Skip to main content

whose materialism? which atheism?

In the last couple of centuries there have been many different materialists with different moralities: Herbert Spenser, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche to name a few.  They didn't merely reject the supernatural while otherwise accepting the values of their culture: they changed the moral landscape in a way that cohered somewhat with their materialistic vision.  They differed, however, in the ways in which they changed the moral landscape.

This difference spawns a problem for one who who embraces materialism today.   He must ask his or her self how and whether this doctrine affects his view of human existence.  If he believes, for example, that humans are at some level equal in dignity, then he must ask why he thinks so when other materialists have not.  Suppose that he wanted to persuade a fellow materialist with whom he disagreed about morality:  would he argue on the basis of scientific evidence?  If so, how would that argument fare against a counterargument likewise based upon scientific data.

Consider the racism so apparent in Darwin's Descent of Man.  He takes it as obvious even that the Irish race is inferior to the Scots, and he all but approves of eugenics.  Consider how Herbert Spenser (for whom Darwin expressed his admiration) disapproves of the state's use of resources to help the poor and handicapped.  To what principles might a committed materialist appeal in arguing against these fellow materialist?

Might those principles also be used by someone else (namely moi) to support theism?

I propose that they would: as soon as an atheist tries to build up an adequate account of morality, he starts supplying claims that serve as premises supporting the conclusion that there is a transcendent  and provident Supreme Being.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological...
Post a Comment
Read more

particular/universal event/rule

While listening to a recorded lecture on Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, it occurred to me that every rule is in a way, a fact about the world. Think about baseball: from the p.o.v. of an individual player, a baseball rule is not a thing but a guide for acting and interpreting the actions of others.  But this rule, like the action it guides, is part of a concrete individual --i.e., part of an institution that has come into existence at a particular place and time, has endured and  may eventually go out of existence.  The baseball rule, as a feature of that individual, is likewise individual.  The term "baseball rule," on the one hand, links us to a unique cultural event; it can, on the other hand, name a certain type of being.  In this way, it transgresses the boundary between proper and common noun. If there were no such overlap, then we might be tempted to divide our ontology between a bunch of facts "out there" and a bunch of common nouns "in here....
Post a Comment
Read more

continuing the discussion with Tim in a new post

Hi Tim, I am posting my reply here, because the great blogmeister won't let me put it all in a comment. Me thinks I get your point: is it that we can name and chimps can't, so therefore we are of greater value than chimps? Naming is something above and beyond what a chimp can do, right? In other words, you are illustrating the point I am making (if I catch your drift). My argument is only a sketch, but I think adding the ability to name names, as it were, is still not enough to make the argument seem cogent. For one can still ask why we prefer being able to name over other skills had by animals but not by humans. The objector would demand a more convincing reason. The answer I have in mind is, to put it briefly, that there is something infinite about human beings in comparison with the subhuman. That "something" has to do with our ability to think of the meaning of the cosmos. Whereas one might say"He's got the whole world in His han...
2 comments
Read more