How can Alex be so firm in his stance? Objectivity has gone out the window

I agree with original poster, but my expression is not well because English is not my mother tongue, I have closely similar opinion as with original poster, here is my expression:

Why science is always correct? About everything. Because:
1, for the things science doesn't know for sure, science always says it's not sure, for which further researching needs to be conducted. Contrast that claimed by religion faith or "divine revelation" or charlatans, they always tend to be very urgent to "prove" something, immediately! They tend to stand at either one of the two sides with "yes" and "no" respectively. They don't accept to stand at the third stance of claiming "they haven't been sure yet" on some topics. "Does God exist"? "Is there afterlife"? Is or not? Can't wait! You must choose to be a believer or not(heretic). And also, the religion preachers and charlatans always push the others to believe something even when there is no proof as firm as you feel your nose.

2, science is useful, and always presents its usefulness in front of you, automatically! immediately! Contrast that religion tells you that you must follow its doctrines and put faith in it, for that when you die you could go to the heaven. So you must die to get its usefulness. But science, on the opposite, never need hype by preaching, it just presents you the tangible benefit.
When a new vaccine has been found, a lot of illed lives would be saved.
When a new enterprise customed resource planning software project has been finished and has been put into use, the enterprise's business efficiency would be rised and cost be reduced.
When a new fuel-saving technology has been invented, your city which is choke full of automobile would become clearer and fresher.
When a new series of smart phone burst out, say, iphone 7, you will be able to enjoy it or purchase one for your lovely girlfriend to capture her heart(good luck). Science intrinsically and habitually never needs preaches, when it wants you to "believe", it always gives you the concrete benefit as it can afford!

3, science never gets out of evolution, a philosophy can remain its original discoveries intact for thousands of years because no one can prove it right or wrong. If I say I saw Jesus last night, for the next thousands of years no one could prove I am lying. But what's the use for the others? No use at all. I could say it for a whole of my life but I won't bring this Jesus in front of anyone else what's the use of it? Today we live much better than the people in medieval, this is unmistakably the evidence of science's advantage for the felicity of mankind. In a long run during the history, science solved the food problem which is one of the primary concerns of medieval people and a cause of the war, and beside food problem science solved many other problems which we see today as nonexisted, they are not nonexisted by the nature but by human civilization in which science is the mark of how advanced it is and it could be.

And also, science has potentially two different concepts need to be distinguished from each other and clarify:
1, the science of its conceived ultimate form.
2, the science that human currently grasped and recognized.

The second concept of above is not flawless, but it self-acknowledges its flaw and it is such flaw which pushes it to advance further continuously. For the first concept of science, let's say we don't know whether it can exist or can have some meaning, since it's terrible to imagine an ultimate form of science which can explain every questions and confusions about everyone's everything without a possible further improving. Well, but this concept can help people to realize it is the confusion between these two concepts of science which lures people to put too much burden on current human science. The superstitious people or charlatans used to mock at science's incapability of explaining this or that, for debasing its usefulness, pretending as if they could explain everything out of science.
 
Yeah, well I guess that's true. He certainly did a good job of exposing the ignorance of the skeptics and atheists when it comes to NDEs and psi. And I'm sure he was just as shocked to discover this as the rest of us were.

It also seems like he's softening his stance somewhat on the issue of philosophical materialism giving rise to consumerism and war. So good on him for that.

However, I maintain that he is still extremely dogmatic on the issues of meaning, free will, moral responsibility, and he still has a tendency to caricature all materialists as eliminativist materialists.

Materialism is a bizarre, unnatural philosophy that negates itself. (consciousness is an epiphenomena and therefore not fundamental to reality and therefore meaning doesn't really exist. Yet this makes the philosophy of materialism, which is solely comprised of meaning, essentially nonexistent.) There is really no way around that. Meaning, free will and moral responsibility don't exist either.

So there is no reason to take this philosophy seriously.
 
I agree with original poster, but my expression is not well because English is not my mother tongue, I have closely similar opinion as with original poster, here is my expression:

Why science is always correct? About everything. Because:
1, for the things science doesn't know for sure, science always says it's not sure, for which further researching needs to be conducted. Contrast that claimed by religion faith or "divine revelation" or charlatans, they always tend to be very urgent to "prove" something, immediately! They tend to stand at either one of the two sides with "yes" and "no" respectively. They don't accept to stand at the third stance of claiming "they haven't been sure yet" on some topics. "Does God exist"? "Is there afterlife"? Is or not? Can't wait! You must choose to be a believer or not(heretic). And also, the religion preachers and charlatans always push the others to believe something even when there is no proof as firm as you feel your nose.

I'm a Unitarian Universalist. This makes me religious, but we are not required to believe anything.

, science is useful, and always presents its usefulness in front of you, automatically! immediately! Contrast that religion tells you that you must follow its doctrines and put faith in it, for that when you die you could go to the heaven. So you must die to get its usefulness. But science, on the opposite, never need hype by preaching, it just presents you the tangible benefit.
When a new vaccine has been found, a lot of illed lives would be saved.
When a new enterprise customed resource planning software project has been finished and has been put into use, the enterprise's business efficiency would be rised and cost be reduced.
When a new fuel-saving technology has been invented, your city which is choke full of automobile would become clearer and fresher.
When a new series of smart phone burst out, say, iphone 7, you will be able to enjoy it or purchase one for your lovely girlfriend to capture her heart(good luck). Science intrinsically and habitually never needs preaches, when it wants you to "believe", it always gives you the concrete benefit as it can afford!

Science is also used to kill people. Lots and lots of people. Science can turn the planet into a lifeless rock. It can be used to more effectively torture people, subjugate nations, spy on everyone, enable slavery and make the rich richer. Scientists did not band together to prevent atomic weaponry. That's not what they do.

Science itself has no moral code. That has to come from people and it usually comes from people who care first about morality and second about science. Without this, our science could well kill us all.

, science never gets out of evolution, a philosophy can remain its original discoveries intact for thousands of years because no one can prove it right or wrong. If I say I saw Jesus last night, for the next thousands of years no one could prove I am lying. But what's the use for the others? No use at all. I could say it for a whole of my life but I won't bring this Jesus in front of anyone else what's the use of it? Today we live much better than the people in medieval, this is unmistakably the evidence of science's advantage for the felicity of mankind. In a long run during the history, science solved the food problem which is one of the primary concerns of medieval people and a cause of the war, and beside food problem science solved many other problems which we see today as nonexisted, they are not nonexisted by the nature but by human civilization in which science is the mark of how advanced it is and it could be.

And also, science has potentially two different concepts need to be distinguished from each other and clarify:
1, the science of its conceived ultimate form.
2, the science that human currently grasped and recognized.

The second concept of above is not flawless, but it self-acknowledges its flaw and it is such flaw which pushes it to advance further continuously. For the first concept of science, let's say we don't know whether it can exist or can have some meaning, since it's terrible to imagine an ultimate form of science which can explain every questions and confusions about everyone's everything without a possible further improving. Well, but this concept can help people to realize it is the confusion between these two concepts of science which lures people to put too much burden on current human science. The superstitious people or charlatans used to mock at science's incapability of explaining this or that, for debasing its usefulness, pretending as if they could explain everything out of science.

Churches care for the poor. They organize food drives, provide tutors to students, rides for the sick and elderly, food for shut ins and generally help out in the community. If you need something done that's for the greater good, you seek out church congregations to help you. No one ever went to a science lab seeking help for those in need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
Materialism is a bizarre, unnatural philosophy that negates itself. (consciousness is an epiphenomena and therefore not fundamental to reality and therefore meaning doesn't really exist. Yet this makes the philosophy of materialism, which is solely comprised of meaning, essentially nonexistent.) There is really no way around that. Meaning, free will and moral responsibility don't exist either.

So there is no reason to take this philosophy seriously.

Whatever we happen to think about philosophical materialism in all its varieties, it's still extremely dogmatic to say that we definitely have libertarian free will and moral responsibility and that we definitely live in a meaningful universe. The existence of objective values. meaning, free will and moral responsibility is by no means self-evident in the way that "2+2=4" is or "I am conscious" is, which is why philosophers and theologians have been arguing about these issues for thousands of years. They're really difficult problems, and we should probably show a bit of humility here.

I reckon Jerry Coyne should go on a philosophy 101 course for metaphysics, so he can see that materialism is a metaphysical theory every bit as much as dualism, idealism and panpsychism, and Alex should go on a philosophy 101 course for meta-ethics and free will and responsibility, so that he can see that these are actually really serious and difficult issues.
 
@tarantulanebula
hi

I'm not sure 'science' says anything. It's a tool. It's scientists who say things hopefully after applying the scientific method honestly and correctly. Not surprisingly different scientists often say different things about the same subject. I'm not sure what is wrong with that provided scientists (and anyone else) are clear about why they have formed that view and don't ignore evidence which seems to contradict their opinion.

Scientists are of course human and are as prone to the same errors and personal bias as any other human.
 
@tarantulanebula
hi

I'm not sure 'science' says anything. It's a tool. It's scientists who say things hopefully after applying the scientific method honestly and correctly. Not surprisingly different scientists often say different things about the same subject. I'm not sure what is wrong with that provided scientists (and anyone else) are clear about why they have formed that view and don't ignore evidence which seems to contradict their opinion.

Scientists are of course human and are as prone to the same errors and personal bias as any other human.

You have described very well the need for replication in different labs with different researchers, and the importance of expert consensus.
 
Materialism is a bizarre, unnatural philosophy that negates itself. (consciousness is an epiphenomena and therefore not fundamental to reality and therefore meaning doesn't really exist. Yet this makes the philosophy of materialism, which is solely comprised of meaning, essentially nonexistent.) There is really no way around that. Meaning, free will and moral responsibility don't exist either.
People keep saying that meaning doesn't exist under materialism, yet they cannot explain how meaning exists under any other metaphysic. They keep saying that moral responsibility doesn't exist, yet cannot explain how any sort of absolute morality exists under another metaphysic.

~~ Paul
 
Whatever we happen to think about philosophical materialism in all its varieties, it's still extremely dogmatic to say that we definitely have libertarian free will and moral responsibility and that we definitely live in a meaningful universe. The existence of objective values. meaning, free will and moral responsibility is by no means self-evident in the way that "2+2=4" is or "I am conscious" is, which is why philosophers and theologians have been arguing about these issues for thousands of years. They're really difficult problems, and we should probably show a bit of humility here.

I reckon Jerry Coyne should go on a philosophy 101 course for metaphysics, so he can see that materialism is a metaphysical theory every bit as much as dualism, idealism and panpsychism, and Alex should go on a philosophy 101 course for meta-ethics and free will and responsibility, so that he can see that these are actually really serious and difficult issues.

Can you reasonably argue that we don't live in a world with meaning? You'll need to use meaning every step of the way to convey your meaning. You can't demonstrate an objective universe without consciousness, so any workable philosophy has to include it. Consciousness necessarily includes free will, (the ability to think for oneself). Beyond that I think there is room for debate.
 
People keep saying that meaning doesn't exist under materialism, yet they cannot explain how meaning exists under any other metaphysic. They keep saying that moral responsibility doesn't exist, yet cannot explain how any sort of absolute morality exists under another metaphysic.

~~ Paul

There is no need to explain how meaning (consciousness) exists if it is described as fundamental to reality any more than we need explain how electricity exists. It just IS.
 
You have described very well the need for replication in different labs with different researchers, and the importance of expert consensus.

Thanks Malf. I'm sure you'd agree that if this isn't possible, it doesn't mean that others' experiences are not exactly what they seem.
 
Can you reasonably argue that we don't live in a world with meaning? You'll need to use meaning every step of the way to convey your meaning. You can't demonstrate an objective universe without consciousness, so any workable philosophy has to include it. Consciousness necessarily includes free will, (the ability to think for oneself). Beyond that I think there is room for debate.


Just in this short post you've used the word 'meaning' in two or three different ways, and that's the problem here.

When atheists and materialists say that we live in a meaningless universe, they are attacking a very specific, usually Christian, idea of a meaningful universe. This is a universe where everything we do, say and think has cosmic significance, where there is a plan for each of our lives, and where God cares deeply about all of this.

Now there is a different question of how consciousness (and the experience of value, freedom and meaning) could emerge from a mindless universe. Many materialists think that consciousness is a late-comer in the universe and somehow just magically emerges with enough complexity. This seems impossible to me, and probably to many other people on this forum.

But some materialists on this forum argue that panpsychism is actually a form of materialism and so they don't have this problem of spooky or magical emergence. Consciousness is already always in everything.

But note that even if panpsychism is true and consciousness is in everything, that doesn't mean that we have libertarian free will and moral responsibility. Galen Strawson is one of the most famous defenders of panpsychism in philosophy today, but he also thinks libertarian free will and moral responsibility are impossible, since in order to be ultimately morally responsible we would have to have created ourselves, and self-creation is logically impossible.

You also have the problem of intentionality or aboutness. How can our words mean or be about anything? This is a problem that philosophers get really worked up about.

And finally you have the existentialist idea that human beings can somehow create their own meaning and value in life. A lot of today's atheists and materialists still buy into this idea.

So the problem here is that the word 'meaning' has many different meanings. When Alex says materialists think we're biological robots in a meaningless
universe, this isn't exactly wrong. It's not even clear enough to be wrong.
 
Just in this short post you've used the word 'meaning' in two or three different ways, and that's the problem here.

When atheists and materialists say that we live in a meaningless universe, they are attacking a very specific, usually Christian, idea of a meaningful universe. This is a universe where everything we do, say and think has cosmic significance, where there is a plan for each of our lives, and where God cares deeply about all of this.

Now there is a different question of how consciousness (and the experience of value, freedom and meaning) could emerge from a mindless universe. Many materialists think that consciousness is a late-comer in the universe and somehow just magically emerges with enough complexity. This seems impossible to me, and probably to many other people on this forum.

But some materialists on this forum argue that panpsychism is actually a form of materialism and so they don't have this problem of spooky or magical emergence. Consciousness is already always in everything.

But note that even if panpsychism is true and consciousness is in everything, that doesn't mean that we have libertarian free will and moral responsibility. Galen Strawson is one of the most famous defenders of panpsychism in philosophy today, but he also thinks libertarian free will and moral responsibility are impossible, since in order to be ultimately morally responsible we would have to have created ourselves, and self-creation is logically impossible.

You also have the problem of intentionality or aboutness. How can our words mean or be about anything? This is a problem that philosophers get really worked up about.

And finally you have the existentialist idea that human beings can somehow create their own meaning and value in life. A lot of today's atheists and materialists still buy into this idea.

So the problem here is that the word 'meaning' has many different meanings. When Alex says materialists think we're biological robots in a meaningless
universe, this isn't exactly wrong. It's not even clear enough to be wrong.

You are overcomplicating this IMO. I am referring to meaning in its most fundamental form. Meaning itself, not its various translations. Consciousness is, or is not, a fundamental property of the universe. If it exists, then meaning exists, if no, then meaning does not exist.
 
Churches care for the poor. They organize food drives, provide tutors to students, rides for the sick and elderly, food for shut ins and generally help out in the community. If you need something done that's for the greater good, you seek out church congregations to help you. No one ever went to a science lab seeking help for those in need.

Hi Craig

Don't all of those things come from a science lab though? Food production is enhanced in a science lab, the vehicles and fuel for rides, and the materials we use are developed in science labs, medicine is developed in science labs etc. Without science labs there wouldn't be much of the help we need today around to give would there?

Science can be used to kill people, often by people in or influenced by churches, mosques and other religiously inclined institutions.
 
Hi Craig

Don't all of those things come from a science lab though? Food production is enhanced in a science lab, the vehicles and fuel for rides, and the materials we use are developed in science labs, medicine is developed in science labs etc. Without science labs there wouldn't be much of the help we need today around to give would there?

Science can be used to kill people, often by people in or influenced by churches, mosques and other religiously inclined institutions.

Hi Obiwan,
I'm making the point that science isn't intrinsically moral. If anything, it exists in between. Science provides the tools for civilization, but we should not mistake this for the moral decisions we make about how to use those tools and whether they contribute to the greater good of society.

Atomic weaponry for example, while terrifying, has effectively ended the massive wars between globally powerful nations. It has become way too dangerous. That is a moral issue, not a scientific one.

There are questions that need to be answered by people who are experts at morality, not science. These are not necessarily religious people, but you would definitely want the decision makers to have a sense of spirituality.
 
Come on. What meaning?

~~ Paul
The same 3 year old questioning. I mean, humor us Paul. Pretend you've been on the forums for awhile and you've actually heard some honest responses given to you, rather than pretending you don't know what we're talking about. You know ... show a little respect. Maybe some of us have something worth saying. Perhaps you don't know it all.

My Best,
Bertha
 
The same 3 year old questioning. I mean, humor us Paul. Pretend you've been on the forums for awhile and you've actually heard some honest responses given to you, rather than pretending you don't know what we're talking about. You know ... show a little respect. Maybe some of us have something worth saying. Perhaps you don't know it all.
I'll assume from this response that you're just being a dick and don't have the slightest notion what this absolute meaning could be.

~~ Paul
 
Hi Obiwan,
I'm making the point that science isn't intrinsically moral. If anything, it exists in between. Science provides the tools for civilization, but we should not mistake this for the moral decisions we make about how to use those tools and whether they contribute to the greater good of society.

Atomic weaponry for example, while terrifying, has effectively ended the massive wars between globally powerful nations. It has become way too dangerous. That is a moral issue, not a scientific one.

There are questions that need to be answered by people who are experts at morality, not science. These are not necessarily religious people, but you would definitely want the decision makers to have a sense of spirituality.

Understood. Thank you.
 
Back
Top