to 100 degrees Celsius and whether it will start to boil. This is very much a question about the natural order, and it is very much amenable to evidence-based interrogation. Do the heating. See the result. What is the equivalent of doing the heating and seeing the result if the question, instead, is murder's moral acceptability?
moral statements are not amenable to evidence-based interrogation whereas, by contrast, statements about the natural order are amenable to evidence-based interrogation.
Again (see to Merkur), that depends on how you define "evidence".
To concretize this, consider Merkur's example about heating water to 100 degrees Celsius and whether it will start to boil. This is very much a question about the natural order, and it is very much amenable to evidence-based interrogation. Do the heating. See the result. What is the equivalent of doing the heating and seeing the result if the question, instead, is murder's moral acceptability?
Insert Nazi experimentation: put Jews, Gypsies, and Russian Political criminals in water, heat water to boiling, examine and document results.
Insert Nazi experimentation: put Jews, Gypsies, and Russian Political criminals in water, heat water to boiling, examine and document results.
Right. And what moral facts do you observe from your Nazi experiments?
You can observe physical facts: people will die, in great pain. Anybody observing this experiment will be able to observe these facts.
I fail to see any observable moral facts, though. If you claim that it is an observable moral fact that this is wrong, then you have to explain why those carrying out the experiment appear to be unable to observe that "moral fact".
If you are arguing that some people are unable to see this moral fact - perhaps because of "sin" or some other magic kerfuffle - yet all are able to see the physical facts, then it is clear that statements about morality are of a different order to those about physicality.
However this is exactly the Jolly Nihilist's argument, and exactly what Rhology is pretending is not the case. Unfortunately his own words betray him - he doesn't believe that moral facts are the same as physical facts. If he did, then he wouldn't need to attack my statement on physical facts - he could simply point me to a clearly observable moral fact that operates in the same way as a pan of boiling water.
I fail to see any observable moral facts, though.
B/c your presuppositions don't allow you to.
So I've simply taken your presuppositions and applied them to other things. Don't be so dense as to miss the obvious point.
I fail to see any observable moral facts, though
Point of Nazi example: This is one problem where moral "evidence" and physical "evidence" cannot be divided as both you (Merkur) and Jolly have argued. Physical things have moral implications. Moral things have physical implications. Thus, EVIDENCE requires a definition if we are to procede.
Evidence vs. Fact: Evidence in support of a thing does not make it a *fact*. Evidence requires interpretation. Interpretation requires a hypothesis or methodology. Paul's starting morality in Roman's is his methodology by which to *interpret* the *evidence* he sees around him.
proceed
So Seth, would it be fair to say that you can't point to any observable moral facts that arise from your Nazi experiment?
Seth: it's really easy. Boiling people alive has physical results that can be observed - facts. You claim that boiling people alive also has moral results that can be observed - also facts. To prove your point without any further discussion, all you need to do is point to a single moral fact that results from boiling people alive.
B/c your presuppositions don't allow you to.
So presumably if I had a different set of suppositions, I would be unable to see skin blistering, fat melting and people screaming in agony as I boiled them alive?
Unfortunately, that's nonsense. These physical facts are observable regardless of any "presuppositions", which leaves you on the horns of a dilemma.
Either you claim that moral facts are equally observable regardless of presuppositions, in which case you should be able to point us to such an observable moral fact; or you claim that moral facts are not observable in the same way as physical facts, in which case you are agreeing JN's point.
I am perfectly fine if you want to make the argument that moral facts exist, but are different to physical facts - this seems entirely reasonable, although I would of course argue against it.
So I've simply taken your presuppositions and applied them to other things.
What presuppositions have you taken, exactly? Please define them.
Seth,
"Evidence," in the abstract, is most useful when it is being employed in the testing of predictions that are entailed by a hypothesis.
Suppose you begin with this hypothesis: If you put Jews, Gypsies and Russian political criminals in water and then heat water to boiling, they will suffer agony and die.
This hypothesis is amenable to testing.
As you make observations, throughout the experiment, you gather evidence.
Point of evidence one: They are screaming.
Point of evidence two: Their skin is burning.
Point of evidence three: Their skin is peeling away and they are losing consciousness.
Point of evidence four: They are dying.
Knowing the definitions of the words "agony" and "die," one can use those points of evidence to judge the veracity of the hypothesis.
Evidence, more or less, means "relevant facts," especially in relation to an uncertain larger hypothesis.
Hypothesis: R1:28 "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done" [emphasis mine].
Prediction 1: R1:29;31 "They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice...heartless, ruthless.
Prediction 2: R1:32 "Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."
Application to WW2 Experiments:
(1) Germans systematically (justified variously) adopted naturalism, forsaking accountability to God.
(2) Rejecting correction from God they accepted and conducted eugenics experiments.
(3) Germany proceeded in a way that is now synonymous with Paul's language of "malice, heartless, ruthless".
(4) The German population was largely Protestant (and formerly knew right from wrong) but instead, as a whole approved of the Nazi agenda, as predicted by the bible.
Seth: I was asking for an observable moral fact that resulted from the experiments themselves.
In addition it doesn't help your case greatly that points 1, 3 and 4 of that case are either outright lies or betray your igorance of basic historical fact. Ironic.
So, um, an obvservable moral fact that results from the actual process of boiling somebody alive? All I need is one.
outright lies...basic historical fact?
Huh? 1, 3, and 4? Please illuminate my apparent opaqueness.
I believe Merkur and I are in agreement that the problem with moral truth-claims is that neither of us can imagine what a "relevant fact" might be in relation to moral issues.
That neither of you can see what a "relevant fact" might be in relation to moral issues is because you are limiting your minds to what *moral* means and how you assess *moral* things. I presented a very clear testable morally-weighted hypothesis with predictions that bear evidence in favor or in rejection of the hypothesis. Start there.
As far as I can see, there are two problems with your example, Seth.
The first, and most devastating, problem is that, in this case, the decider of “what ought not to be done” is god, who, based on the best available evidence, I provisionally conclude does not exist. Therefore, the moral imperative melts away because the dictate is coming from a non-existent entity.
The second, and lesser, problem is twofold.
First, then, the list of characteristics in “Prediction 1” contains dissimilar things. The list mentions being filled with all manner of “unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice...heartless, ruthless.” To be covetous or ruthless, I suppose, is a question of fact. To be unrighteous or evil, though, is not a matter of fact, because it presupposes we understand what “righteousness” or “evilness” factually describe. True, by citing god, one may say one has an arbiter of “what ought not to be done”; however, as noted in my earlier paragraph, the moral imperative melts away when the dictate is coming from a non-existent entity.
Second, then, I must note that Germans, or anybody else, behaving in a way your deity would define as unrighteous is hardly a stunning confirmation of an uncertain prediction. The human animal, perhaps by its very nature, has been well known, observed and documented to be ruthless, covetous and brutal sometimes. Your hypothesis, at root, is that god gave people up to (what god considers to be) a debased mind and, thus, you predict that people will act has they have been reliably observed, through all time, to act.
I'll try to get to the historical questions when I have more time, but they're largely irrelevant to my main concern:
"That neither of you can see what a "relevant fact" might be in relation to moral issues is because you are limiting your minds to what *moral* means and how you assess *moral* things."
The problem is not that I cannot see what a moral fact might be; the problem is that you haven't produced a moral fact so I can understand what you're talking about.
I've made it really simple for you. One example of a physical fact is that water boils at 100 degrees centigrade. What's an example of a moral fact? I can think of one that could be used - "murder is wrong" - but that seems to be a qualitatively different statement to "water boils at 100 degrees centigrade". Which difference is the point that JN was making.
JN:
the moral imperative melts away when the dictate is coming from a non-existent entity
Right. But in that "devastating" case, you've rejected the premise of the hypothesis which is a different problem altogether. Starting with Paul's argument (God is the arbitrator of morality), rejection of the existence of God is treated the same as preferring nature above God. You'd still be a data point in Paul's Romans 1 scenario.
Your hypothesis...thus, you predict that people will act has they have been reliably observed, through all time, to act.
Correct. Continuing, Paul's argument is that people who have been reconciled to God will then be able overcome the reliably observed natural pattern you speak of:
(a)R7:5-6 "while we were living in the flesh [by nature], our sinful passions...were at work... But now [post-reconciliation] we serve in the new way of the Spirit [by supernature]".
(b) R7:25 "I myself serve the law of God [a Moral] with my mind [reconciled], but with my flesh [not yet reconciled, i.e., still gets sick and dies] I serve the law of sin [immoral or amoral]".
Paul's argument can be observed and tested: what to expect in a "reconciled-person".
RE: Animal brutality-
A valid observation. The bible claims that animal brutality is a product of a debased creation (yes, I know, more weighted presupposition). A reconciled and restored creation would not and in the end will not act this way, e.g., Isaiah prophecy in I65:25 "The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain," says the LORD."
Take it for what you will.
Merkur:
An example.
Blando: "Apples have no taste."
Rico: "Apples are tasty."
Blando: "You are not eating an apple, as apples have no taste."
Rico: "Try this apple."
Blando: "Mmm. Tasty. This must not be an apple, as apples have no taste."
Seth, that's not an example of a moral fact, so I'm not sure what your point is.
This is really puzzling. Why are you unwilling to provide a single example of a simple moral fact?
Paul's argument can be observed and tested: what to expect in a "reconciled-person".
Your argument here is that we can know what to expect in a reconciled-person. How do we know who is a reconciled-person?
sigh...
Blando: "Apples have no taste."
Merkur: "Morality has no evidence."
Rico: "Apples are tasty."
Seth: "Morality has evidence."
Blando: "You are not eating an apple, as apples have no taste."
Merkur: "You are not providing an example of a moral fact, as morals have no facts."
Rico: "Try this apple."
Seth: "Try this moral example."
Blando: "Mmm. Tasty. This must not be an apple, as apples have no taste."
Merkur: "The facts are (boiling, skin, etc.). This does not relate to morality, as morality has no evidence.</i
I'm bored with the futility of this.
How do we know who is a reconciled-person?
This is what a significant portion of the bible is about. Particularly, the NT epistles. Look for the symbol of "bearing fruit".
www.blueletterbible.org
cont'd. Go to the site. Select your choice translation (I use ESV to start). Enter the phrase "bear fruit". Select 'search'.
Seth, your hilarious lampoon would be more incisive if in fact you had provided me with a moral fact to taste.
I can reel off physical facts all day if you want, but all I'm asking from you is a single moral fact so I can understand what you mean.
Why won't you provide one?
Perhaps I can help you along.
I can give you a description of the pan that I use to boil the water in, the type of oven that I have, the kitchen it was performed in: but none of those are the physical fact that water boils at 100 degrees centigrade.
In your charming story about boiling people alive, what is the equivalent moral fact?
Immorality or amorality may produce ruthlessness.
People can be immoral or amoral.
Animals can only be amoral.
Both people and animals can behave ruthlessly. The eugenists behaved ruthlessly.
Ruthless is an adverb describing an action. An action is a fact. It either happened or didn't.
So the moral fact in your tale is that people behaved ruthlessly?
I was under the impression that when people used the term moral facts, they were referring to statements such as "murder is wrong". (That's certainly how Rhology seems to understand the term.)
Now we've established what you mean when you use the term moral fact, thank you. A moral fact is when somebody does something that is immoral. How do we know when something is immoral?
See Romans 1 text (and JN comment).
Immorality or amorality may produce unrighteousness.
...
Both people and animals can behave unrighteously. The eugenists behaved unrighteously.
Righteousness is an adjective describing an action with respect to a standard. An action is a fact. It either happened or didn't. A standard is a fact. Either one conforms to (righteous) or deviates from (unrighteous) it.
Pick your standard:
(1) Paul uses God's law (Torah)
(2) U.S. code on War Crimes
(3) International code (Nuremberg)
(4) Merkur's Life-Coach Handbook
(5) One based on "How I Feel Today"
Hmmm. Yes, I'll defend that thoughts, desires, actions, and behaviors all constitute *facts* of morality.
merkur,
I'll give you an example that should resonate with you.
You look at organisms on Earth now and also their ability over time and generations to adapt to their environment. You also look at bones in the ground, and you put these together and say "Evolution from common descent. It's science."
I look at the same organisms and same bones in the ground and same ability to adapt and say "Design, and hey look! Bones of dead things that may or may not have had any children."
It's exactly what I said in the original post, only different.
Oh wait, it's not different at all. Maybe you should read it again.
Hint: The very fact that you're denying there are moral facts is itself the case.
Rhology,
I think it is also worthwhile to consider whether truth--irrespective of whether it is currently ascertained or not--is, in principle, attainable or, necessarily, existent. Let us use your own example: We all agree that an individual can look at organisms on Earth now as well as their ability over time and generations to adapt to their environment, as well as look at bones in the ground. I examine this evidence, among many other bits of evidence, and conclude Darwinian evolution by natural selection. You examine this evidence, and your holy book, and conclude creationism. Evidence leading to two different conclusions, right? There are no facts, right? Wrong.
Whether I am correct, you are correct or (somewhat implausibly) we both are incorrect, a fact simply exists about the origin of Earth’s biodiversity. Ultimately, it makes little difference whether the human species, or any particular human, happens to ascertain that fact. The fact necessarily exists in any case. It exists. Necessarily.
A fact (or a set thereof) necessarily exists about the nature of the sky, and the nature of stars.
A fact (or a set thereof) necessarily exists about mixing common household ingredients to produce gold.
A fact (or a set thereof) necessarily exists, insofar as economic improvement can be quantified, about what would happen economically if the president ordered the US Mint to print $3 billion in non-sequential $20 bills and give them all to you.
We might not possess every fact. It might be arrogant and even childish to suppose we can ascertain most facts. But, it remains true that, in these cases, a fact exists. Necessarily.
I have seen no evidence, of any kind, presented by anyone, of any metaphysical persuasion, in any circumstance, to indicate that any moral fact exists, necessarily or otherwise.
JN,
Discerning "facts" is only as good as the (a) knowledge and (b) tools used. A person with a poor understanding of stars might repeatedly observe the sky in great detail and conclude that they are the pin-pricks in the rotating cloak of darkness, letting in bits of daylight. A more informed man may do a little better but with only a pair of binoculars still has no way of getting to the *fact* of the compositions of these fiery balls of gas (I'm ignoring age and evolution discussion intentionally, for now).
Hypothesis: People like you and Merkur see no relevant moral *facts* because your knowledge is limited to naturalistic things and you are using a weak (physical observation) and broken (unreconciled to God) tool.
Experiment: Find people like you and Merkur who were formerly of the same inclination, introduce them to God, give them knowledge about Him, let God fix the broken tool and reconcile the relationship, then have those people redo the assessment.
Result: I can think of at least two case studies, immediately...
Seth,
Actually, I think your experiment is beside the point. I readily concede that, if Christian theism is true, moral facts exist. I concede it a thousand times over. I just do not think Christian theism is true. Hence, to my mind, the process of your proposed experiment is to take somebody who formerly was right-thinking and addle his mind with a falsehood.
More important, though, is the fact I do not think you addressed the crux of my previous comment.
Earth’s biodiversity is a bare fact. I recognize it and say it is the result of Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Rhology recognizes it and says it is the result of creationism. The one thing on which we agree, though, is that Earth’s biodiversity is a fact.
That established, that Earth’s biodiversity has an origin (or explanation) is a necessary fact springing therefrom. Biodiversity’s origin might be evolution. Biodiversity’s origin might be creationism. It might be something entirely different. Or, it might have no origin but, instead, be eternal, which itself would be an explanation. Whatever the case, a fact exists about the origin of, or explanation for, Earth’s biodiversity. Necessarily. It cannot not exist.
[Although this is not key presently, Rhology knows that my first principle is that evidence is the best way for humans to approximate truth about the world of experience. Thus, on my view, evidence is the key to solving these puzzles.]
With respect to moral issues, this necessity—this fact of cannot not exist—does not seem to apply. You have done nothing to demonstrate the necessary existence of a moral fact, as I have just explained the necessary existence of a fact about the origin of, or explanation for, Earth’s biodiversity.
The whole distinction I have made, which Rhology is attempting to attack, is the difference between statements about the natural order and statements about morality. Moral facts might exist. They might. We simply do not have any evidence that they do. And, in stark contrast to facts about the natural order, they certainly are not of the kind that cannot not exist.
I have seen no evidence, of any kind, presented by anyone, of any metaphysical persuasion, in any circumstance, to indicate that any moral fact exists, necessarily or otherwise.
Two can play that game. Given my (for the sake of argument) presuppositions, I have seen no evidence, of any kind, presented by anyone, of any metaphysical persuasion, in any circumstance, to indicate that any physical, chemical, or biological fact exists, necessarily or otherwise.
See? That was easy. When you get to choose your own ridiculous presuppositions rather than ceding that responsibility to God, any magical fantasyland (like yours) is possible.
Anyone who would say such a thing would deny the world of experience.
Such a person has no place at the table.
At the perhaps considerable risk of perceived self-importance, I wish to draw attention to a post I made on my blog approximately three years ago. This was a few months before I ever met Rhology.
At various times, Rhology has accused me of being inconsistent in my moral nihilism. That is, to some extent, he accuses me of appealing to it when his mode of argumentation forces me into the nihilist's corner.
If you read this post, though, you will see my moral nihilism has been consistent for a few years, and that it well precedes my knowing Rhology.
Actually, I'd say that highlights your inconsistency all the more, as you should know better than to make the arguments you do. And it's been that way for 3 years.
Post a Comment