Is-Ought dilemma & morality

The Is-Ought problem is a fairly famous philosophical dilemma explored famously by Hume, Searle, Huxley, and many others. It is also sometimes used as an argument against atheism with the excuse that you can't get an "ought" from an "is" and therefore atheism is without any foundational moral basis (a Non Sequitur). Nevermind that the dilemma is NOT resolved, it is a still an open question as to exactly how Humans form Oughts - but theists are nothing if not famous for declaring victory at any gap in the scientific knowledge base.

Recently, Sam Harris has argued that a good foundational basis for secular morality is well-being, with the axiomatic presumption that the world with maximal suffering for all conscious beings is NOT the most desirable state to all of said conscious beings. In what amounts to the social sciences, this is about as self-evident a statement as you can get. I can tell you, with some confidence, that *I* do not wish for maximal suffering for all conscious beings, Q.E.D.

But, in the recent Sam Harris-William Craig debate (Does Good Come From God?), Craig asserted that axioms are equal to taking something on faith, this seems a rather desperate statement for him to have made but he did. Axioms are NOT taken on faith - they are TESTED and proposed, axioms can and have been rejected. This is true in logic, it is true in mathematics, and it is true in every field of science. The primary axioms in those fields are universally accepted (and where they are not, additional axioms/presumptions would be stated up front) AND they have been extensively tested for contradictions. They are not, in any way, shape, or form, equivalent to accepting that a god exists, merely on faith.

Take a simple example from mathematics, the identity axiom states that "a = a" - you can try other axioms but they immediately run into absurd and contradictory conclusions that clearly conflict with reality. The only accepted axioms are those which are either accepted as self-evident (some are tautological or true by definition), demonstrated to be absolutely necessary, or are only conditionally accepted (if this, then that).

In the case of the physical sciences (including logic and mathematics to the extent they are used to draw conclusions about reality) we also test the axioms against reality. If an axiom can be shown to yield conclusions that conflict with reality then it MUST be rejected (in that context). This is another vital step that is utterly missing from the god-proposition.

Let's apply this same standard in the context of the bible. If one takes the bible literally it asserts that the prayers of the faithful would be answered, that they could literally move a mountain with only the tiniest grain of faith. And yet, even the most faithful are unable to effect change in our world by prayer. It has been tested and demonstrated that prayer is not effective. Therefore, the god proposed by the bible has therefore, by any scientific measure, been demonstrated to be a false proposition. But Christian's refuse to reject their hypothesis based on this evidence - it is this presuppositional bias that is the difference between religion and science. Science is prepared to reject ANY conclusion, ANY hypothesis, ANY axiom, ANYTHING that can be shown to be unreasonable based on the evidence alone (even if, in reality, biases and human nature creep into the process in individual cases - on the balance, science has been the most objective route to truth ever known to have been devised - and as we find problems with the system they are corrected, which is to say, the sciences have improved over the ages).

In fact, Christopher Hitchens has argued that religion is our first attempt at philosophy and science. It is just unfortunate that so many have clung to the extremely flawed version for so long, but apparently, such is human nature.

And finally, presuming the existence of a god does absolutely nothing towards establishing the objective existence of some moral foundation. God could simply not care what humans do, in such a world humans would be left to make their own choices, evil deeds would be allowed to continue, and I cannot imagine a SINGLE thing in our world that would argue against such a god.

Craig makes two assertions to support his claim, let's see if they are worthy of axiomatic status.

1) that the crucified and risen Christ is evidence - and he asserts that the fact of the crucifixion is (all but) beyond reproach by the mass of scholarly support - but SURELY Craig is familiar with Schweitzer and MANY others who reject this claim?

"The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon earth and died to give his work its final consecration never existed."

Albert Schweitzer(1875-1965, Nobel Prize 1952), Ph.D, Christian theologian and Dean of Theological College of Saint Thomas at the University of Strasburg
The Quest of the Historical Jesus: First Complete Edition, trans. W. Montgomery, et al., ed. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), page 478
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/
http://books.google.com/books?id=7UPLuZZ8NHIC&dq=Quest%20of%20the%20Historical%20Jesus&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q&f=false

For Craig, educated as he is in biblical studies, to make such an outrageous claim demonstrates the danger of this type of cognitive bias. Hiding contradictory or conflicting data is not tolerated in science.

Just a quick review of the issues with accepting this assertion: There are no contemporaneous accounts by independent scholars of the crucification or the redirections (or the saints rising from the dead). The gospels are written 30-60 years after the supposed events took place. We have not a single autograph. There is evidence of tampering & redaction (to the point of destruction of documents and murder) and NO amount of textual criticism can PROVE that the copies we have are even close to the ORIGINALS - only that the copies of the copies we have are relatively close to the oldest VERSION that survived the stewardship of the early church with its bias, self-interest, and willingness to destroy and murder in order to preserve itself.

If we listen to the bible, and judge them by their fruits, the church does not fair very well for it's first ~1800 years.


2) that God is, by definition, a god of maximal goodness as it is conceived (by some) to be such. It is patently absurd to expect this to be granted presumption as it is neither self-evidence, nor supportable by rational evidence, nor even widely accepted as true (much less the consensus, as much as Craig wishes it to be so -- but you can't get an IS from a wishful OUGHT Mr Craig).


My take on is-ought: OUGHTS exist in our minds because of the ability of our minds to perceive the IS of others. I'll go against Huxley and others here and argue that our morality exists as a PRODUCT of evolutionary processes. This is NOT the Naturalistic Fallacy because I'm not saying that because things happen in Nature they are moral or good.

Huxley rejected evolutionary-based morality (Evolution and Ethics, 1893) arguing that evolution only produces what is, but doesn't define how we Ought to behave towards one another (see also the Naturalistic Fallacy). I think that this is based on an overly simplistic and limited view of evolution, limited by the knowledge of Huxley's time. Huxley was not aware of Strange Attractors in dynamic equations, he was not aware of genetics as we understand them today (they had only a very basic idea that traits could be inherited), he was not aware of neuroscience, he was not aware of cellular mechanics or development, and he was unaware of the level to which genetics, epigenetics, and experiences form and shape human behavior and thought.

So it is not evolution alone that defines morality, but the fact that it created brains which are capable of taking in information about their surroundings, forming memories of those events, executing processes which effect decisions, modeling the environment with predictive algorithms.

Imagine if you will a normal human, your good friend perhaps. A more self-less, giving, loving person you cannot imagine knowing. That person is in a car crash and tragically suffers extensive brain damage. After their physical recovery they are not all the same person. They might not even recognize you, they might be angry or even dangerous - perhaps they harm someone else in a fit of rage. Surely, their actions are beyond the control of the loving person you once knew and loved? Are they as fully morally culpable as the person you once knew and loved? Surely not, the structural changes in their brain have clearly resulted in changes in moral culpability.

But why should some change in mere physical structure of organic matter magically decouple us from (at least some level of) moral culpability?


The combination of our mental faculties, which I described above, means that a normal human being can form objective conclusions about the needs of others by a process of observation of what IS, combined with a projection of the consequences of actions. If these abilities are lost then that person can no longer make those decisions and, as Craig correctly points out, OUGHT implies CAN.

And THAT is the critical realization of moral understanding: we either CAN or we CANNOT. And every bit of neuroscience points to the fact that our ability to do something is based on Natural processes within our brain. If we did not have literally millions of facts that point in this direction you might be excused for assuming otherwise (say, in the late-1800's). We understand (computers evidence this) how aggregations of physical processes can learn, store memories, and make decisions. We also, interestingly, do not require computers to assume moral culpability. The idea almost seems ridiculous (at present), but why should that be so?

I would argue that computers currently do not have a fully closed-loop system, they cannot make observations and project the consequences of actions and make decisions based on that data. They have not been wired up to do so, once they are they would and should become culpable for their actions even though they are STILL exactly the same lump of computational dynamics they are today -- therefore the difference is something that is emergent from the specific dynamics.

Some dynamics CAN, and some CANNOT. Normal human brains CAN, damaged human brains CANNOT.

If Harris is correct, and maximal suffering would be an undesirable state for conscious beings (and that seems self-evident to me as *I* know that I prefer not to suffer), then actions which we CAN take that will lessen suffering and move us towards well-being would be OUGHTS. Harris argues that those actions would objectively (and measurably) move us towards well-being even if mindless actors were performing them.

The question is, can Natural evolutionary processes (reproduction, modification, and selection) generate entities which can deduce these actions - and I find the arguments in favor of evolution to be overwhelmingly positive. That is, have amoral physical processes yielded a computational system capable of observation, memory, prediction, decision, and action and should such systems objectively converge on the same core principles of action of right & wrong actions.

Even more problematical for the god-premise would be the existence of moral dilemma's and that, to the extent that ethical systems attempt to be logically complete and consistent they will necessarily fail pray to Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Harris touched on these issues in the debate and in his book as well.

But perhaps a better question is, does it even matter if morality is objective or subjective? I don't think that it really does. If it IS subjective then it is so because we are merely made of physical stuff following physical rules and we really HAVE no choice any way. Science is replete with examples of observations that have flown in the face of the common wisdom. You cannot make a logical argument from first principles that Nature MUST contain an objective moral foundation. It either it DOES or it DOES NOT, and if it is knowable then that knowledge can only come from the most careful of observations of Nature itself.

This is just my quick, rambling, take on it - my apologies for what I'm sure will be many typos.

On Agnosticism

Agnosticism is a term that is bandied about by many, but is often misunderstood if not completely misused (at least from my perspective as a long-time Agnostic). There has certainly evolved a generic usage of the term 'agnostic' as an adjective which means to consider a proposition as unknown or unknowable. But I don't think it's reasonable for someone to claim this as their position on the question of God (hint, it's an adjective).

But as a proper noun, the -ism was coined by Thomas Huxley with a very specific definition as Michael Martin writes in "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification":

Putting aside the current popular sense of the term, "Agnosticism" was coined by T. H. Huxley in 1869. According to Huxley, Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.

As you can see from this definition Agnosticism is not just a statement about knowledge whereas atheism is a statement about belief (but the two positions can still be compatible). Agnosticism, properly understood is a Positive belief in what we might call science or skepticism. In this sense it is a very different thing from the common form of atheism today (which is a rejection of theistic beliefs, or more accurately "a lack of belief in a god or god(s)").

I personally believe that even Positive Atheism is a fairly well supportable position these days. 100% absolutely certainty is NOT the point of belief - you can reasonably believe something when it is not contradicted by the evidence and has reasonable supporting facts. For example, scientists generally believe that there are Black Holes even though they are far from absolutely proven to exist (as described by relativity) and there are many open questions.

In his paper "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?" Bertrand Russell wrote:

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

From this, I think that in Russell's day a more positive atheism was the prevailing brand of atheism whereas today the majority base their position on the lack of evidence for theism.
I generally identify myself as Huxley-Agnostic these days but I do not believe in any gods and therefore I am, in that sense, atheistic and will sometimes use that term when discussing with less discerning company. But I have always disliked the idea of defining my position in opposition to theism as I don't place that much importance on it.

Certainly Agnostics (and many others) have pondered if we can even ask questions like "does god exist" or "what is the origin of the universe". Such things might be truly unknowable -- but I would want that claim to be demonstrated before I accept it as fact!

What is Millenarian Iconoclasm?

An Introduction

Millenarianism is the belief in a coming major transformation of society (usually on a 1000 year cycle but not exclusively). Christianity is a millenarian belief structure that is, in theory, looking for the return of Christ. They have, at times, believed this so strongly that they were willing to put others to torture and even death in order to "save them" before this return. That kind of extremism is obviously exceedingly harmful to society. And I somewhat apologize for the Christian focus that will undoubtedly unfold - but it is the counter force that I know the best. But fear not, dear Reader, for my comments generally apply to all the major and minor religions of the world. Please do not take my words to apply only to Christian beliefs, where applicable please also take similar offense if you belong to some other religion.

Iconoclasm on the other hand is the destruction of the icons of religion. In this case I mean it STRICTLY in the realm of IDEAS. I absolutely reject ANY attempt to outlaw religion. I absolutely reject ANY attempt to physically harm religious people OR property.

So, my goal is to tear down some of these millenarian ideas that lead to false beliefs and I hope the reader will comment and further my own education in such matters. I plan for this to be a far ranging blog as this subject touches on every aspect of our lives in some way or another. I will be rude, out-spoken, rambling and even wrong at times. I will have typos and grammatical errors (in my defense my brain is just not wired for English, I have always struggled with it, but feel free to extract amusement where you can find it). But hopefully I can be articulate enough to get my points across.

I do not hide the fact that I am fairly liberal-minded (I suppose I have the "novelty" seeking gene) although I subscribe to no specific ideology outside of Thomas Huxley's brand of Agnosticism (which means to say that I value Reason and Evidence). I reject the wishy-washy alternative brands of agnosticism that sloshed around after Huxley's passing. But I am not a Democrat nor am I a Republican. I am a thinking human being capable of making my own judgments based on the things I value.

I will attempt to be extremely clear on where I place value so that you can assess not just my ideas on any given subject but perhaps better understand the motivations behind them. I have a hope that liberals and conservatives alike place fairly similar values on most things but we just disagree on a path that will get us there (which I believe are due to differences in Secondary values, not primary values). I am a strong constitutionalist. I am FOR small government (especially when it comes to someones Personal life). But I am also for the right solutions for the right problems. One approach does not work for all types of problems, ideologists seem to forget that.

I hope that we all want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Agnosticism will be a recurring theme because I feel that many people who call themselves an Agnostic (noun) really mean that they are agnostic (adjective) in their beliefs. These are two Vastly different positions and I will attempt to distinguish them and support my position on Agnosticism as a Positive belief in Reason and Evidence.

I am not afraid of the term atheist and, similar to Bertrand Russell, I tend to identify myself as an Atheist outside of certain groups (those who have read something on Philosophy, Huxley, Russell, etc) and can make the finer distinction between being an Atheist because you don't believe in a god and being Agnostic because you believe in Reason and Evidence. I don't want to define myself relative to something I don't accept as an ontologically valid position. I don't call myself an aTeapotist either. There are indeed an infinite number positions that I lack, so, to me, it is better to list ones I value (Reason + Evidence) than the ones I do not.

So count me among those that lack a belief in any theistic god.

Please set aside your preconceived notions of Agnosticism for the moment and try to understand what I mean by the term:

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn.html

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, "Try all things, hold fast by that which is good" it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science.

Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide13.html

Huxley coined a word for his position: "agnostic." Although this word is sometimes defined (as in the Oxford English Dictionary) as relating to the Unknowable, Huxley denied having that as source of the word.