JB:
>Then we are talking at cross-purposes. I have ALWAYS discussed the
>philosophical implications of materialism vis-a-vis evolution and morality in
>this context. You are concerned with the narrow question of the science of
>evolution.
>
I also find the philosophical discussions interesting, I just
wanted to be sure the two issues are kept distinct. They are
definitely not being kept distinct by some who have been
participating in these discussions, especially in some of the
original posts which began all this discussion.
JB:
>And on that point, I agree with you. I have written as much before, stating
>that if one holds to a theistic base, then one will not be compelled toward
>amorality. The science itself is not a philosophy.
>
>But my concern has always been with the materialist presupposition, buttressed
>(wrongly, IMO) by evolutionary data.
>
BH:
><<2) It certainly IS a distortion to 'move from "only the fittest
> survive" to "I define fitness as X, and I am X, therefore I
> am more fit to survive."' Such an extrapolation is not only
> absurd, it has nothing whatsoever to do with science. >>
>
JB:
>Again, I agree with you, UNLESS it is a philosophical materialist who makes
>the extrapolation. If we are all purposeless atoms, there can be no objective
>standard of morality.
>
BH:
><<3) You previously insisted that your position was and
> always had been that racists distort evolution to support
> their beliefs.>>
>
JB:
>I don't remember saying anything like that. My position has always been that
>there is no logical argument AGAINST a materialist making an argument as in
>#2, above. If I indicated otherwise, I apologize for being unclear.
>
>Let me ask you a simple question. Without using any theistic presupposition,
>can you explain to me why Hitler was evil?
>
>I think you'll agree with me that you can't. And that's been my only point all
>along.
>
Well, I kind of like playing a devil's advocate now and then, but
I don't know if I'm up to the task of playing a materialist.
I would probably just end up insulting the real materialists,
not that that's necessarily a bad thing mind you ;-).
As I mentioned before, there are some things about the arguments
put forth in this thread that have really bugged me. One is this
elevation of logic and logical consistency to the point where they
become almost like moral principles themselves. I fear some people
may go kill granny if they decide its logically consistent. Suppose
I, playing a materialist, answered your question: "no, I cannot
explain to you why Hitler was evil". What then? Am I now somehow
responsible for Hitlers actions? Am I immobilized by this question
to the point where I cannot condemn Hitler? No, I don't think so.
My own experiences have taught me not to put too much faith in
logic. For example, I see all the time very logical people
disagreeing in very logical ways. It seems to me logic is most
useful when you already know the answer. I guess I should add
my standard disclaimer that my views are most likely prejudiced
by being an experimentalist, as yours are no doubt prejudiced by
being a Lawyer ["Kill the Lawyer!" -- the lost boys <Hook>].
Also, as far as I'm concerned, logical consistency means very
little in and of itself. We can take the interplay between
mathematics and physics as an example. I think its the
exception rather than the rule to find mathematics making
any connection with the physical world. In fact, I think many
pure mathematicians would be quite distressed to find a physical
application of their work ;-). But yet the results are logically
consistent. For example, it is surely a sign of Galileo's great
genius that he could even conceive of the idea that a complicated
motion could be divided into two completely independent parts,
one being uniform and the other uniformly accelerated. Galileo
could (and did) work out what types of motions are logically
consistent with this. If this is all Galileo did then we would
be left with only an interesting academic excercise. Galileo
moved the Earth (pun intended) by showing that *natural* motions
have the property that they can be separated into two completely
independent motions, one uniform and the other uniformly accelerated.
<<Now, here's an interesting sidelight regarding the evolution debate.
Galileo made no attempt to explain this observation. Newton provided
an "explanation" in terms of universal gravitation and the principle
of inertia, but provided no mechanism. For this great sin, Leibniz
accused Newton of introducing occult practices into science ;-).
Which reminds me, Galileo himself made a similar accusation against
Kepler for daring to suggest that the moon might somehow be responsible
for the tides! :-). It appears Galileo was human after all.>>
Now back to your question. I took the time to re-read book I of
C.S. Lewis <Mere Christianity>. I was greatly influenced by this
book when I first read it and am pleased to say that I'm even more
impressed now than previously. Whatever discomfort I felt when
reading various arguments presented in this thread disappear
when I read Lewis. Much of what has been said here has little to
do with what Lewis wrote. So, I would suggest everyone go back and
read Lewis again, especially if its been awhile. Now, as to your
question: "Without using any theistic presupposition, can you explain
to me why Hitler was evil?". If I may be so bold :), it seems to me
that that's precisely what Lewis was trying to do.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"Quantum physicist and Jungian analyst, when dropped from
a great height, fall at the same rate of speed, their
descent unaffected by speech or creed" -- David Berlinski