I'm going to post this now and edit for mistakes later.
This is a challenge to those who believe that we are nothing but matter, chemistry in action and so on, or that a human can be completely reduced to chemical components. It is also a counterexample to those who suppose the natural sciences compose a complete epistemology, that is a theory of knowledge. Such a position leaves much out that is essential to the human experience and it is ultimately self defeating since there is no scientific experiment that can prove that all knowledge should be justified by science, hence the truth of the adequacy of a completely scientific epistemology cannot be verified within that epistemology. This is more or less the same problem that logical positivism ran into in the early 20th century. Logical positivism claimed that all knowledge must somehow be based upon observable facts. The problem is that there is no observation that can validates this requirement, thus logical positivism invalidated itself.
The form of the argument for an immaterial mind is based upon a classical argument for libertarian freedom, or freedom that is not compatible with determinism.
The argument goes something like this:
1. If I am morally responsible for an action, then that action is within my control.
2. If determinism is true, then everything I do is a result of events that took place long before I was born.
3. I am not in control of anything that happened prior to my birth.
4. If determinism is true, then I am not in control of my actions(2,3)
5. If determinism is true, then I am not morally responsible. (1,4)
6. Moral responsibility is a necessity of human nature.
7. I am human.
8. Since there are humans who are morally responsible, determinism is false. (5,6,7)
The argument against materialism and for an immaterial mind/soul follows a similar form:
1. If I am morally responsible for an action, then that action is within my control.
2. If materialism is true, then everything that I do is a result of the laws of physics.
3. I am not in control of the laws of physics.
4. If materialism is true, then I am not in control of my actions. (2,3)
5. If materialism is true, then I am not morally responsible. (1,4)
6. Moral responsibility is a necessity of human nature.
7. I am human.
8. Since there are humans who are morally responsible, materialism is false. (5,6,7)
Perhaps the most important claim here is that we are morally responsible. If one wants to suggest that we aren't, I'd like to see him argue that after getting punched in the nose for a birthday present. But if he still insisted as if it wasn't true that he shouldn't have gotten punched in the nose, then these arguments do not work. And that's okay. The arguments are intended only for those who believe in moral responsibility, that there are ways that we ought to behave.
As of the 17th or 16th posts, this thread is under scrutiny and off topic posts will be deleted. And it's no trouble to me to do some house cleaning every now and then.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Don't sweat the naysayers Barb. The materialist spiritualism-deniers are a Luciferian divide-and-conquer army whose aspirations will be denied.
True soldiers are uniting every day to find the truth. I may not agree with all of your beliefs, but it does not matter. Our struggle is against the Dark One, not each other.
Interesting post, Rob.
Recently I asked an atheist if he believed there was a law of physics. Of course, he said. I asked who wrote that law? He didn't know, he said.
I asked if the One who wrote the law of physics was able to write it wouldn't that One also be able to break it? I suppose, he said.
Then I told him I was speaking of God. He defined physics and every other science. Why is it not possible for Him to defy physics and transcend time and space as He did when He took on the flesh of man.
It's the first time I ever heard an atheist shut up about God because when he came up with his big bang theory I asked where it came from. I suppose dust, he said. But where did the dust come from? And on it went until he admitted he was out of answers.
Science and God can and do co-exist. People who worship science and not God have no logical answers to anything when you try to take them back logically to the beginning.
I have a friend who used to be a blogging partner until she was blessed with a baby last year, explain the Big Bang like this: God said it and BANG! There it was.
Do understand, Johnny, that I didn't write this post --my philosopher son did.
Agreed, the enemy is the enemy of God .
Sorry to keep posting as someone will accuse me of having OCD. :)
Rob, you are aware of a situation that happened because of me a few days ago and also one that involved your mother a few months ago.
I was responsible for my own actions. I let anger rule me instead of giving it over to the Lord.
No one is more full of remorse than I am today about both episodes.
I feel as though I am the biggest disappointment to God than any other person who ever existed, and I have asked forgiveness so many times I'm afraid Jesus is going to tell me to quit doing that because if I can't ask once and let it go I am putting Him on the cross over and over.
So, today I own my actions and ask for forgiveness from your family as well as others I have hurt.
Go here first, Jeanette:
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/t/f/tfountfb.htm
I was guilty, as well, of over-defensiveness and some anger and hanging on like a bulldog in those matters, Jeanette. And we nearly did each other in on the French blog. No wonder they are confused by us --but we've shown them that we DO forgive and keep in mind our family connection as sisters in Christ.
It's under the blood. Let go! We're no worse than a mud-rake! LOL! All equal at the foot of the cross.
There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.
Lose all their guilty stains.
Lose all their guilty stains.
And sinners plunged beneath that fount lose all their guilty stains."
What can wash away my sins?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
Oh, precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow.
No other fount I know.
Nothing but the blood of Jesus!
Amen, Sister, and we will remain sisters in Christ forever and ever.
I just visited the French blog, Pourquoi Pas? Barb- you were asked to leave that blog because of all of the problems you created there with your endless irrelevant comments.
I left too in order to let those bloggers have their old blog back.
Today I went there to see the comments that Jeanette found so 'horrible' that she commented on in the thread before this one.
Guess who I found posting there again? YOU!
Have you no shame? Do you know no boundaries? Have you not respect for agreements you made?
And now this pompous posing about 'mind and soul.'
You are pathetic!
The thread was started by me, not mom, and even if she did start it, the other drama is irrelevent.
I was on topic over there. Jeanette and I were both mentioned and unfairly maligned in a topic --so we commented in our defense. And also on the rest of her topic, brutality toward animals skinned alive in China. Stiletto didn't want me to compare it to abortion, but why not? Rob brilliantly pointed out the comparatively sacred nature of humans - --or did you mean to say humans are more "scared" than animals? Rob, you said "sacred" and I believe that's what you meant. But noone defended the Chinese brutality to animals for the fur trade.
Like you, they aren't interested in truth, only in supporting their bigotry against those who hold a Christian worldview about morals and Jesus.
As a Christian, I don't see any reason to abandon such people to their ignorance --just because they prefer it.
Hypocrite!
Careful, Mudly, you're judging me! and unfairly. With the judgment you judge, (harsh or fair) you will be judged. Yours is harsh and unfair --and that's just fair discernment on my part.
Jeanette, to your song post --
You are right about the eternal sisterhood!
"To those who believe on HIs name, He gave the right to be called 'children of God.'"
All are welcome, even Mudrakes, but they have to lay down their hatred at the foot of the Cross.
brilliant post, Rob. To people who don't notice the author's name, you are making me look good! Smart or something.
I told your father about your posts and comments --and he said,
"I hope he's finding time to study!"
Okay, my powers have now grown and I am going to institute Rob rules in this thread. Most of the comments have been thoughtful and I appreciate that, but whether you are friend or foe, in agreement or disagreement, if your post is not on topic, it will be deleted. I don't mind some off topic chatter, but this thread is for the topic and I believe it is worth discussing. And I'd prefer no discussion at all to the disregard for the topic.
The last thing I will mention off topic, Jeanette, I appreciate that you took responsibility for your actions and I thank you for that admission. I didn't want to close down the topic to tangents without letting you know that I appreciate your heart felt posts.
Why Rob-- you deleted my comment about the meaning of 'immaterial.'
Was it 'not on topic'?
Poor fellow, the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree, does it?
Ok I'll play devils advocate here Rob.
In point one you define moral responsibility as having the ability to choose an action. Unless you are using another definition for moral responsiblity in your later points then your argument is circular. Just because it appears that we choose one action over another does not neccessarily mean that we actually had a choice. Only the illusion of choice. Thus you cannot say that because moral responsibility is observed there is no determinism because our perceptions are not always acurate because we are limited by our own finite sensibilities.
You also fail to prove that moral responsibility is a neccessity of human nature. Could you elaberate on what you mean here.
On the other side of the argument physics itself shows that the universe is not deterministic. On the quantum level matter behaves in an indeterminate manner due to the wave/particle nature of the building blocks of nature. reference the shroedingers cat problem to see what I am talking about.
Mudrake, it should be on topic and serious. Sorry to change the rules on you.
Perhaps you intended it to be serious and if so, I apologize.
The definition of immaterial here is exactly what I intend it to be and it is a non-controversial definition. immaterial here means simply "not made of matter" nor not completely made of matter, transcending matter somehow. More importantly, it transcends matter in a way that is beyond the ability for physics to describe. The definition here simply isn't up for debate. It isn't up for debate inas much as the alternative is immaterial as defined as unimportant.
Don't worry about it mudrake.
It's like pulling weeds. Sometimes it's gotta be done.
It's probably slightly easier for me to delete than it is for you to post.
BTW, check out Christian Apologists, post. That's what real dialogue looks like.
Hoy CA.
I actually did not define moral responsibility. The first premise claims that control is a necessary condition for moral responsibility.
If I have to define moral responsibility here, it is the ability to perform actions that should not be done and the ability to perform actions that should be done. Moral actions are grounds for merit or blame. When we do something that should be done, it is sometimes the case that there are actions that could've been done ought not have been done, and when we perform actions that ought not be done, there are actions that should have been done instead. To the extent that the alternatives do or do not exist, merit or blame increases.
It's easy to see how free will might arise from this, but I do not take that route. At any rate, if you disagree with this notion of morality, then can you come up with a notion of morality that does not include the notions of ought.
If you want to argue that free will is hidden within my concepts to the extent of circularity, I would say that the notion of control is more ripe for this accusation. But I am not convinced that it is. I believe that in the synergy of the concept of control combined with the consideration of what determinism means, the necessity of free will emerges and becomes important. That is the way valid arguments are supposed to function. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am not convinced of that yet. If this is an indefensible problem though, I think the original source I got the argument from did not use the term "control" but instead, spoke of an action being "up to a person". But the idea that is gotten to with regard to both notions is that the person is the source of the morally responsible act, and in the course of the argument, it comes out that if determinism is true, the alledged moral act is ultimately not up to the person.
Just because it appears that we choose one action over another does not neccessarily mean that we actually had a choice. Only the illusion of choice. Thus you cannot say that because moral responsibility is observed there is no determinism
I think a hefty price is paid here. If something as basic as choice is illusory, then perhaps something as basic as moral responsibility is also illusory. Furthermore, choice and responsiblity are linked in an obvious way. If for example, you wanted to probe someone's guilt on an issue, you might ask them "was this your choice?" For this reason, determinists are often compatibilists who say we have choice and they even call it free choice, but it is not the libertarian sort, where once can actually choose any from amongst several paths. Freedom to them means choosing what you most want or have the strongest inclination for. In my opinion, I think one reason that anyone finds this satisfactory is because intention is a very important part of freedom. But I don't think it is enough.
our perceptions are not always acurate because we are limited by our own finite sensibilities.
yes, but I reject the notion that any doubt is a reasonable doubt. I reject that some of our most basic notions of humanity are illusory. There is no proof that gaurantees this and I am fine with that. The enlightenment philosophies of absolute certainty as the requirement have resulted in the bankruptcy of degenerate post modernism.
You also fail to prove that moral responsibility is a neccessity of human nature. Could you elaberate on what you mean here.
I didn't fail to prove these. They were premises and premises come without proof. They come later in the argument than other premises because I felt it was simply more natural. Their actual position is arbitrary provided I don't refer to them until after they are mentioned.
As I said at the end of my post, if one does not believe that we are morally responsible, then my argument does not work for that person. But there are many people, even atheistic materialists who believe in moral responsibility. I believe some of them sense that without this notion, their atheism is proven lacking and ultimately invalid. For this reason, I see a lot of atheists brag that they have morals and don't need God for morals. So my second argument is for them to at least demonstrate the problematic nature of materialism, among other things.
On the other side of the argument physics itself shows that the universe is not deterministic. On the quantum level matter behaves in an indeterminate manner due to the wave/particle nature of the building blocks of nature. reference the shroedingers cat problem to see what I am talking about.
If you are speaking with regard to the first argument, then yes, the first argument has this point in common with physics. But the arguement here shows that there are other reasons besides physical ones to deny determinism. Of course, the argument is not really directly for free will but it makes the way possible for free will. indeterminism is not enough for free will.
As for the second argument, this actually does not help at all as the indeterminism is in the wrong place.
Thank you for your comments. I had to think a lot about your claim of circularity and I don't consider my thought to be finished on the issue. I may or may not post more on that specific subject even if you don't reply.
I got a lot more comments directly on the arguments at another forum where I posted this and one was more technical, but yours was so far the most thoughtful response.
Rob R said...
Hoy CA.
I actually did not define moral responsibility. The first premise claims that control is a necessary condition for moral responsibility.
If I have to define moral responsibility here, it is the ability to perform actions that should not be done and the ability to perform actions that should be done. Moral actions are grounds for merit or blame. When we do something that should be done, it is sometimes the case that there are actions that could've been done ought not have been done, and when we perform actions that ought not be done, there are actions that should have been done instead. To the extent that the alternatives do or do not exist, merit or blame increases.
It's easy to see how free will might arise from this, but I do not take that route. At any rate, if you disagree with this notion of morality, then can you come up with a notion of morality that does not include the notions of ought.
If you want to argue that free will is hidden within my concepts to the extent of circularity, I would say that the notion of control is more ripe for this accusation. But I am not convinced that it is. I believe that in the synergy of the concept of control combined with the consideration of what determinism means, the necessity of free will emerges and becomes important. That is the way valid arguments are supposed to function. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am not convinced of that yet. If this is an indefensible problem though, I think the original source I got the argument from did not use the term "control" but instead, spoke of an action being "up to a person". But the idea that is gotten to with regard to both notions is that the person is the source of the morally responsible act, and in the course of the argument, it comes out that if determinism is true, the alledged moral act is ultimately not up to the person.
The main problems I have with your argument are thus:
You did not define your main term(moral responsibility). You are using entirely too many premisis. Your first real premise, that responsibility requries control presuposes that the we live in a just universe. If the universe does not operate in a just manner than we can be held responsible for something which we have no control over. Your second premise is that moral responsibility is neccessary for human nature. I've never encountered this used as a presupposition and I dont think you will ever meet an athiest who will accept it as such. Your third premise is that there are humans who are morally responsible. You have three premises here and they all conspire together to make your argument null. If someone were to accept all your premises they would probably already accept that humans are already possesed of control of their choice. You also fail to have any connection with the argument given for free will as a proof for the existence of a soul.
our perceptions are not always acurate because we are limited by our own finite sensibilities.
yes, but I reject the notion that any doubt is a reasonable doubt. I reject that some of our most basic notions of humanity are illusory. There is no proof that gaurantees this and I am fine with that. The enlightenment philosophies of absolute certainty as the requirement have resulted in the bankruptcy of degenerate post modernism.
I'm not saying we should toss out anything we can't absolutely prove I'm saying we should be cautious about making sweeping arguments based on our finite perceptions.
As I said at the end of my post, if one does not believe that we are morally responsible, then my argument does not work for that person. But there are many people, even atheistic materialists who believe in moral responsibility. I believe some of them sense that without this notion, their atheism is proven lacking and ultimately invalid. For this reason, I see a lot of atheists brag that they have morals and don't need God for morals. So my second argument is for them to at least demonstrate the problematic nature of materialism, among other things.
I hope you can take my comments constructively as they are meant to be. I assumed you posted this argument here to get feedback on it, as I have seen no evidence that your target audience (moral athiests) visit this site. Also I dont think that word means what you think it means. A better word than materialism perhaps would be naturalism.
On the other side of the argument physics itself shows that the universe is not deterministic. On the quantum level matter behaves in an indeterminate manner due to the wave/particle nature of the building blocks of nature. reference the shroedingers cat problem to see what I am talking about.
If you are speaking with regard to the first argument, then yes, the first argument has this point in common with physics. But the arguement here shows that there are other reasons besides physical ones to deny determinism. Of course, the argument is not really directly for free will but it makes the way possible for free will. indeterminism is not enough for free will.
As for the second argument, this actually does not help at all as the indeterminism is in the wrong place.
actually the second argument is precisely where the physics insight is needed. Your presumption was that the laws of physics prohibit your control of your own actions. (point 4) This is not neccessarily the case as I have shown. thus if your 4th point is invalid your argument falls apart. as a point of interest if you want to see where the non-determinism of quantum physics may have an impact on our decision making look up the cemi-field theory.
cemi field theory
I'll get back to you on this CA. As of now, I must keep my nose to the grinder.
Hoy CA,
I'm not sure why you would still take issue with my lack of a definition for moral responsibility after I provided a tentative one (tentative, because if I need to, I may be able tweek it so it will do what I intend it to do in this argument). It is a reasonable question which I worked on. After looking over the opening post again, I realize I did, in my comments after the formal argument, give a simple definition of moral responsibility (which did need a bit of expansion) as the idea that there is a way that things ought to be. More accurately, I should have written that it was the notion that there is a way that we ought to act. But, again, the expansion I provided I believe adds important information on the nature of moral responsibility to which I am speaking. The possibility for merit and blame are key.
As for too many premises, I'm sure that can be the case by some standards, but those standards are not strictly logical ones. There may be more premisis than are used, but that is not the case here. There may be too many premises to defend, or are controversial, but really, only two have come under significant scrutiny.
1, 2, 3, 6, and 7, are all premises and they are all used without challenge of validity here. Validity means that the conclusion cannot fail to be true if all of the premises are true... You are challenging the soundness of the argument which is where the truth of the premises (as well as the validity) comes into question. So far, only 1 and 6 have been challenged by you.
Your first real premise, that responsibility requries control presuposes that the we live in a just universe. If the universe does not operate in a just manner than we can be held responsible for something which we have no control over.
I simply don't believe that this notion of the universe being just is epistemically more basic than than the notion that there is moral responsibility. (I think what you mean to suggest is that there is an objective moral code within existence, because as a Christian I don't believe that the universe is just, I think that God has yet to complete his task of fully bringing justice to the universe, and yet, I believe in moral responsibility).
Here's the thing. You made an issue about the the fact that I didn't prove my premises. But that actually isn't the only factor in deciding the value of a formal argument. It's actually more important that the argument is valid (obeys the rules of logic) than that it is demonstrably sound (obeys the rules of logic AND all the premises are true). You see, even if I didn't argue for any of my premises at all, all that is necessary for someone to agree with the premises, and there are atheists who subscribe to the notion of moral responsiblity. You suggested I wouldn't meet any, but I posted this in this blog and on another forum after reading at that forum ( ubuntuforums.com (or .org)) a thread where several atheists boasted that they had a developed sense of morality and they argued that you don't need God to have morals. Whether they are right or wrong about that isn't the point. The important thing is that they agree that there is moral responsibility. So there clearly are people out there for whom this argument would make a serious challenge. Finally, even if I don't provide sufficient evidence for my premises to convince or at lease challenge some materialists, it is still of much value for them to know that if someone, or they themselves were ever to accept such and such, the consequence is thus. This is especially the case since belief systems held by individuals are fluid and undergo all sorts of changes great and small.
I dont think you will ever meet an athiest who will accept it as such.
Aside from the fact mentioned, that I had seen the writings of atheists, I believe that the scriptures imply that even atheist can have knowledge of ethics. As Paul wrote in Romans 2:14-15
"14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)"
Of course, you might say "hey, these aren't atheists." but that doesn't matter. It isn't there pagan religion that is the source of the law written on their hearts. It is God. I don't buy that God has omitted this from atheists who bear his image.
For the sake of christian apologetics (albiet, as humble as my aim is in the argument, merely to point out that there is good reason to believe that there is more than matter in the universe), I am in good company as CS Lewis and NT wright also refer to this basic moral sense as evidence of God in the universe (evidence for the benefit of unbelievers).
As for scholarly atheists, I found this article at infidels.org by a philosopher who argues that Christians haven't succeeded in demonstrating that atheistic morality is only subjective. Ironically, whether moral responsibility is subjective or objective, it doesn't matter to my argument (provided one doesn't make the assumption that subjective means illusory... which is a mistake. Some objective facts are based upon subjective facts, and I believe that morality is a case where the objective doesn't matter one iota without the subjective. A good example where an objective fact is based on a subjective truth would be if a proposition "Bob loves Ethel", is only true if it is true that Bob feels that "I love Ethel")
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/rape.html
Now I'm not saying that atheists can come up with a completely accurate moral system (accurate, meaning it lines up with the true objective moral standard). I'm only saying that they are capable to a significant degree, and of importance to my argument, they can agree with me that there is moral responsibility.
You have three premises here and they all conspire together to make your argument null.
I'm not sure what that means. If they contradict each other, I'd like to see that.
If someone were to accept all your premises they would probably already accept that humans are already possesed of control of their choice.
If by choice, you mean incompatibilistic free choice (or libertarian free will, free will that isn't compatible with determinism), then this is demonstrable false (because, again, compatibilists believe in choice). A Calvinist could accept all 5 of my premises without believing in libertarian free will. Of course the point of my argument though is that they'd be illogical not to bring it to it's logical conclusion.
You also fail to have any connection with the argument given for free will as a proof for the existence of a soul.
The arguments are independent. I am willing to discuss the first argument but the only reason I provided it is because I wanted people to know the inspiration for the second argument. I didn't make up the first argument (ecxept that it is my reconstruction from my memory of it). I did come up with the second argument. Other than that, morality plays an important part in both arguments.
our perceptions are not always acurate because we are limited by our own finite sensibilities.
But this one, as indicated by paul, was given to us by God. And even though athiests don't recognize the source, they still have it.
It is furthermore, a perception for which much of the meaning of life hinges upon. Atheists still have children and have loved ones and they are hurt when their loved ones are willfully hurt they do get the sense that the instigators should not have done this, and that the instigators are responsible for their wrong actions. Now even if they are dead wrong about the nature of what wrong thing was done, they still believe that something was done wrong by a responsible party. This is exactly what happened at the french blog. The participants there believe that my mom is responsible for things that she shouldn't have done and several are atheists. One who is at least an agnostic has described mom as wicked. All I need is agreement for the notion that there is moral responsibility. As to the system the outlines the specifics of that is unimportant. And of course, there system is fairly inept.
I hope you can take my comments constructively as they are meant to be. I assumed you posted this argument here to get feedback on it, as I have seen no evidence that your target audience (moral athiests) visit this site.
I appreciate your interaction here, especially in light of the usual means of opposition, substanceless insult (as was posted even in this thread). You know I can and have gotten frustrated in our discussions, but here, I can express myself completely and take as much time as I want to think through things. I can still and have gotten frustrated in this sort of context with people who were going into the details, but I'm not perfect. And there are points where it becomes time to agree to disagree.
Also I dont think that word means what you think it means. A better word than materialism perhaps would be naturalism.
I've seen the word used as I am using it by professional philosophers and dictionary.com has a definition that is essentially what I have. But yes, naturalism is synonomous with what I am speaking.
actually the second argument is precisely where the physics insight is needed. Your presumption was that the laws of physics prohibit your control of your own actions.
the question here is whether I am in control of quantum events. If not, then I can simply plug quantum mechanics into my argument and come out with a parallel conclusion.
Now maybe you think we actually do control the outcomes of quantum events, and perhaps that is what this cemi theory suggests, but then, it still is not really of help to the issue my argument speaks to as it is merely an interesting hypothesis of how the mind interfaces with the brain. It isn't enough to bolster materialism as my control still cannot be reduced to matter guided by the laws of physics.
My understanding though is that some deterministic physicists had hoped that quantum mechanics would give way to underlying determinants, and to say that we control the outcome of quantum events would be to suggest that they have determinants after all (even though the determinant may be indeterminant itself, if we are libertarian free).
Your presumption was that the laws of physics prohibit your control of your own actions. (point 4)
4 is not presumed at all. It is the consequence of points 2 and 3 as indicated in the paranthesis. If you do not believe that 4 is the natural consequence of 2 and 3, you'll have to dig in and demonstrate this.
Here's my second attempt to post this link:
Blogger is ridiculous.
heres the link in peices.
http://www.infidels.org/
library/modern/
michael_martin/rape.html
how to hyperlink in blogger.
type in the following (note use < or > in every case where { or } is used.
{a href="http://www.randomwebsite.com"}whatever text you want to appear as hyperlink{/a}
cemi field protection
Thanks, You're a gentleman.
Post a Comment