Wednesday, May 28, 2008
There's Philosophers and Then There's ...
Due to overwhelming public demand,* here is my take on Pastor Paul Dean's attempt to demonstrate the superiority of Christian "philosophy" over that of non-believers, particularly atheists and agnostics. For reasons which should become obvious, your mileage may vary.First and foremost, Dean's argument amounts to a semantic ploy.
It should be noted at the outset that Dean was not the originator of this argument. Because of a coincidence of timing and given the wild peals of laughter I am sometimes rewarded with, on occasion I listen to Hank Hanegraaff's "Bible Answer Man" radio program during a long evening commute. I have heard this stratagem recommended there any number of times over the years.
The heart of the ploy is to attempt to get a person to make a "truth claim" (or something the evangelist can assert is a truth claim) and then argue that "absolute truth" can only come from God ... particularly the Christian God. A favorite target of the ploy is the more-or-less post-modernist statement "All truth is relative":
Relativism claims to speak truth about at least one thing—namely, that truth can be "true for you but not for me." Yet it contradicts itself by claiming nothing is really true or false. Why believe the relativist if he has no truth to utter?But look closer at the meaning of "truth" that each person is actually using. To begin with, the evangelical is speaking of some "objective" truth existing outside of and independent from human knowledge. Indeed, he asserts that it can only be known through non-human means, i.e. through divine revelation. On the other hand, the relativist, whether or not he or she knows it, is speaking of knowledge at a different level, namely, the sum total of human truth claims about normative ethical behavior. On that interpretation, the statement "All truth is relative" actually translates to something like: "People make many different truth claims about morals and there is no test universally accepted among human beings by which such claims can be measured."
The claims of relativists are like saying, "I can't speak a word of English" or "All generalizations are false." Our most basic reply to the relativist is that his statements are self-contradictory. They self-destruct. They are self-undermining.
For example, Pastor Dean's claim that Christians have a certain set of "absolute truths" through revelation is, in fact, belied by the fact that there are many other claims of revelation, both inside and outside nominally "Christian" circles, that are equally alleged to be the absolute truth, though different than Pastor Dean's version in significant part. Thus, relativism in this sense is a simple observation that there is no morality that is accepted by all. To turn the tables a bit, any claim by Pastor Dean that there is a universal morality is contradicted by his own need to evangelize, which is a tacit admission that his account of what constitutes "absolute truth" is not the only one available to humankind.
Pastor Dean's attempt to equate "objective" moral claims with the kind of "objective" human knowledge delivered by empiric investigation, shared broadly among people of widely differing philosophies, is of no avail. Certainly , as in Pastor Dean's example, there is wide agreement, based on our humanly derived knowledge of the underlying phenomena and on long experience, that the sun will "rise" again tomorrow. But even there the knowledge is not "absolute." At midnight my time the Sun might explode and the Earth could be gone before the next scheduled sunrise. In any event, empiric knowledge is of a significantly different type than ethical norms. As David Hume long ago pointed out, "ought" cannot be derived from "is."
What is more, based on his article, Pastor Dean obviously rejects the empiric evidence for evolution. Thus it is equally obvious that he rejects that sort of empiricism as delivering absolute truth. Where, then, is Pastor Dean's absolute knowledge of truth to come from?
Pastor Dean is in the same boat as the rest of us humans. His claim to absolute knowledge is ultimately based on his uncertain, and relative, "knowledge" that his, out of many possibilities, is the one and only "true" revelation from God.
The remainder of his semantic games are easy to refute based on the realization that any individual's acceptance of moral claims as "true" is equally well explained as the outcome of natural processes as by positing some supernatural morality arbitrator. Cultural (and perhaps biological) norms that are widely, but not universally, adopted within local groups of humans can credibly be traced to the instinct for survival (a trait shared with all, mostly amoral, organisms on the planet) or to other strategies for reproductive success, such as empathy arising out of the differential success of cooperative societies over fractious ones. These traits, in turn, can gain the emotional force we equate with "obvious" or "absolute" truths through the process of socialization.
In short, I ain't impressed Pastor Dean.
_____________________________
* Well, only Larry Moran has publically demanded it, but he can be pretty overwhelming.
.
Comments:
<< Home
John, you PWND him.
"On that interpretation, the statement 'All truth is relative' actually translates to something like: 'People make many different truth claims about morals and there is no test universally accepted among human beings by which such claims can be measured.'"
Exactly so. You've put into a few simple words what I've spent over a decade trying to define.
Sir, my shot glass is tipped to you!
"On that interpretation, the statement 'All truth is relative' actually translates to something like: 'People make many different truth claims about morals and there is no test universally accepted among human beings by which such claims can be measured.'"
Exactly so. You've put into a few simple words what I've spent over a decade trying to define.
Sir, my shot glass is tipped to you!
John,
I was impressed by the sentence following the one Dana quoted.
"To turn the tables a bit, any claim by Pastor Dean that there is a universal morality is contradicted by his own need to evangelize, which is a tacit admission that his account of what constitutes 'absolute truth' is not the only one available to humankind."
The very fact that Dean had to defend absolute truth proves there is no absolute truth. Lovely.
-CR
I was impressed by the sentence following the one Dana quoted.
"To turn the tables a bit, any claim by Pastor Dean that there is a universal morality is contradicted by his own need to evangelize, which is a tacit admission that his account of what constitutes 'absolute truth' is not the only one available to humankind."
The very fact that Dean had to defend absolute truth proves there is no absolute truth. Lovely.
-CR
# posted by 
: 3:47 PM
: 3:47 PM
Sorry, I must disagree.
Ratio has nothing to do with ethics; "is" has nothing to do with "ought", but that does not mean that "ought" is meaningless because it can't be derived from "is".
"Good" and "evil" are indefinable qualifiers in ethics like "true" and "false" in logics and they aren't "measured" like physical quantities, but emotionally experienced. Your ability to deduce is useless, they are two separate, but dependent spheres of humanity.
//------------------------
The remainder of his semantic games are easy to refute based on the realization that any individual's acceptance of moral claims as "true" is equally well explained as the outcome of natural processes as by positing some supernatural morality
arbitrator.
//--------------------------
Please explain me why suicide
does not vanish "naturally". Any
(even slight) negative trait
causes that the number of
individuals with this trait
decrease exponentially. A suicidal
person cannot reproduce (and leaves their group in grief increasing the mortality rate), so according to the "natural" way
of evolution we should expect more
and more emotional stable humans.
We have more than 2000 years of Christianity (100 generations)
and it was not possible to
eradicate suicide.
Why ? You may argue that suicide
is not a trait, but a reaction to
a bad environment, but unfortunately all industrial nations observed an increase in suicides despite better living
conditions. Please give me a natural, non-human reason why this
happens.
Ratio has nothing to do with ethics; "is" has nothing to do with "ought", but that does not mean that "ought" is meaningless because it can't be derived from "is".
"Good" and "evil" are indefinable qualifiers in ethics like "true" and "false" in logics and they aren't "measured" like physical quantities, but emotionally experienced. Your ability to deduce is useless, they are two separate, but dependent spheres of humanity.
//------------------------
The remainder of his semantic games are easy to refute based on the realization that any individual's acceptance of moral claims as "true" is equally well explained as the outcome of natural processes as by positing some supernatural morality
arbitrator.
//--------------------------
Please explain me why suicide
does not vanish "naturally". Any
(even slight) negative trait
causes that the number of
individuals with this trait
decrease exponentially. A suicidal
person cannot reproduce (and leaves their group in grief increasing the mortality rate), so according to the "natural" way
of evolution we should expect more
and more emotional stable humans.
We have more than 2000 years of Christianity (100 generations)
and it was not possible to
eradicate suicide.
Why ? You may argue that suicide
is not a trait, but a reaction to
a bad environment, but unfortunately all industrial nations observed an increase in suicides despite better living
conditions. Please give me a natural, non-human reason why this
happens.
# posted by : 5:27 PM
: 5:27 PM
... that does not mean that "ought" is meaningless because it can't be derived from "is".
That wasn't my point. I was saying that empiric knowledge is different than whatever knowledge Dean thinks he is deriving his "absolute truth" from, so his comparison of the two is faulty.
Your ability to deduce is useless, they are two separate, but dependent spheres of humanity.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that reason/deduction is useless but I also made the point that our "morals" have the hold they do over us based on their emotional component (which I happen to think is the result of kin empathy extended to others by socialization).
As for the rest, I'm not a sociologist/ethnologist but some thoughts:
A suicidal person cannot reproduce
Depends on when the suicide occurs. After peak reproductive years (about 25-30) you become invisible to adaptionist versions of evolution. (Visit Larry Moran to have adaptionism kicked out of you.)
You may argue that suicide is not a trait
But is it an heritable trait? If not, it is invisible to evolution. If it is, what other traits might be dependent on the same genes? They might outweigh the decrease in reproduction due to suicide. You're suffering from the fallacy of "one gene, one trait."
industrial nations observed an increase in suicides despite better living conditions
That is not obviously true from an adaptionist standpoint. Overcrowded rats undergo stresses that make them less fit in many ways. The stresses we suffer may lead to greater suicide, the way our craving for sugar, fine in a hunter-gatherer, loads us down with obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.
That wasn't my point. I was saying that empiric knowledge is different than whatever knowledge Dean thinks he is deriving his "absolute truth" from, so his comparison of the two is faulty.
Your ability to deduce is useless, they are two separate, but dependent spheres of humanity.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that reason/deduction is useless but I also made the point that our "morals" have the hold they do over us based on their emotional component (which I happen to think is the result of kin empathy extended to others by socialization).
As for the rest, I'm not a sociologist/ethnologist but some thoughts:
A suicidal person cannot reproduce
Depends on when the suicide occurs. After peak reproductive years (about 25-30) you become invisible to adaptionist versions of evolution. (Visit Larry Moran to have adaptionism kicked out of you.)
You may argue that suicide is not a trait
But is it an heritable trait? If not, it is invisible to evolution. If it is, what other traits might be dependent on the same genes? They might outweigh the decrease in reproduction due to suicide. You're suffering from the fallacy of "one gene, one trait."
industrial nations observed an increase in suicides despite better living conditions
That is not obviously true from an adaptionist standpoint. Overcrowded rats undergo stresses that make them less fit in many ways. The stresses we suffer may lead to greater suicide, the way our craving for sugar, fine in a hunter-gatherer, loads us down with obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.
My $0.02
The good pastor assumes, from what I can tell, that any assertion must be asserted "absolutely" -- that is, what one does when one asserts is one makes a claim to absoluteness.
I'm sorry, but I find this so implausible as a theory of meaning, let alone of justification, as to see it requiring little by way of refutation.
People who insist on speaking "philosophically" should take the time to learn some.
The good pastor assumes, from what I can tell, that any assertion must be asserted "absolutely" -- that is, what one does when one asserts is one makes a claim to absoluteness.
I'm sorry, but I find this so implausible as a theory of meaning, let alone of justification, as to see it requiring little by way of refutation.
People who insist on speaking "philosophically" should take the time to learn some.
The good pastor assumes, from what I can tell, that any assertion must be asserted "absolutely" -- that is, what one does when one asserts is one makes a claim to absoluteness.
Yes, I think that is about right.
I'm sorry, but I find this so implausible as a theory of meaning, let alone of justification, as to see it requiring little by way of refutation.
Except that it may be effective rhetoric, despite its implausibility. Never underestimate the power of sleight of hand.
Yes, I think that is about right.
I'm sorry, but I find this so implausible as a theory of meaning, let alone of justification, as to see it requiring little by way of refutation.
Except that it may be effective rhetoric, despite its implausibility. Never underestimate the power of sleight of hand.
On the one hand, I agree, John, and I'm even reminded of Mencken's quip that no one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of ordinary people.
On the other hand, it surely can't be too hard to point out that (1) the meaning of assertions is contextually-dependent and assumes that speakers and hearers share a great deal in common which is not rendered explicit in the utterances themselves -- or (2) that different kinds of assertions call for different standards of justification.
(For example, what procedures would be used to prove a theorem? What would be used to evaluate the relative merits of Monty Python and the Marx Brothers? Or how we test interpretations of quantum mechanics? What sorts of evidence are used in evaluating competing macroevolutionary narratives?)
Granted, I'm an elitist myself, but it seems to me that simply pointing out the diversity of standards of meaning and of justification should be enough to take the wind of the sails of anyone who insists on an absolutist conception of either.
On the other hand, it surely can't be too hard to point out that (1) the meaning of assertions is contextually-dependent and assumes that speakers and hearers share a great deal in common which is not rendered explicit in the utterances themselves -- or (2) that different kinds of assertions call for different standards of justification.
(For example, what procedures would be used to prove a theorem? What would be used to evaluate the relative merits of Monty Python and the Marx Brothers? Or how we test interpretations of quantum mechanics? What sorts of evidence are used in evaluating competing macroevolutionary narratives?)
Granted, I'm an elitist myself, but it seems to me that simply pointing out the diversity of standards of meaning and of justification should be enough to take the wind of the sails of anyone who insists on an absolutist conception of either.
Absolute truth is a logical necessity. Without it everything physical and metaphysical would break down into chaos. Also, the existence of absolute truth does not preclude the existence of falsehoods.
In the love of Christ,
-Mel
In the love of Christ,
-Mel
# posted by : 3:01 PM
: 3:01 PM
... that does not mean that "ought" is meaningless because it can't be derived from "is".
That wasn't my point. I was saying that empiric knowledge is different than whatever knowledge Dean thinks he is deriving his "absolute truth" from, so his comparison of the two is faulty.
Correct. But you also added that the relativist may point out:
"People make many different truth claims about morals and there is no test universally accepted among human beings by which such claims can be measured."
I am resenting the sentence because the relativist assigns here
"truth claims" (!) about ethical questions which cannot be measured (!) and that had a very positivist
(only thing which can be measured exists or are important) smell on it.
I had the slight impression that you are using the relativist viewpoint not only as an argument, but as a personal view. If not, sorry.
---
Your ability to deduce is useless, they are two separate, but dependent spheres of humanity.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that reason/deduction is useless
I hope you understood that I did not mean that for rationality per se, but for questions in emotional context.
but I also made the point that our "morals" have the hold they do over us based on their emotional component (which I happen to think is the result of kin empathy extended to others by socialization).
If you want to use deduction, you must know what a person values or fears; lacking such ability means
that any successful rational discussion is pure luck. You see the empirical result: The most perfect arguments and evidence does not change a jota that still extremely many fellow countryman don't buy evolution. If they are really such a bunch of dumbs as frustated atheists are repeatedly uttering, how can they make a living ?
As for the rest, I'm not a sociologist/ethnologist but some thoughts:
-------------
A suicidal person cannot reproduce
Depends on when the suicide occurs. After peak reproductive years (about 25-30) you become invisible to adaptionist versions of evolution. (Visit Larry Moran to have adaptionism kicked out of you.)
I don't have the American numbers, but 10% of all suicides occur between 14-25 in Germany. Unfortunately many countries don't count suicide attempts which gives the problem that we don't know the exact magnitude of this problem. That's already a strong enough fitness factor to suppress suicide.
And am not prone to let me called a "creationist appeaser" by Larry Moran.
-------
You may argue that suicide is not a trait
But is it an heritable trait? If not, it is invisible to evolution. If it is, what other traits might be dependent on the same genes? They might outweigh the decrease in reproduction due to suicide. You're suffering from the fallacy of "one gene, one trait."
No.
The original Darwin hypothesis already contained natural selection without *genes*, so no, heritable traits are not a necessary precondition for natural
selection.
Neodarwinism still insists that
natural selection is the main factor of evolution and *totally blind to the exact cause of the decreased survival rate*. You can be the good man, but if you aren't as fit as others, sorry, your kin
will die out. And as many suicides
are caused by loneliness and rejected love (!), I don't buy a
balancing effect.
-----
"industrial nations observed an increase in suicides despite better living conditions"
That is not obviously true from an adaptionist standpoint. Overcrowded rats undergo stresses that make them less fit in many ways. The stresses we suffer may lead to greater suicide, the way our craving for sugar, fine in a hunter-gatherer, loads us down with obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.
Fine. Look at the wikipedia entry
"List of countries by suicide rate" and try to find an adaptionist explanation for the distribution. I find that pretty hard. Suicide is mentioned as a problem for evolution in Wikipedia,
but it focus the problem on the individual decision, not the explanation why suicide simply don't die out.
I am not saying that there are no good explanations (sociological etc.), but they are not "natural".
And a theory must be refutable; if someone says that suicide can be fully explained by syntheistic evolution, I ask him under which circumstances he will drop this statement.
That wasn't my point. I was saying that empiric knowledge is different than whatever knowledge Dean thinks he is deriving his "absolute truth" from, so his comparison of the two is faulty.
Correct. But you also added that the relativist may point out:
"People make many different truth claims about morals and there is no test universally accepted among human beings by which such claims can be measured."
I am resenting the sentence because the relativist assigns here
"truth claims" (!) about ethical questions which cannot be measured (!) and that had a very positivist
(only thing which can be measured exists or are important) smell on it.
I had the slight impression that you are using the relativist viewpoint not only as an argument, but as a personal view. If not, sorry.
---
Your ability to deduce is useless, they are two separate, but dependent spheres of humanity.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that reason/deduction is useless
I hope you understood that I did not mean that for rationality per se, but for questions in emotional context.
but I also made the point that our "morals" have the hold they do over us based on their emotional component (which I happen to think is the result of kin empathy extended to others by socialization).
If you want to use deduction, you must know what a person values or fears; lacking such ability means
that any successful rational discussion is pure luck. You see the empirical result: The most perfect arguments and evidence does not change a jota that still extremely many fellow countryman don't buy evolution. If they are really such a bunch of dumbs as frustated atheists are repeatedly uttering, how can they make a living ?
As for the rest, I'm not a sociologist/ethnologist but some thoughts:
-------------
A suicidal person cannot reproduce
Depends on when the suicide occurs. After peak reproductive years (about 25-30) you become invisible to adaptionist versions of evolution. (Visit Larry Moran to have adaptionism kicked out of you.)
I don't have the American numbers, but 10% of all suicides occur between 14-25 in Germany. Unfortunately many countries don't count suicide attempts which gives the problem that we don't know the exact magnitude of this problem. That's already a strong enough fitness factor to suppress suicide.
And am not prone to let me called a "creationist appeaser" by Larry Moran.
-------
You may argue that suicide is not a trait
But is it an heritable trait? If not, it is invisible to evolution. If it is, what other traits might be dependent on the same genes? They might outweigh the decrease in reproduction due to suicide. You're suffering from the fallacy of "one gene, one trait."
No.
The original Darwin hypothesis already contained natural selection without *genes*, so no, heritable traits are not a necessary precondition for natural
selection.
Neodarwinism still insists that
natural selection is the main factor of evolution and *totally blind to the exact cause of the decreased survival rate*. You can be the good man, but if you aren't as fit as others, sorry, your kin
will die out. And as many suicides
are caused by loneliness and rejected love (!), I don't buy a
balancing effect.
-----
"industrial nations observed an increase in suicides despite better living conditions"
That is not obviously true from an adaptionist standpoint. Overcrowded rats undergo stresses that make them less fit in many ways. The stresses we suffer may lead to greater suicide, the way our craving for sugar, fine in a hunter-gatherer, loads us down with obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.
Fine. Look at the wikipedia entry
"List of countries by suicide rate" and try to find an adaptionist explanation for the distribution. I find that pretty hard. Suicide is mentioned as a problem for evolution in Wikipedia,
but it focus the problem on the individual decision, not the explanation why suicide simply don't die out.
I am not saying that there are no good explanations (sociological etc.), but they are not "natural".
And a theory must be refutable; if someone says that suicide can be fully explained by syntheistic evolution, I ask him under which circumstances he will drop this statement.
# posted by : 6:22 PM
: 6:22 PM
I had the slight impression that you are using the relativist viewpoint not only as an argument, but as a personal view. If not, sorry.
No, I'm not a relativist in the post-modernist, knowledge-is-just-a-social-construct sense. Some sources of knowledge are more reliable than others. Still, in the end, there is no absolute knowledge available to humans.
I hope you understood that I did not mean that for rationality per se, but for questions in emotional context.
Even there we can use reason to examine our emotions, though imperfectly.
The original Darwin hypothesis already contained natural selection without *genes*, so no, heritable traits are not a necessary precondition for natural selection.
No, that's wrong. Darwin repeatedly stated that inheritance of traits, with variation, was central to his theory. He even invented his own version called "pangenesis" (from which the word "gene" was derived). As any person in a mostly agricultural society, he was intimately familiar with the fact that offspring resemble parents.
Neodarwinism still insists that natural selection is the main factor of evolution and *totally blind to the exact cause of the decreased survival rate*. You can be the good man, but if you aren't as fit as others, sorry, your kin will die out. And as many suicides are caused by loneliness and rejected love (!), I don't buy a balancing effect.
I'm not following your argument then. If suicide is purely environmental, there is nothing for evolution to eliminate, since there is no heritable factor for selection to work on. If it is heritable (or a combination of heritable and environmental), then you will have to identify the gene complex that causes or contributes to suicide and test it to see if, among the population that carries it (the person who commits suicide might not reproduce but it is likely his close kin carry the same gene complex), it is advantageous overall. The same gene complex that makes people susceptible to loneliness and sensitivity to rejection might, when by chance they find love and family, particularly good at raising many offspring.
I am not saying that there are no good explanations (sociological etc.), but they are not "natural". And a theory must be refutable; if someone says that suicide can be fully explained by syntheistic evolution, I ask him under which circumstances he will drop this statement.
That's simple ... propose a testable non-natural explanation.
No, I'm not a relativist in the post-modernist, knowledge-is-just-a-social-construct sense. Some sources of knowledge are more reliable than others. Still, in the end, there is no absolute knowledge available to humans.
I hope you understood that I did not mean that for rationality per se, but for questions in emotional context.
Even there we can use reason to examine our emotions, though imperfectly.
The original Darwin hypothesis already contained natural selection without *genes*, so no, heritable traits are not a necessary precondition for natural selection.
No, that's wrong. Darwin repeatedly stated that inheritance of traits, with variation, was central to his theory. He even invented his own version called "pangenesis" (from which the word "gene" was derived). As any person in a mostly agricultural society, he was intimately familiar with the fact that offspring resemble parents.
Neodarwinism still insists that natural selection is the main factor of evolution and *totally blind to the exact cause of the decreased survival rate*. You can be the good man, but if you aren't as fit as others, sorry, your kin will die out. And as many suicides are caused by loneliness and rejected love (!), I don't buy a balancing effect.
I'm not following your argument then. If suicide is purely environmental, there is nothing for evolution to eliminate, since there is no heritable factor for selection to work on. If it is heritable (or a combination of heritable and environmental), then you will have to identify the gene complex that causes or contributes to suicide and test it to see if, among the population that carries it (the person who commits suicide might not reproduce but it is likely his close kin carry the same gene complex), it is advantageous overall. The same gene complex that makes people susceptible to loneliness and sensitivity to rejection might, when by chance they find love and family, particularly good at raising many offspring.
I am not saying that there are no good explanations (sociological etc.), but they are not "natural". And a theory must be refutable; if someone says that suicide can be fully explained by syntheistic evolution, I ask him under which circumstances he will drop this statement.
That's simple ... propose a testable non-natural explanation.
My fault. I errornously assumed that "natural selection" includes any detrimental influence, while the biologic definition explicitly includes hereditary effects.
My idea of detrimental behavior would be subsumed under "genetic drift",right ? Mea culpa
My idea of detrimental behavior would be subsumed under "genetic drift",right ? Mea culpa
# posted by : 7:24 PM
: 7:24 PM
My idea of detrimental behavior would be subsumed under "genetic drift",right ?
I'm not really sure I understand your idea. If suicide is not linked at all to genetic factors, directly or indirectly, then it would be more in the nature of a simple random event, such as being struck by lightning, with no evolutionary effect at all.
Post a Comment
I'm not really sure I understand your idea. If suicide is not linked at all to genetic factors, directly or indirectly, then it would be more in the nature of a simple random event, such as being struck by lightning, with no evolutionary effect at all.
<< Home
