(October 10, 2013 at 5:34 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Sure, just not in the way you wish.

Though all morality being relative to opinion and cultural taste we didn't make any real progress towards anything at all isn't that right? I'm sure on some level you understand it isn't right.

(October 10, 2013 at 5:37 pm)max-greece Wrote: Well - there's nothing under the desk.....hang on.....I'll check the cupboard in the hall - that's where most things are.

Have you tried looking within your heart? In the good works and dreams of humanity? In cry of a newborn baby? Within the mountains, trees and oceans of the world and stars of creation itself? Anything like that?

(October 10, 2013 at 6:13 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(October 10, 2013 at 5:34 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Sure, just not in the way you wish.

Though all morality being relative to opinion and cultural taste we didn't make any real progress towards anything at all isn't that right? I'm sure on some level you understand it isn't right.

Morality is evolutionary, so saying it changes is a NO DUH, but it does not require a "POOFDADDY" by any name to do so.

Our species has ALWAYS had the same ability to be cruel and compassionate.

(October 10, 2013 at 6:13 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(October 10, 2013 at 5:34 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Sure, just not in the way you wish.

Though all morality being relative to opinion and cultural taste we didn't make any real progress towards anything at all isn't that right? I'm sure on some level you understand it isn't right.

Improvements in social freedom and welfare have been almost always opposed by Christian establishments throughout the existence of the religion. At best, they were minor civil wars of Christians against Christians, but Christians of one sort or another have always been on the wrong side of history.

(October 10, 2013 at 5:44 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Then why do conservative Christians always find themselves on the wrong side of those human rights movements and welfare systems?

You can appreciate there is a right side rather than the right side being whatever your own opinion happens to be. See how you understand Gods Moral Law? But yes some Christians are douche bags, some atheists are douche bags, some Hindus are douche bags and you can go on. Though we're all douche bags to some extent, that's the sin at work.

Quote:I'll give you a few examples: Women's suffrage, civil rights, gay marriage equality, and Republicans always trying (and occasionally succeeding) at cutting social programs, like for instance the recent $40 billion cuts to SNAP?

I'm sure they would do the exact same thing if they were all atheists.

(October 10, 2013 at 3:54 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(October 10, 2013 at 11:05 am)ChadWooters Wrote: And exactly what evidence do you have that physical reduction is true, especially since it is so strongly counterintuitive?

Strongly counterintuitive? You do realize that is saying that there must be more to my mind because my mind tells me so? Given the flaws of the human brain and its desire to perceive things in a manner that keep it at ease, saying physical reduction is counterintuitive is a bold statement that you can't possible defend properly.

Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear. By themselves intuitions cannot confirm that your understanding is correct. For example, the idea that space and time are absolute seems intuitive, but you know that in actuality they are relative (not only in Einstein's theories, but in Thomist philosophy as well). Objects appear to be solid, but at the atomic scale they are mostly empty space. And so on... In cases like these, what we commonly assume to be true is out-weighted by the results of many other inquiries.

At the same time you shouldn't ignore them. Intuitions can serve as a useful guide you in your acquisition of knowledge. For example, imagine you have two equally plausible paradigms. Which best describes reality? You can base your decision on many factors. Is the paradigm internally consistent? Does it explain more phenomena than others? What is the purpose of the paradigm? Etc. But also, does the paradigm go against our common everyday experiences? Based on your experience it makes sense to believe that other people have conscious minds, that the world exists independent of our own, etc.

That said, take a look at physical reduction. I call it strongly counter-intuitive because it goes against the way we commonly think and feel every day. Its determinism goes against you feeling and acting as-if you have the liberty to choose between alternatives. You recognize the identity of objects as they change over time, whereas in physical reduction everything is an undifferentiated continuum. You can attribute meaning to symbols and processes, whereas in physical reduction no physical process can have significance. You can watch animals engage in goal directed behavior, whereas physical reduction makes all actions inherently undirected, including your own.

In each of these examples, the difference between what you strongly intuit and what physical reduction demands is the presence of a knowing subject. You live as-if you are a You. That does not mean physical reduction is false. All I am saying is that materialism comes at a very high price because it undermines our humanity. As such it should be very well supported before living your life as-if it were the case. As a point of fact, I do not know anyone that actually lives their life as if they were an undirected and meaningless physical process. And if you don’t aren’t you kinda living a lie as bad as appealing to a non-existent god.

(October 10, 2013 at 6:13 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote: Have you tried looking within your heart? In the good works and dreams of humanity? In cry of a newborn baby? Within the mountains, trees and oceans of the world and stars of creation itself? Anything like that?

Atheists don't notice things like this, Sword. We are too busy studying Dawkins and making war on Christmas.

(October 10, 2013 at 6:13 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote: Have you tried looking within your heart? In the good works and dreams of humanity? In cry of a newborn baby? Within the mountains, trees and oceans of the world and stars of creation itself? Anything like that?

enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2VCwBzGdPM

(October 10, 2013 at 7:04 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Intuitions can serve as a useful guide you in your acquisition of knowledge ... That said, take a look at physical reduction. I call it strongly counter-intuitive because it goes against the way we commonly think and feel every day. Its determinism goes against you feeling and acting as-if you have the liberty to choose between alternatives. ... That does not mean physical reduction is false. All I am saying is that materialism comes at a very high price because it undermines our humanity.

You jump from 'intuition is a useful guide' to claiming that ignoring it comes at a high price. This simply does not follow. Moreover it's an example of begging the question as it's harmfulness largely depends on it being false. Or are you arguing that some falsehoods are too useful to give up? I don't find my 'humanity', whatever that means, to consist of believing falsehoods. It is only because you have assumed your conclusion that you consider it so.

(October 10, 2013 at 7:04 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: As a point of fact, I do not know anyone that actually lives their life as if they were an undirected and meaningless physical process.

And this is a whole other kettle of fish unrelated to the rest. In the first place, this doesn't follow from the assumptions of materialism. It does follow from your beliefs, however, which likely makes it another example of question begging. Regardless, this is one of your favorite arguments from ignorance, that you can't see how X is possible under materialism, therefore it is not. In the past you've used 'justification of inductive inference' in place of X, whereas here you're using 'meaning' in its place. These are your problems, not those of materialism. (And note also that this is an argument from consequences; a life without meaning being undesirable or hard to 'live' doesn't make it any less likely. I can't imagine something that is both a wave and a particle. That's not quantum theory's problem.)

(October 10, 2013 at 11:05 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 10, 2013 at 9:47 am)Chas Wrote: But it doesn't provide any evidence. Explanation without evidence is hypothesis.

When you have evidence of the existence of a god, then I will be able to take your hypothesis seriously.

And exactly what evidence do you have that physical reduction is true, especially since it is so strongly counterintuitive?

How does your question even follow from my statement?

(October 11, 2013 at 10:34 am)apophenia Wrote: Regardless, this is one of your favorite arguments from ignorance, that you can't see how X is possible under materialism, therefore it is not.

Actually, its the other way around. You claim that materialism is sufficient to explain all the relevant phenomena, but when it proves unable to do so, you never question the underlying monist paradigm. Either you try to pretend the phenomena is an illusion (like conscious awareness) or claim that someday, maybe a materialistic solution will be found.

Now in one sense you are correct, I cannot see a solution based on a physical monist paradigm, or at least find the proposed solutions unsatisfactory. That alone would not make me adopt a dualist position. As an alternative paradigm, dualism solves many of the problems and better accounts for all phenomena. Thus I think it is a better position and not just the last man standing