What we must accept if we accept materialism

Percy, the discussion is getting old. I asked a very direct and simple question, which you astutely dodged, imo.I suppose you don't want to admit that if we figure out a way to observe, say, angels, or the presence of God, that by defining material as anything we can observe, then these things would be material.On entanglement, maybe you don't realize what entanglement is. Entanglement indicates a deeper connection between particles that is not observed, but we see it's effects, such that action at a distance takes place with no observed mechanism. Sometimes, this is called nonseparability, but we are not sure what part of reality connects these seeming distant partices.

The argument of nihilism goes as follows:If there is no God or other supernatural basis for morality then man can do anything he wants. This argument has two implications:1. If man can do anything he wants, there is nothing to keep him from doing evil;2. If morality and purpose aren't laid down by God, then we can't have any objective criteria for preferring one action or way of life over another.Let's deal with these arguments in turn.There is nothing to restrain man from doing evilThis assumes that the only effective sanction against evil or immoral actions are divine sanctions. This is clearly not the case. Where the behaviour of an individual affects others we have social and legal sanctions as well. In fact, in most societies these are far more effective than divine sanctions in restraining people's behaviour - it is only where a religion controls the law and social opinion that it has any appreciable impact on individual behaviour.Where an individual's behaviour does not affect others, then no one has any right to impose sanctions of any kind, whether legal, social or divine.There is no reason to choose one action or way of life over another1. Firstly, I would argue that no religion provides a complete guide either to morals or purpose. Those who try to use religions as a complete guide tend to live such narrow, crabbed lives that I don't think any of us would envy them.2. Secondly, there are moral philosophies that depend on appeals to reason and experience rather than the supernatural. For example, both epicureanism and utilitarianism base their arguments on the simple observation that human beings seek out pleasure (or happiness) and try to avoid pain. Arguments about purpose and general moral principles can be derived from these observations, and objective criteria provided to aid in making decisions.Other objective criteria can be derived from general principles such as the following:Do unto others as you would have them do to you (Jesus)Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature (Kant)3. Thirdly, I would argue that a diversity of available moral principles is a good thing rather than a bad. I can't imagine anything more detrimental to the future well-being of mankind than a single set of moral values accepted by everybody.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

I'm not the one with a documented history of emotionalism, inabilty to focus, lack of reading comprehension skills, inability or unwillingness to work within a structured framework, and abusive interpersonal skills. If the discussion is becoming frustrating to you then I suggest you look to yourself as a likely cause. You have lots of opinions. I answered your question when it became clear, and yet you somehow missed it. This is from Message 35, the very message you're replying to: And so we once again see evidence that you don't really read what people write, you just sort of skim it. My suggestion to you is to carefully read a post from beginning to end before replying, then quote what you're replying to. Yes, I know. But you said it hints at a deeper reality, and I said you have no more evidence of your deeper reality than we have for string theory. If all you're trying to say is that there is much we do not yet know then I agree with you. But when you try to use our lack of knowledge about this so-called deeper reality to reach conclusions for which there is no evidence, which is what you do near the end of Message 22 when you talk about this deeper reality containing information and energy and giving rise to discrete and specific material form, then I cannot agree with you. The evidence does not support your assertions.--Percy

There's nothing to keep him from doing good either. No reason why we should concentrate on evil. Such criteria are hardly objective. They have no ground. Just something we thought up. This is true of all moral systems. It is prudent to adopt some code, however, with the recognition that it's just something we've adopted. We might as well have adopted some other code.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-10-2006 09:44 AM

It wouldn't HAVE to be physical. It just happens to be.

What makes it prudent? That is, why adopt any code at all, or, what is the basis on which you adopt a code. What's the PURPOSE of adopting a code.Seems to me that once nihilism is embraced as the only rational position, having a moral code at all is also not rational.

How can you know and not admit it hints at a deeper reality or structure within the universe? Clearly entangled particles are in some sort of contact with one another that is not observed by what we normally call space-time since the particles connections work across distances in space-time. The connectivity is evidence of a deeper structure, as something must connect them, even if just informationally. Bull crap percy. The evidence proves that in quantum physics. It is a fact that discrete form arises from an information/energy state. It is proven, as much as can be in science, with hard lab experiments.This message has been edited by randman, 02-10-2006 11:13 AM

It's prudent in a practical sense to adopt the code of one's culture. It's also a comfort to have some code to live by. I have a moral code, in that, given any situation, I go by what feels like the right thing to do--unless I do the wrong thing (sometimes I act immorally according to my code, but the fault is with me not the code itself). My code consists of "honorable" and "dishonorable" actions. Intellectual dishonesty, for example, according to my code, is "dishonorable." Not much of a code, but better than nothing.

But this just begs the question ultimately because you still have to answer how a society arrives at its code of sanctions. If not a divine source, then what? What is your authority for this moral principle though? What is it based on? The God who made the universe ought to know what moral principles run it. But since the many religions all contradict one another, there can only be one religion that gives the true God's moral principles perfectly anyway. (Or none at all, assuming God didn't communicate his will to any of us.) A truly objective moral philosophy would be universal it seems to me. A variety of moralities merely raises ultimate questions.I'm not sure what you ended up saying here. Are you saying that there IS a "reason to choose one action or way of life over another?" What's that reason if so? You've shown that there are a number of choices. How does one choose among them?Comment on your signature: All this means is that you don't believe there is an invisible world. If you did, you'd agree it's mysterious.

OK, but if you're really a nihilist you must recognize that none of these has any rational basis. Interesting. Yes, the default moral code as it were. What the Bible says people were doing in the time of the Judges. The Bible doesn't answer how people come up with their standards, but it's interesting that everyone has such standards.

quote:

---

Deu 12:8 Ye shall not do after all [the things] that we do here this day, every man whatsoever [is] right in his own eyes.

​

Jdg 17:6 In those days [there was] no king in Israel, [but] every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes.

​

Jdg 21:25 In those days [there was] no king in Israel: every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes.

​

Pro 21:2 Every way of a man [is] right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.

---

How do you know? That is, if the code itself has no rational basis, how do you know the fault is with you and not with the code? Why though? I would assume you are basing your code on something other than your mere feelings about things. OR, to put it another way, your feelings are based on something. What?

No, that's all I'm basing it on--my feelings. There isn't anything else to base it on. It has no rational basis.

Another logical possibility is that each religion has produced a flawed formulation of God's moral principles--as one might expect from fallible mortals.In that case, one might divine those principles by examining the areas of agreement, rather than using the lack of perfect agreement to paint a false dilemma.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Yes, actually, without God's revelation this is in fact what we have. But if God did reveal his will then what I said is correct. And that is the case. We do find overlap. The questions come up in relation to the controversial areas. If God directly revealed His will, however, then whichever system is privy to His will, knows the true moral law in these areas as well.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-10-2006 11:47 AM

OK. But can a person really live on a mere subjective morality though? Don't you *really* have to believe that your principles ARE the best, and that everyone else *should* have the same principles you have?How do you live in a world where you believe in intellectual honor for instance, but somebody else doesn't?Or do you really think that somebody else doesn't? Maybe they do but are simply sinners like everybody else and violate their own moral principle.Does intellectual honor come down in the end to the principle of lying versus telling the truth?I know I'm getting off topic, but see I think there is an objective morality, and that everybody intuits it in a very fuzzy way, and that it ultimately derives from God, but that it is only spelled out clearly in his word, the Bible, and that none of this could possibly exist in a purely material universe.IN keeping with this, I believe that everybody *really* believes their own morality ought to be held by everybody else too -- unless they are simply very aware of their own inability to solve some moral problems -- but in that case they nevertheless believe there IS an objective moral standard even if they don't have it personally.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-10-2006 11:54 AM

So please explain why you believe that it is important. I can't see any reason why physical determinism should be any more of a problem to free-will than non-physical determinism.