Utopianism

Nobody thinks, "All my actions were determined at the big bang, so I will go and rob that bank or rape that woman."

The philosopher/author Bakker says that after he gave a class on materialism/neuro-determinism one of his students did in fact rob a bank for precisely the reason you gave.

And after the gang-rapes in India there were people who said men were biologically determined to have these overwhelming urges.

Are there people who've claimed you should commit suicide and get to Heaven on any mass scale?
 
If a skilled driver decides to drive a perfectly functioning car in a reckless manner and kills someone, the fault lies with them. If they are driving a malfunctioning vehicle to the best of their ability, it does not. If that's the exception you're talking about, then I'd make that exception.

Cheers,
Bill

Right. Now how do you make the distinction between the two?
 
The philosopher/author Bakker says that after he gave a class on materialism/neuro-determinism one of his students did in fact rob a bank for precisely the reason you gave.

And after the gang-rapes in India there were people who said men were biologically determined to have these overwhelming urges.

Are there people who've claimed you should commit suicide and get to Heaven on any mass scale?

I'm only talking about determinism, but you're talking about the whole neo-Darwinist scientific materialist package. Other parts of this package may be highly motivating, but I don't think the belief that our actions are determined at the big bang is.

When the guy is about to rob the bank he may well be thinking, "Life is a struggle for survival and we've all got to do whatever we can to survive and so I'm going to rob this bank" or "Morality is an illusion or a fiction so I can do whatever I want and so I'm going to rob this bank" or "I know robbing this bank is wrong but I need to do it to feed my family" or "This unjust capitalist system has screwed me so I'm justified in robbing this bank" or a million other things. But I'm pretty sure he won't be thinking, "My actions were determined at the big bang and I don't make free choices." AFTERWARDS, and especially in court or whatever, he may say that, but I'm looking at what he's thinking BEFORE and DURING the act.
 
Nobody thinks, "All my actions were determined at the big bang, so I will go and rob that bank or rape that woman." Yes, people may sometimes appeal to determinism AFTER they've done it, but that's a different point. What I'm talking about is moral motivation.

Actually, there are several studies that demonstrate people are more likely to behave unethically if they are convinced determinism is true. I posted some of them on a thread here a while back.

Here, although it was only one demonstrating unethical behaviour and one demonstrating increased aggression and reduced helpfulness. Though I do remember that I found one or two others. Looks like I didn't post them though.
 
Last edited:
If immaterialism doesn't lead to immoral action, why can't we replace JREF-type pseudoskepticism & materialist evangelism with legitimate skepticism?

Of course I've yet to hear a good answer for the point of the current skeptical movement and its varied subsets - New Atheism, JREF, CSICOP, etc.

That link (bolded) takes us to your own utopian (completely unrealistic) personal view of what skepticism should be. Do you see that what is considered "legitimate" is totally subjective? So what "answer" are you looking for? This appears to be you, once again, asking, "why doesn't everyone else think like me?"

How does the paradigm in question preserve notions like integrity and moral responsibility?

How does any paradigm do that?
 
Last edited:
Actually, there are several studies that demonstrate people are more likely to behave unethically if they are convinced determinism is true. I posted some of them on a thread here a while back.

Here, although it was only one demonstrating unethical behaviour and one demonstrating increased aggression and reduced helpfulness. Though I do remember that I found one or two others. Looks like I didn't post them though.

This is all a bit off-topic anyway, but I guess it's my fault for suggesting that belief in a wonderful afterlife for everyone is potentially dangerous.

In response to the scientific evidence about ethical behaviour and belief in determinism, I would make a couple of points:

1. Even if people SAY in an interview room or in philosophy class that they don't believe in free will, I think that in the real world almost everybody does. We praise and blame ourselves and others and treat ourselves and others as moral agents making free choices.

2. The people who say they don't believe in free will may also be more likely to be scientific materialists or atheists, and it may be some other part of these world views that's making them behave badly and not the part about determinism.

But let's say that you are right and that some people really do believe in determinism and this makes them behave badly in various ways. I'm perfectly fine with that. I still think that belief in a wonderful afterlife for everybody no matter what they do in this life could be very dangerous and could screw up many of our intuitions about the wrongness of killing and the badness of death. It's not an either-or thing. Maybe both beliefs are bad for ethics as traditionally understood.
 
I've just looked through two of the papers on free will and ethics, and the two points I made above are pretty much irrelevant. The point that Sciborg and others are making is that a culture with messages everywhere telling us about the truth of determinism may well have more cheating behaviour and aggression than the same culture without such messages. This is a fair point, but it's very difficult to know what to do about it.

In any case, it's all a bit off-topic. My criticisms of Long still stand.
 
Last edited:
That link (bolded) takes us to your own utopian (completely unrealistic) personal view of what skepticism should be. Do you see that what is considered "legitimate" is totally subjective? So what "answer" are you looking for?

Which part is unrealistic? As for legitimacy, I would think a movement that draws fire from people of similar faith, has someone as shady as Randi as a leader, and causes the founder of CSICOP to quit in disgust might have its legitimacy questioned.

This appears to be you, once again, asking, "why doesn't everyone else think like me?"

Seems to me materialist evangelists are demanding everyone think like them. I'm just noting that their religion should stop utilizing shaming tactics and dishonesty when doing missionary work.

How does any paradigm do that?[

Not every paradigm allows gang rapists and bank robbers to pass the buck to the Big Bang.

eta:

In any case, it's all a bit off-topic. My criticisms of Long still stand.

Is there any data showing ideas like the ones Long proclaims about the afterlife actually cause mass suicide? It seems to me the idea of a blissful afterlife has been around for millennia.
 
Which part is unrealistic? As for legitimacy, I would think a movement that draws fire from people of similar faith, has someone as shady as Randi as a leader, and causes the founder of CSICOP to quit in disgust might have its legitimacy questioned.



Seems to me materialist evangelists are demanding everyone think like them. I'm just noting that their religion should stop utilising shaming tactics and dishonesty when doing missionary work.

I love the fact that the absolute worst thing you can say about materialism is that it is a religion. Delicious. :)



Not every paradigm allows gang rapists and bank robbers to pass the buck to the Big Bang.

eta:



Is there any data showing ideas like the ones Long proclaims about the afterlife actually cause mass suicide? It seems to me the idea of a blissful afterlife has been around for millennia.

I suppose this is where we always end up: A paradigm that you consider is disinterested in atrocities, set against countless atrocities actively carried out in the name of a paradigm.
 
That link (bolded) takes us to your own utopian (completely unrealistic) personal view of what skepticism should be. Do you see that what is considered "legitimate" is totally subjective? So what "answer" are you looking for? This appears to be you, once again, asking, "why doesn't everyone else think like me?"



How does any paradigm do that?
You think CSICOP's skepticism is good skepticism?
 
Right. Now how do you make the distinction between the two?
Who is making the distinction, and for what purpose? I was just giving an analogy to illustrate brain filtered consciousness vs. brain produced consciousness.

Cheers,
Bill
 
The idea that a deterministic worldview leads to bad behavior brings up an interesting hypothetical question. If it were discovered that determinism (in the sense of a lack of free will) is true, and that widespread knowledge of that fact would cause a significant increase in crime, etc., should the discoverers keep their knowledge to themselves? Truth or consequences?:)

Pat
 
Who is making the distinction, and for what purpose? I was just giving an analogy to illustrate brain filtered consciousness vs. brain produced consciousness.

Cheers,
Bill

Can you give a real world example of your analogy? I think that would be helpful.
 
I love the fact that the absolute worst thing you can say about materialism is that it is a religion. Delicious. :)

I thought you were going to point out why my ideas for a legitimate skeptical movement were unrealistic?

In any case it's not an insult, just a fact. As Tart notes people like to think of their beliefs as the objective truth and everything else is faith-based.

However once a person realizes that materialism is a religion, with all the attendant problems, one can see that many actions supposedly meant to protect & enlighten the masses are plausibly more about shoring up the line against unbelievers.

I suppose this is where we always end up: A paradigm that you consider is disinterested in atrocities, set against countless atrocities actively carried out in the name of a paradigm.

False Dilemma, given materialism has many atrocities carried out in its name and one doesn't have to choose between materialist fundamentalism and the fundamentalism of other religions.

Of course, without this false dilemma the raison d'etre for the skeptical movement as it currently exists begins to look ever more dubious.
 
I thought you were going to point out why my ideas for a legitimate skeptical movement were unrealistic?

Just read your points. They're on the whole not within the power of a grass roots skeptical movement. Some would require UN level policies!

In any case it's not an insult, just a fact. As Tart notes people like to think of their beliefs as the objective truth and everything else is faith-based.

However once a person realises that materialism is a religion, with all the attendant problems, one can see that many actions supposedly meant to protect & enlighten the masses are plausibly more about shoring up the line against unbelievers.

If you say so. Other opinions are available...



False Dilemma, given materialism has many atrocities carried out in its name and one doesn't have to choose between materialist fundamentalism and the fundamentalism of other religions.

You weren't talking about materialist fundamentalism, you were talking about materialism. Nice goalpost shift!

Of course, without this false dilemma the raison d'être for the skeptical movement as it currently exists begins to look ever more dubious.

You can't have it both ways. If materialism is indifferent to atrocities (your POV), you can't commit them in the name of materialism.

Can you give me an example of an atrocity committed "in the name of materialism"? That is where a perpetrator could call out "for materialism" in the same way as a terrorist might call out "for Allah!"
 
The idea that a deterministic worldview leads to bad behavior brings up an interesting hypothetical question. If it were discovered that determinism (in the sense of a lack of free will) is true, and that widespread knowledge of that fact would cause a significant increase in crime, etc., should the discoverers keep their knowledge to themselves? Truth or consequences?:)

Pat

Yeah, and this reminds of something. Apparently some utilitarians have suggested that the truth of utilitarianism should be kept from the masses, since only elite philosophers can handle this truth. I guess the idea is that, if the 'truth' of utilitarianism were widely known, then you'd have chaos with gangs of people trying to kill one person and take their organs in order to save the lives of five people and so on. Here's the famous passage by Henry Sidgwick on this point:

Thus, the Utilitarian conclusion, carefully stated, would seem to be this; that the opinion that secrecy may render an action right which would not otherwise be so should itself be kept comparatively secret; and similarly it seems expedient that the doctrine that esoteric morality is expedient should itself be kept esoteric. Or, if this concealment be difficult to maintain, it may be desirable that Common Sense should repudiate the doctrines which it is expedient to confine to an enlightened few. And thus a Utilitarian may reasonably desire, on Utilitarian principles, that some of his conclusions should be rejected by mankind generally; or even that the vulgar should keep aloof from his system as a whole, in so far as the inevitable indefiniteness and complexity of its calculations render it likely to lead to bad results in their hands.
 
Last edited:
Is there any data showing ideas like the ones Long proclaims about the afterlife actually cause mass suicide? It seems to me the idea of a blissful afterlife has been around for millennia.

But notice that Long thinks there will be a wonderful afterlife for everybody no matter what they do in this life. I know some Christian groups and others have believed something like this, but I'm pretty sure it's always been a minority position. You've also got to remember, though, that these groups didn't KNOW this in the way that we would KNOW it if it were to become a scientifically established fact. So even if the people in these groups did behave well, that could just be because deep down they didn't really believe it, and it was really more hope and wishful thinking than anything else.
 
But to get back to the main topic of utopianism, I have to admit that I don't really know what Long means by a 'wonderful' afterlife. Perhaps he is using the word 'wonderful' in the way we sometimes describe this as a wonderful world, despite all the suffering and injustice. Perhaps when he said he's certain that there's a wonderful afterlife waiting for all of us, he didn't mean that this afterlife won't have any injustice or suffering. If that's the case, then my charge of utopianism is probably a bit unfair, but I still think he's going way beyond the data here.
 
Just read your points. They're on the whole not within the power of a grass roots skeptical movement. Some would require UN level policies!

Advocating for something isn't the same thing as enforcing it on one's own.

You weren't talking about materialist fundamentalism, you were talking about materialism. Nice goalpost shift!

?

You can't have it both ways. If materialism is indifferent to atrocities (your POV), you can't commit them in the name of materialism.

Sorry, perhaps instead of "in the name" I should say, "as a result of the ethos" though I suppose we'd disagree on whether materialism was the overriding factor.

Can you give me an example of an atrocity committed "in the name of materialism"? That is where a perpetrator could call out "for materialism" in the same way as a terrorist might call out "for Allah!"

If the criteria is so narrow - and IMO shortsighted - then no I cannot find any such attrocities.
 
Back
Top