Teleology And Human Ethics...

[JimL]

But if you think about it something new really was created, things not inherent to matter and energy - biological life and consciousness.

They may not be inherent per se, but they are in inherent as possibilities. Living conscious things are the results of the forms that matter takes.

[seer]

They may not be inherent per se, but they are in inherent as possibilities. Living conscious things are the results of the forms that matter takes.

Well I don't see why they would be inherent possibilities, there is nothing in matter and energy that would even suggest such possibilities.

[Anomaly]

Well I don't see why they would be inherent possibilities, there is nothing in matter and energy that would even suggest such possibilities.

Life in carbon based organisms might be an evolutionary possibility, but its "deterministic" nature still this doesn't preclude design. Seems to me determinism (as a "supervised" domain) doesn't fall apart until intellectual abstraction and the moral sense arise.

[seer]

Life in carbon based organisms might be an evolutionary possibility, but its "deterministic" nature still this doesn't preclude design. Seems to me determinism (as a "supervised" domain) doesn't fall apart until intellectual abstraction and the moral sense arise.

Ok, I think I get that.

[JimL]

Well I don't see why they would be inherent possibilities, there is nothing in matter and energy that would even suggest such possibilities.

What would you expect to see in the fundamental substance of nature that would suggest the possibilities within it of life and consciousness?

[Tassman]

If the human person was created for a purpose then how a man conforms to that purpose tells us if he is good or bad. And example would be a car. If a car runs according to design we could call it a good car, if it always broke down we could call it a bad car, according to design. Moral behaviors that conform to our teleology would be called good (or moral) and those that don't would be called bad (or immoral). But if naturalism is correct there would be no objective purpose for the human person. No design to conform to, no standard to judge specific behaviors. How ever nature just happened to create us just "is."

Why would you assume that "the human person was created for a purpose"?

[Charles]

If the human person was created for a purpose then how a man conforms to that purpose tells us if he is good or bad. And example would be a car. If a car runs according to design we could call it a good car, if it always broke down we could call it a bad car, according to design. Moral behaviors that conform to our teleology would be called good (or moral) and those that don't would be called bad (or immoral). But if naturalism is correct there would be no objective purpose for the human person. No design to conform to, no standard to judge specific behaviors. How ever nature just happened to create us just "is."

But if you cannot evaluate or demonstrate why the purpose is good, then it is not an explanation or philosophically satisfactory. It may be your personal subjective idea of what constitutes moral good but you cannot even start to justify it using reason nor get anywhere near a proof. The fact that you compare humans to cars says a lot about your idea. Follow don't think seems to be the essense of it. If you think, it starts to fall apart.

[seer]

But if you cannot evaluate or demonstrate why the purpose is good, then it is not an explanation or philosophically satisfactory. It may be your personal subjective idea of what constitutes moral good but you cannot even start to justify it using reason nor get anywhere near a proof. The fact that you compare humans to cars says a lot about your idea. Follow don't think seems to be the essense of it. If you think, it starts to fall apart.

But Charles you can't demonstrate why anything is good apart from circular reasoning, even our survival as a species. So I'm not sure why your objection has any real meaning. Again Charles, moral questions must stop somewhere, something or someone has to be the final decider of what defines good. So either human beings have a moral teleology or they don't, and I maintain, logically, they don't if atheism is true.

[Charles]

But Charles you can't demonstrate why anything is good apart from circular reasoning, even our survival as a species. So I'm not sure why your objection has any real meaning. Again Charles, moral questions must stop somewhere, something or someone has to be the final decider of what defines good. So either human beings have a moral teleology or they don't, and I maintain, logically, they don't if atheism is true.

Let's look at some of your claims: "Again Charles, moral questions must stop somewhere, something or someone has to be the final decider of what defines good." Does this take away your obligation to at least justify that it must stop where you think it stops? Why is your idea about where it stops right and the extremist muslim's idea about where it stops wrong? What reason can you give? Where are the good arguments, the proof or just indications that you are right?

And you go on: "So either human beings have a moral teleology or they don't, and I maintain, logically, they don't if atheism is true." That is based on your circular idea that only God can constitute this. You know that the history of philosophy is full of ideas and theories about what could constitute this and you blame all those ideas for being subjective. However, what you represent here is as subjective as it gets. You are escaping the diffucult philosophical questions by just making claims about reality that you cannot support or demonstrate to be true. And when this is pointed out, you call the questions stupid or try to avoid the subject.

Try to be honest in this discussion, seer. You are very unsatisfied once your own ideas or your own belief is evaluated in the same critical way that you evaluate everyone else. But the truth is, once you apply just a little skepticism, just a little but of "how" and "why" to the statements you make, it turns out that you have got nothing.

[shunyadragon]

Your first part is correct, like I already said, the second part is not. There is no purpose, by definition, in cause and effect.



Create:to make or bring into existence something new, bring (something) into existence


So natural forces did create something new into existence, life.

No they do not, from the perspective of Methodological Naturalism is that Natural Law and our physical existence is eternal, and not created, because there is no evidence for a definitive beginning of everything.

The view of the Baha'i Faith is that it is eternal and Created. In the analogy the shadow (Creation) always exists as long as the object (eternal Creator) exists.

[Anomaly]

The view of the Baha'i Faith is that it is eternal and Created. In the analogy the shadow (Creation) always exists as long as the object (eternal Creator) exists.

It seems except for the notion that creation is eternal (If I understand you correctly you're just taking ex nihilo out of the equation?) this view is very similar to theistic evolution. The glaring weakness of the naturalistic explanation imo is that everything came together by chance. Lots of people have come to accept this as a legitimate premise because of the mountains of literature put out by people with letters after their names who give assurances this is how it happened. If you push something back far enough in time and call it chance only the mathematicians are able to give anything like an accurate guess whether such a thing is possible.

[shunyadragon]

This goes beyond what I described and the reality of Methodological Naturalism and science. If you consider 'objective verifiable evidence' as 'hard cold facts' this is a clear emotional statement and not relevant to what is evidence in science. . Science does not go beyond the falsification of the evidence by scientific methods, but yes individual make philosophical/theological assumptions of belief beyond science, but this is NOT science. This a problem with believers on all sides including atheists and theists, but again not science.

the same analytic process to interpret states of affairs as the theist' this is not science as stated above.

Many theists find sufficient strands of connection (truth) between empirically testable existence and the principles of faith to warrant religious belief. Again, interpretation is key.

The problem is very real that you made generalizations concerning my belief without accurate citation of my posts. The problem persists in the above.

I will seriously contest the bold above. In my search I have not found what your claim 'theists find sufficient strands of connection (truth) between empirically testable existence and the principles of faith to warrant religious belief. Claims of interpretation do not help. If you can reference any such objective based argument that may be falsified by scientific methods concerning a 'theist belief' please do. I will be waiting for your response.

I believe in God, and find no 'objective verifiable evidence' that would falsify a hypothesis for a theist belief.

Idealistic in what sense? Where I come from the notion that everyone has presuppositions built into their beliefs is just common sense. Are you disagreeing just for the sake of disagreement?

Common sense is a common claim from many different diverse and conflicting claims, and not sufficient for a coherent argument.

Actually, quantum reality is being interpreted in a number of different ways, by groups and organizations, most of whom probably have vested interests in seeing it turn out in their favor. I was only referring to this multitude of interpretive responses to a part of science still in adolescence, if not its infancy. What shaky arguments from ignorance are you talking about, those that interpret the science in favor of theism?

The shaky argument from ignorance that you are presenting concerning the different theoretical arguments involving Quantum Mechanics is you are arguing that the unknowns in this science that create variation in theories cause the science to be shaky.

Concerning the actual theories concerning the nature of Quantum Mechanics I do not believe there are the conflicting views based self-interest, and this an unwarranted conspiracy theory. There is no evidence for this. Over the recent history of science there is broad agreement on the predictive hypothesis concerning the prediction of particles that were later confirmed, and prediction of behavior of the Quantum world that have been confirmed. Also the predicted existence and nature of Black Holes as predicted and confirmed is accepted by most scientists.

Of course there are many unknowns, and differences in some aspects of the theories and hypothesis of Quantum Mechanics by different scientists, but this is normal in the history of the sciences, and the fuel for further research and discovery and nothing here indicates the science is 'shaky.'

The same problems reflect the history of the science of evolution in that over the last 150+ years there are many unknowns, and differences between scientists, some controversial. Most of these have been resolved over time, and at present 99%+ of all scientists support the science of evolution. There are still unknowns,and science is devoted to working out the genetic and geologic evidence, and more evidence is found all the time, and the research for evolutionary genetics is developing an impressive foundation for evolution.

[seer]

Let's look at some of your claims: "Again Charles, moral questions must stop somewhere, something or someone has to be the final decider of what defines good." Does this take away your obligation to at least justify that it must stop where you think it stops? Why is your idea about where it stops right and the extremist muslim's idea about where it stops wrong? What reason can you give? Where are the good arguments, the proof or just indications that you are right?

Charles, this would require a long discussion on why I think that Christ was what He claimed to be, the Son of God, therefore that His teachings about God, ethics, nature of man, etc are authoritative. Or why I think a rational, intelligent, moral Creator, is a better explanation for our moral sense, sense of inherent human value, consciousness, and universal order than the a-moral, non-rational, non-conscious forces of nature. And that discussion Charles, I'm just not having with you.

And you go on: "So either human beings have a moral teleology or they don't, and I maintain, logically, they don't if atheism is true." That is based on your circular idea that only God can constitute this. You know that the history of philosophy is full of ideas and theories about what could constitute this and you blame all those ideas for being subjective. However, what you represent here is as subjective as it gets. You are escaping the diffucult philosophical questions by just making claims about reality that you cannot support or demonstrate to be true. And when this is pointed out, you call the questions stupid or try to avoid the subject.

Are you claiming the humans can have a moral teleology apart from a God? How is that even possible? Perhaps it is a difficult philosophical question because it can't be answered from the atheistic worldview - I think you already know that, but you like to use subterfuge to cloud the issue.

Try to be honest in this discussion, seer. You are very unsatisfied once your own ideas or your own belief is evaluated in the same critical way that you evaluate everyone else. But the truth is, once you apply just a little skepticism, just a little but of "how" and "why" to the statements you make, it turns out that you have got nothing.

Charles, we are discussing a specific issue in this thread. Anyone can see that the concept of human purpose is logical if we were created for a purpose by a rational Being. And it wouldn't matter which God we were speaking of. The concept remains logical. If atheism is true I see no possibility for such a teleology, moral or otherwise. If you think otherwise present your case instead of hiding behind your "history of philosophy."

[seer]

No they do not, from the perspective of Methodological Naturalism is that Natural Law and our physical existence is eternal, and not created, because there is no evidence for a definitive beginning of everything.

And there is zero evidence that matter and energy is past eternal. Now what?



http://www.newgeology.us/Alexander%20Vilenkin.pdf

[Charles]

Charles, this would require a long discussion on why I think that Christ was what He claimed to be, the Son of God, therefore that His teachings about God, ethics, nature of man, etc are authoritative. Or why I think a rational, intelligent, moral Creator, is a better explanation for our moral sense, sense of inherent human value, consciousness, and universal order than the a-moral, non-rational, non-conscious forces of nature. And that discussion Charles, I'm just not having with you.



Are you claiming the humans can have a moral teleology apart from a God? How is that even possible? Perhaps it is a difficult philosophical question because it can't be answered from the atheistic worldview - I think you already know that, but you like to use subterfuge to cloud the issue.



Charles, we are discussing a specific issue in this thread. Anyone can see that the concept of human purpose is logical if we were created for a purpose by a rational Being. And it wouldn't matter which God we were speaking of. The concept remains logical. If atheism is true I see no possibility for such a teleology, moral or otherwise. If you think otherwise present your case instead of hiding behind your "history of philosophy."

Seer, you still have not shown why or how god provides purpose. The purpose could be love, hate or whatever. You claim that is logical but the logical consequence is once again that you have got no foundation you can understand or justify.