Is morality objective or subjective?

[Gary Childress]

Ibn al-Haytham. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cPzNmtoZDU

It will be interesting to see what form IC's dismissal of this takes.

Who is telling the story? Well, in the West, Bacon get put in the story cause, he falls in the batch of Euroamerican supernarrative. Ibn al-Haytham on the other hand came earlier AND his methodology was much more like modern science. Bacon emphasized empirical inquiry, but his Muslim predecessor was a lot more specifically aligned. But I mean this is all fuzzy, even if I'd pick Ibn al-Haytham over Bacon. The ancient Greeks took steps towards empirical inquiry, natural causes, mathematical relations between empirical stuff, observation.

I mean, whoever build the damn pyramids had to have used scientific methodology unless we find billions of failed pseudo pyramids under the Sahara. They figured out, surely through empirical study, repetition, observations of to make and use tools - iow they figured out what causes what and then applied it in very complicated ways.

As more and more idols are toppled, perhaps the Greeks will be the last vestige, the last stronghold of white European pride. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Iwannaplato]

As more and more idols are toppled, perhaps the Greeks will be the last vestige, the last stronghold of white European pride. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

And Greece could be classified in a number of different ways. Back in ancient Greece it was part of a complicated Mediterranean set of civilizations, which were exchanging ideas, inventions, crafts, culture in general. Those civilizations would have considered most of the northerners to be barbarians. And later the immigrant Greeks would not have been seen as European, at least not in the way a German or English person would have been, say in the US. Because of the enormous influence of Greece on European culture, well, it's considered part of European culture.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ibn al-Haytham

This is great.

But I wonder where the collected works of Ibn Wilbur al-Boneman might be found?

[Immanuel Can]

The point is, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a scientific theory based on experiment and observation. If you think it's wrong...

I don't. I can't imagine where you got that idea. I was pointing out that it shows a couple of things: 1. That the universe is definitely not eternal in the past, and 2. That things tend from a state of higher order to one of lower order...and anybody who thinks things tend from lower order to higher is swimming upstream against that.

In a closed system, yes.

Materialism assumes we're in a closed system. There is nothing beyond the strictly material, nothing outside to "feed in" order or energy to the system, which already encompasses everything there is, the material universe itself.

[Immanuel Can]

Or consult every religion that has a creation myth.

Why not? Compare them all, and see what's credible. Good strategy.

Okay, you go ahead.

I've done that. At least, I've looked at all the major ones, of which the remainders are only variations. The truth is that there are really only a handful of alternatives, and the wildly-wrong ones eliminate themselves very quickly. So it's nothing you couldn't do, too.

There are plenty of non-material things that are real that you believe in. Reason is one. Your own identity is another. Maybe morality is a third, and maybe meaning is fourth. You certainly claim to believe in the human mind, which is a non-material entity. A strict Materialist would have to call all these things "supernatural" and thus "irrational." Would you?

I didn't say that believing in non-material things was irrational, I said that believing in the supernatural was irrational.

Well, then I think your category "supernatural" is too broad and vague. Literally, all it seems to mean is "more-than-natural," probably with "natural" being understood as some kind of synonym for "material," one would suppose. But if it's not that, then how do you distinguish between the things I've listed above and what you determine to be "supernatural"?

[Immanuel Can]

Your idea that there was no scientific method before Francis Bacon is simply false,

No, it's right. But you can prove it wrong, if I'm wrong. Who is the father of the scientific method, if not Bacon? Just answer that.

Ibn al-Haytham. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cPzNmtoZDU

I did not know about him. But I went looking. Here's what the .com named after him says:

"His methodology of investigation, in particular using experiment to verify theory, shows certain similarities to what later became known as the modern scientific method."

That "shows certain similarities" is rather mysterious, isn't it? It needs some unpacking. But so far, I've been able to find more than people affirming that he had a certain predilection for skepticism and observation, and some technical achievements in things like optics, I'm not able to locate exactly what his "method" was...or whether he actually made it into a method (that is, a formal theory advanced to the scientific community, rather than just a set of personal practices), or left it informal is also hard to discover.

Do you know? Can you point out a source?

I'd also be interested in what his metaphysical assumptions were. With Bacon, they were certainly Theistic. Al-Haytham seems to have been a regular Muslim, so also a monotheist, one would have to presume, no? And unless he was a very atypical Muslim, that would represent a different variation, but would not undermine Whitehead's Hypothesis.

Essentially, what Whitehead was arguing is that unless you already have a conception of God as stable and law-giving, and willing to be known, which both Christianity and Islam have, then science would not have been conceived. If we decided to start the history of scientific methody with Al-Haytham, Whitehead would still seem to be on good ground, in that regard.

[Harbal]

Why not? Compare them all, and see what's credible. Good strategy.

Okay, you go ahead.

I've done that. At least, I've looked at all the major ones, of which the remainders are only variations. The truth is that there are really only a handful of alternatives, and the wildly-wrong ones eliminate themselves very quickly. So it's nothing you couldn't do, too.

And were we to compare results, I suspect my elimination list would be one entry longer than yours.

There are plenty of non-material things that are real that you believe in. Reason is one. Your own identity is another. Maybe morality is a third, and maybe meaning is fourth. You certainly claim to believe in the human mind, which is a non-material entity. A strict Materialist would have to call all these things "supernatural" and thus "irrational." Would you?

I didn't say that believing in non-material things was irrational, I said that believing in the supernatural was irrational.

Well, then I think your category "supernatural" is too broad and vague.

That's unfortunate, because I'm not going to narrow it.

Literally, all it seems to mean is "more-than-natural," probably with "natural" being understood as some kind of synonym for "material," one would suppose.

You seem to be trying to corral me into some sort of denial of anything that isn't material. Presumably, you have a stock response for such a scenario. Consciousness does not seem to be a material thing, and that is very much part of the natural world.

But if it's not that, then how do you distinguish between the things I've listed above and what you determine to be "supernatural"?

Identity and morality are just ideas that manifest in consciousness. I experience them, and I have reason to believe everyone else experiences them, therefore they must be part of the natural world. In other words, the laws of nature obviously allow them. What I would class as supernatural are things that the laws of nature do not seem to allow. Things that we never see occurring, and that science cannot find any evidence of.




I also have a comment on your reply to Will Bouwman:

Essentially, what Whitehead was arguing is that unless you already have a conception of God as stable and law-giving, and willing to be known, which both Christianity and Islam have, then science would not have been conceived. If we decided to start the history of scientific methody with Al-Haytham, Whitehead would still seem to be on good ground, in that regard.

That's total rubbish, of course, but let's pretend it is even slightly credible. It wouldn't mean that God actually existed; it would be enough to only believe he existed.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, you go ahead.

I've done that. At least, I've looked at all the major ones, of which the remainders are only variations. The truth is that there are really only a handful of alternatives, and the wildly-wrong ones eliminate themselves very quickly. So it's nothing you couldn't do, too.

And were we to compare results, I suspect my elimination list would be one entry longer than yours.

The same length, I suspect. I eliminated Atheism, on rational grounds, long ago.

Ironically, so did Dawkins, apparently. Even he doesn't want to be pegged as one. That'll tell you for sure it's not a rational position...when even the guy who has as much reason as anybody to back that belief chooses instead to run away from that label. he knows what I know: that Atheism's a collossal, illogical bluff...and he doesn't want to get caught out with it.

Consciousness does not seem to be a material thing, and that is very much part of the natural world.

It's very much part of the real world, of course. But it's not "natural" in all possible senses of that term, if we understand that to entail things like "material" or "biological" or "physical."

But it's a heck of an interesting thing to note. Consciousness is real. But it's not anything science can really locate or tell us anything substantial about. In fact, science does not even know what "consciousness" is, though science itself, of course, relies on it completely.

Why should such odd, non-material things, or, as the philosophy of mind calls them, "epiphenomena" even exist? That's a good question.

But if it's not that, then how do you distinguish between the things I've listed above and what you determine to be "supernatural"?

Identity and morality are just ideas that manifest in consciousness.

That's three non-material realities you just listed there. In what sense are they "part of the natural world"?

the laws of nature obviously allow them.

But those "laws" also don't account for them. There is no "law of consciousness," or "mass of morality," or "three quarts of identity." What we call "natural laws" certainly don't prevent them; but they also don't describe or constrain them, either. In fact, it looks very much like natural laws only have to do with material stuff, physical stuff.

I also have a comment on your reply to Will Bouwman:

Essentially, what Whitehead was arguing is that unless you already have a conception of God as stable and law-giving, and willing to be known, which both Christianity and Islam have, then science would not have been conceived. If we decided to start the history of scientific methody with Al-Haytham, Whitehead would still seem to be on good ground, in that regard.

That's total rubbish, of course, but let's pretend it is even slightly credible. It wouldn't mean that God actually existed; it would be enough to only believe he existed.

Well, if you say that, then you're arguing that science is dependent not merely on beliefs, but on false beliefs. Is that what you want to say?

[Gary Childress]

I don't. I can't imagine where you got that idea. I was pointing out that it shows a couple of things: 1. That the universe is definitely not eternal in the past, and 2. That things tend from a state of higher order to one of lower order...and anybody who thinks things tend from lower order to higher is swimming upstream against that.

In a closed system, yes.

Materialism assumes we're in a closed system. There is nothing beyond the strictly material, nothing outside to "feed in" order or energy to the system, which already encompasses everything there is, the material universe itself.

But we're not in a closed system. The sun is constantly delivering energy to the Earth. The universe itself is thought to be a closed system and will allegedly someday fizzle out.

[Walker]

Non-material thing sounds like an oxymoron. However, given the examples …

If it’s not material, it must be energy.
If it’s a thing it has a form.
A non-material thing is an energetic form.
Concepts and thoughts are energetic forms, and their existence can be verified with machines.
Some non-material things (concepts) have enough energy to move a material thing, such as a human body.

[Walker]

If the universe is a closed system, then what is an open system?

[Harbal]

I've done that. At least, I've looked at all the major ones, of which the remainders are only variations. The truth is that there are really only a handful of alternatives, and the wildly-wrong ones eliminate themselves very quickly. So it's nothing you couldn't do, too.

And were we to compare results, I suspect my elimination list would be one entry longer than yours.

The same length, I suspect. I eliminated Atheism, on rational grounds, long ago.

Ironically, so did Dawkins, apparently. Even he doesn't want to be pegged as one. That'll tell you for sure it's not a rational position...when even the guy who has as much reason as anybody to back that belief chooses instead to run away from that label. he knows what I know: that Atheism's a collossal, illogical bluff...and he doesn't want to get caught out with it.

That's not really of any interest to me. I'm just a guy who doesn't believe in God.

Consciousness does not seem to be a material thing, and that is very much part of the natural world.

It's very much part of the real world, of course. But it's not "natural" in all possible senses of that term, if we understand that to entail things like "material" or "biological" or "physical."

No one yet knows what consciousness actually is; what it consists of, how it comes about, etc. Some people think it is a fundamental property of the universe, whatever that means. Like Descartes, if there is only one thing I can be sure of, it is consciousness, so I would say it is not only part of the natural world; it could actually be the only part.

But it's a heck of an interesting thing to note. Consciousness is real. But it's not anything science can really locate or tell us anything substantial about. In fact, science does not even know what "consciousness" is, though science itself, of course, relies on it completely.

Yes, I just said more or less the same thing.

Why should such odd, non-material things, or, as the philosophy of mind calls them, "epiphenomena" even exist? That's a good question.

And nobody knows the answer to it, so let's do something crazy and just admit it.

the laws of nature obviously allow them.

But those "laws" also don't account for them. There is no "law of consciousness,"

How do you know there isn't? Unlike religion, science knows it doesn't have all the answers yet. Maybe there isn't an actual law of consciousness, but consciousness is obviously allowable under the laws of nature.

or "mass of morality," or "three quarts of identity."

Morality and identity are just concepts, and only have a mental existence within human minds.

What we call "natural laws" certainly don't prevent them; but they also don't describe or constrain them, either. In fact, it looks very much like natural laws only have to do with material stuff, physical stuff.

You might feel able to say that, but I certainly don't.

That's total rubbish, of course, but let's pretend it is even slightly credible. It wouldn't mean that God actually existed; it would be enough to only believe he existed.

Well, if you say that, then you're arguing that science is dependent not merely on beliefs, but on false beliefs. Is that what you want to say?

If your account of how science came about were correct, that is what I would have to say.

[iambiguous]

Well, unless you include revelation. Then, there just might be.

Or consult every religion that has a creation myth.

Why not? Compare them all, and see what's credible. Good strategy.

A good strategy indeed.

Start here, IC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

Then, one by, one -- excluding the ex-nihilo "Genesis creation myth (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Rastafari)"? -- explain why only those who embrace True Christianity are credible.

[Gary Childress]

If the universe is a closed system, then what is an open system?

I'm not sure if "open" is the term that is used by scientists but the Earth itself is not a closed system because it's receiving energy from the sun and even a bit from distant stars. A 'closed' system is a system that isn't receiving energy from anywhere but what is contained within it. So the universe is thought to be a closed system that is slowly losing net energy until someday there will be no more energy to support life. Or that seems to be the current theory.

[Gary Childress]

If the Earth were the only thing in the universe, then the Earth would be a "closed" system.