Isn’t Richard Carrier Putting The Cart Before The Horse?
Posted in Atheism, Blogosphere, Books, Morality, Quickies, Science, The End of Christianity on | 2 minutes | 38 Comments →
So you might have heard that the Loftus put out a new book pompously titled, The End of Christianity, which includes a chapter from self-proclaimed infidel Richard Carrier, titled, Moral Facts Naturally Exist (and Science Could Find Them). Can we agree that this is an empirical claim? If so, can you imagine the consternation that might ensue if a reputable physics journal published a paper titled: The Higgs Boson Exists, And Science Could Find It?
Shouldn’t we demonstrate something before we bastardize science to say it exists? Granted, Carrier might be using “exists” abstractly, as in moral facts “exist” in a logical or philosophical sense. But, if that’s the case, he’s incorrect to say science can find them. And no, I haven’t read the chapter; that’s besides the point. I’m focusing exclusively on the misleading nature of the title here, so don’t try to flank me.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe moral facts exist, and though I think it would require some degree of revelation, I’m even open to the idea that science could find them. Or, more accurately, that science could demonstrate them. To find them implies to discover them via controlled, replicated experimentation, and that is precisely what I think science cannot do. To demonstrate them implies something more like a “proof” that any given moral proclamation is a fact.
I’m not disagreeing with Carrier in that moral facts exist. Rather, I’m suspicious as to why Carrier, Loftus and the rest of Team Scarlet A demand rigorous proof whenever a believer so much as claims to have wiped their bum in the morning, yet apparently feel free to publish and sell fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants arguments to the masses proclaiming that things exist before science finds them.
And Loftus says Victor Reppert is a science-basher!
Crude
says...I’ve had trouble taking Loftus seriously for a while – really, he strikes me as being to atheism what Jim Bakker was to Christianity – but seeing how Jesse Parrish dealt with the OTF, and Loftus’ increasingly desperate responses to those criticisms… I’m having trouble picturing him as anything other than a living caricature.
As for Carrier, I think that would be a great title for an ID inspired book. “God exists, and science can find Him.”
Garren
says...Time to read the chapter in the bookstore. Not paying for another Loftus anthology after the last one. Dude chewed me out for offering the friendly criticism that starting The Christian Delusion with flagrant question begging is only helpful in making sure open minded Christians stop reading.
Andrés Ruiz
says...I love the Loftus on that picture. Just about captures his entire essence.
Peter Hurford
says...I don’t think Carrier’s moral theory is actually fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants; or at least you definitely haven’t shown that.
That being said, it isn’t shocking to find people being inconsistent, especially when they get into debate and are bad at debating. Though I suspect that Carrier isn’t actually saying “Guys, I’ve found double-blinded experimental proof of moral facts”.
Matt
says...This is not the first time the pot’s called the kettle black in this department. Guys like Carrier and Sam Harris are essentially career counter-apologists. They came to their belief and now train and get qualifications in order to justify it and argue against people who disagree with them. Then they criticize apologists for being people who have come to their conclusions and do research to confirm them. I could not help but notice that both of these men were vocal atheists BEFORE they got their degrees. I guess we’re all just bias rationalization machines.
Peter Hurford
says...Your conclusion doesn’t follow validly from your premises there, for two reasons.
First, yeah, it’s interesting that some Christians get degrees and stay Christians and some atheists get degrees and stay atheists. But this doesn’t mean that *everyone* is a bias rationalization machine, because some people get degrees and then switch positions.
Second, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Christianity is true. This means that every Christian who gets a degree and stays Christian is not necessarily a bias rationalization machine, they just got lucky choosing the right position and then found out reasons why they were right and stuck to it. The same is true for the atheists if atheism is true.
Garren
says...Started reading the morality chapter in Barnes & Noble and decided to pick the thing up anyway so I can properly blog about it.
Ah well.
Ana
says...“Moral Facts Naturally Exist (and Science Could Find Them)”
So, they acknowledge that there are truths (e.g. the truth that moral facts exist) which can be known wholly apart from science.
I wonder if they include a chapter on what “scientific evidence” can be provided to believe that the human mind processes information that’s in correspondence to the ongoings of external reality …
Oh right, to try to provide any would be circular! (Any attempt to appeal to a fellow human being’s mind for corrobortation, and argue that ” I see a table in front of me, Bob sees a table in front of me, Kate sees a table in front of me, therefore there is a table in front of me”, presupposes that the mind corresponds to external reality, i.e. that Bob and Kate really exist, and they really see a table in front of you, etc.)
… If they don’t have a chapter on this, shouldn’t this be the first order of business?
Peter Hurford
says...@Ana:
Richard’s moral theory says that moral facts are scientific facts, so I don’t know where you’re getting the “wholly apart” thing from.
Richard Carrier actually writes a lot about this in his Epistemology chapters in Sense and Goodness Without God.
That being said, I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
cl
says...Crude,
Funny you should say that. Lately I’ve been thinking that it might be effective to start visually caricaturizing the New Atheists. I got on that same kick when I thought I was going to start a YouTube channel — actually, wait — I still am starting a YouTube channel! Anyways, either ways, the idea was, hit ’em with a little of their own schtick, only, with tact. So, instead of outright namecalling and libel, I’ll just post coy little pictures. Even if they don’t influence anybody, boy, what a way to get an uproarious laugh with only a few minutes of work…
Garren,
I won’t buy any of his books unless they’re used. The reasoning: 1) I don’t want to support anti-religious bigotry; 2) I don’t want to support atheist apologetics; 3) I don’t want to support people who silence dissenting opinions. I could go on for days but you get the point…
Peter,
I know, that’s why I said I was focusing on the implications of the title. I’ll comment on the chapter when I get a copy of the book. Although, it’s not hard to envision where he’ll try to go; I mean, how many options do you have when trying to sell someone on the idea that chance atomic interaction can produce abstract truth?
Like I said, it’s lose-lose either way. If that is what he meant, it’s obvious buffoonery. OTOH, if he simply meant to say that one can demonstrate the existence of empirical facts via sound deductive argument, well… no more whining about how science must be the measure of all things.
True, but Matt might not have intended that conclusion to be drawn exclusively from the sentence in question. One could read him as speaking sarcastically, in a “thumbing the nose” manner; or, one could read him matter of factly, in a “we really all are bias rationalization machines.” Personally, I think it’s true to one extent or another. I’m not gonna lie; I’m not immune. However, I don’t think it follows that because some people get degrees and then switch positions, that they still can’t be bias rationalizing machines. Changing positions does not necessarily affect bias; for, as we’ve seen with Luke Muehlhauser and countless other deconverts, the bias simply takes on a new expression.
Matt,
Well said.
Ana,
Science is but one tool in the shed.
Peter Hurford
says...@cl:
But you asked in your post “Shouldn’t we demonstrate something before we bastardize science to say it exists?”. This makes it sound like you wish Carrier put his entire moral theory into his title.
What did you want him to title his work?
A surprisingly large amount of options actually, there’s tons of secular moral theories out there as you know.
Also proofs that chance atomic interaction is capable of producing abstract truth is not in the realm of a moral theory, so don’t expect Carrier to address it. Though I wonder why you have this doubt; I certainly hope it isn’t an argument from intuition.
Frankly, I enjoy a lot of your other posts, but this one was needlessly picky. Ironically, I think you were the one putting the cart before the horse, critiquing the guy’s title before critiquing his work.
It’s like saying “You’re calling your book Kite Runner? Please, since when do you expect me to think reading about a guy playing with kites is going to be interesting.”
Peter Hurford
says...Sure, we’ll have to see what Matt says about it. But it sounds a lot like “no one is ever going to find truth in this religion issue; we’re all kidding ourselves; let’s just go back to bed”.
You’re right.
cl
says...Peter,
Well then I guess you don’t get it. No worries.
Peter Hurford
says...Very well. I’ll look forward to your critique of the actual chapter then.
Ana
says...Peter,
There is a difference between the existence and characteristic(s) of a ‘thing’ and the method by which the ‘thing’ is discovered. Whether or not moral truths are components of the natural world was not my point.
My point, based strictly on analyzing the title “Moral Facts Naturally Exist (and Science Could Find Them)”, was that the statement “moral facts naturally exist”, or more broadly “more facts exist”, has not — *on scientific grounds* —
been shown to be a true statement. Yet it is believed to be a true statement (which implies aknowledgement that the scientific method is
not the sole reliable means of discovering truth), and then it is asserted that “science could find [the moral facts]” which of course
implies it hasn’t yet found them. Which is why cl pointed out the cart coming before the horse.
In retrospect, I don’t think I should have made my comment about the human mind, simply because it wasn’t directly germane
to cl’s post. But for the purpose of clarification, my point was that if a book is aimed at undermining Christianity (or at least,
evangelical Christianity) and (implicitly or explicity) suggesting naturalism and/or science-is-the-sole-arbiter-of-truth-ism as
the rational alternative, then it is fitting (in terms of consistency, i.e. applying the science standard across the board) for the authors to address what scientific grounds exist for believing the human mind comport with reality.
Peter Hurford
says...@Ana:
And I think this is a really silly thing to do; make points based strictly on analyzing titles.
Of course not, because the title is not going to contain the entire moral theory. You’d have to read the chapter for that.
The chapter also doesn’t just assume moral facts exist, but actually is focused all about demonstrating the existence of moral facts.
Right. And of course the scientific method is not the sole reliable means of discovering truth, as Carrier does acknowledge in at least some of his works — this is why we have a historical method, for instance.
This makes sense now; thank you for explaining it. But if you read the actual chapter, what Carrier is proving is that moral facts are a type of scientific fact, discoverable by the scientific method.
It’s very similar to saying “Geological facts exist, and science could find them”.
Sure; that’s one of my complaints too — these are books that knock down Christianity, when I think they should make books that knock down Christianity *and* establish naturalism as a legitimate worldview.
This is why I like Sense and Goodness Without God better, because Carrier actually does spend time arguing how naturalism (which is *not* science-is-the-sole-arbiter-of-truth-ism) says the human mind comports with reality. If you don’t want to buy his book but are still curious, you can see my theory based on his theory and a few others in my essay “The Origin of Truth”.
Matt
says...Hi Peter,
I wasn’t trying to form an argument that theism is ultimately unknowable. While I do think that our brains are good at rationalizing our biases I think it is possible (but really freaking challenging) to form reasonable beliefs based on evidence, even on the God question. My comment was about how the methods of the infidels crowd (not atheists in general) look like that of apologists.
I was also thinking about this post I once read on Debunking Christianity:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/04/apologists-are-experts.html
” If 90% of the scholars agree with the position that favors Christianity, I would feel extremely confident that about 90% of the scholars came into the field as Christians. The opinion of such authorities, who began with the conclusion before considering the evidence, cannot be trusted simply because they are authorities. One simply cannot trust those with huge emotional investments to be objective on critical issues. ”
By this logic we should be very skeptical of what Richard Carrier and Sam Harris say because they came into their field as atheists with an axe to grind against Christianity.
Peter Hurford
says...Matt,
You’re right that I misunderstood you and perhaps even overreacted to what you said.
I agree with your position, but I don’t agree that “If 90% of the scholars agree with the position that favors Christianity, I would feel extremely confident that about 90% of the scholars came into the field as Christians” is true or even a good argument.
I do think that you can be skeptical of people with huge emotional investments, but you still shouldn’t dismiss them out of hand. I don’t think you do, however.
Richard Carrier and Sam Harris, despite being career and lifelong atheists, still do make good points now and then. On the flipside, so does Ed Feiser.
Matt
says...Peter,
I think we actually agree on this. I was not trying to say that Loftus’ quote was correct. I guess I didn’t make it clear enough that it was a quote taken from the link. I wish I knew how to do quotes in yellow blocks like cl does.
I also agree that Richard Carrier has some good points, I would love to see what Bayes Theorem does for history and I have not read enough of Sam Harris to form a good opinion on him. My only point was that the infidel group’s (or at least Loftus’) view that apologists are untrustworthy because they started out as Christians, if applied fairly, makes Carrier and Harris untrustworthy. I disagree with the Loftus quote to begin with.
Peter Hurford
says...Matt,
Sounds like we agree perfectly on this issue.
Use the
Peter Hurford
says...without the spaces makes for yellow quotes. I botched that above.
Peter Hurford
says...…err frig. Just read this.
Matt
says...Thanks Peter!
cl
says...Ana,
Nice explanation.
Peter,
That’s just it: I don’t give a rat’s ass about the theory, at least, not in this post. This post is not about Carrier’s theory, or morality. It’s about consistency across epistemological standards. I am mocking Carrier because, like the Loftus, there is no consistency across their epistemological standards.
I disagree. It’s actually very similar to saying, “God exists, and science could find God,” and you know that statement would get no love from Carrier, Loftus, or the rest of Team Scarlet A. Hence, my criticism that there is no consistency across epistemological standards. Further, no arbitrary proclamations are required to establish a geologic fact. On the other hand, without even reading Carrier’s chapter, I can tell you — for sure — that at some point, he had to make an arbitrary proclamation concerning moral facts. Have you read the chapter? At some point, I can guarantee you Richard defines a moral fact as X, where “X” = some arbitrary pronouncement ala the criticisms of Julia Galef and a long list of others. I’m guessing it’s another wishy-washy “whatever advances the well-being of sentient creatures” type of proclamation like Sam Harris’, but even that is to get off track: this post was about consistency across epistemological standards, and folks like Loftus and Carrier are utterly lacking in that regard. Especially Loftus.
Yeah, but the difference is that Feser entered into his journey as an atheist. He was not a lifelong believer. So, do you give Feser’s arguments more “baseline credit” than Loftus’ and Carrier’s? If not, why not? Might it be because Loftus’ claim can’t hold a raindrop?
Matt,
Like this. Give it a few test runs if you want; I can delete them.
And, by implication, this makes Ed Feser more trustworthy — if Loftus’ logic held water, which, of course, it doesn’t. Remember, this is the same joker who tells his congregation “we should accept positive evidence for that which we accept as true,” then turns around and declares without positive evidence that the Exodus never happened — all while ignoring the positive evidence consistent with the Exodus. And supposedly intellectual, “rational” atheists swallow this crap hook, line, and sinker. I lament.
cl
says...Peter,
Re: w3c links: excepting (a)theism, programmers tend to think alike, eh? ;)
Garren
says...I’m working on a post about this chapter. Meanwhile, Carrier isn’t claiming what it sounds like he’s claiming from the title.
He uses philosophy to reduce moral facts to things everyone already agrees are in science’s domain. He even has formal deductive arguments to prove his metaethics are necessarily true! (I will be disagreeing anyway.)
Garren
says...Ok, I’ve posted my summary of Carrier’s moral philosophy in this chapter (while ignoring his attack on Christianity). Tried for an accurate representation in this post, with all of my criticism to come later.
Crude
says...I remember some others going over Carrier’s chapter. I gotta admit, I’m not impressed at all now, and I wasn’t impressed then. But thanks for the summary.
InsultsOverTruth
says...And Jesus said “Praise me, praise me, praise my holy name. The rest is total bullshit. Amen”
InsultsOverTruth
says...Crude said “I’m not impressed at all”.
I’m sure Carrier is home crying over not getting Crude’s endorsement!
Crude
says...You think you’re kidding? “Richard Carrier crying his eyes out over flippant criticism from a relative nobody” is not exactly unheard of. He goes spastic at fellow atheists now and then for less.
But I love what’s implied there: That Richard Carrier is a man of fame and fortune, too high to care about what mere internet plebes think. Not, you know… basically a low-rent Loftus, who himself is a budget version of PZ Myers without the science degree, the following or the skill with theatrics.
Still, I’m sure he’s gratified you’re a fan. Throw some more money his way. ;)
cl
says...Thanks Garren. I went ahead and linked directly to your post, I hope you don’t mind. If you do let me know and I’ll disable it. I also added your blog to the blogroll, just so you know… it’d been a while since I updated that. I’m trying to give a shout out to all the blogs I frequent, atheist or not.
As I suspected, it seems Carrier simply parrots Sam Harris. I’m looking forward to your critique. I also intend to get this book, but I’m holding out for a used copy so I don’t support this irrational gaggle of self-proclaimed infidels.
Peter Hurford
says...@cl:
And I think that the actual theory resolves your complaint about consistency.
In your post, you said “Shouldn’t we demonstrate something before we bastardize science to say it exists? Granted, Carrier might be using ‘exists’ abstractly, as in moral facts ‘exist’ in a logical or philosophical sense. But, if that’s the case, he’s incorrect to say science can find them.”
Here’s what Carrier is doing: first, demonstrating that moral statements have a propositional meaning, as in they are statements capable of being true or false. Then, demonstrating that these moral statements are statements that are specifically testable scientifically; that we can find the truth-value with the scientific method.
Then I’ll continue to confess I don’t understand your criticism. There is nothing about the title “God exists, and science could find God” that is wrong, as long as the paper demonstrates that God exists and his existence is testable with the scientific method.
I imagine “Team Scarlet A” as you call them would definitely take offense at the paper as a whole because of an accusation of bad arguments (whether or not they are baseless is beside the point right now). But I can’t imagine anyone taking complaint at the title alone.
This is interesting because it plays right into the idea of morality I currently endorse: pluralistic moral reductionism. It starts with the idea that all words are essentially arbitrary, so we do need arbitrary proclamations to establish even a geologic fact: we need to define a certain process as “sedimentation” and certain things as “rocks”.
The word “good” is just like this. It can’t be a word with no definition, so it must refer to something. But what could it refer to? Just like asking “what could fuzzibuhwah refer to?”, the answer is anything; it’s arbitrary.
This means moral statements are handled like this: when Alice asks “is torture good?”, we must ask “what do you mean by good?” (and also, perhaps, “what do you mean by torture?”). Then Alice says “Oh, by good, I mean whatever advances the well-being of sentient creatures”. Then you can reply “I’m fairly certain that torture, in most to nearly all instances, does not advance the well-being of sentient creatures and therefore is not good”.
Of course, Johnny might also say “Oh, by good, I mean whatever is good for me; as in what I personally enjoy. And I definitely enjoy torture”. Then you would reply “Well, then, torture is definitely something you personally enjoy”. But just because it’s good under Johnny’s definition of good does not make it good under Alice’s definition of good, because they aren’t using the same definition.
That being said, Richard Carrier’s specific choice for “what do you mean by good?” is a lot more interesting; it isn’t the run-of-the-mill choices I’ve heard before, but actually what seems to be a reformulation of Virtue Ethics. Garren’s summary is a good one.
No, but I have read the paper he based his chapter on, which is in his book “Sense and Goodness Without God”.
I don’t give Feser’s arguments more baseline credit because he started as an atheist, and I don’t give Loftus more credit because he started as a Christian — I try my best to weigh the arguments they say alone.
It just so happens that quite a lot of Loftus’s claims hold no raindrops and a fair amount of Feser’s claims do. I suppose I can’t think of any career Christians that I like, however, whereas I do like Carrier and Harris. (As well as some “flippers” like LukeProg.)
InsultsOverTruth
says...Have any of you nutters ever thought about actually writing Carrier personally to allow him to respond to your juvenile questions?
Garren
says...Now I’ve posted some actual criticism.
@Insults
Already covered.
Solon
says...>>I’m not disagreeing with Carrier in that moral facts exist.
You should, but anyway Carrier is an embarrassment to atheism. Any atheist preaching morality is suspect. We are simply another bug on a rock in space for a brief period of time. It’s ludicrous to think ourselves any more “valuable” than cockroaches for any other reason than self-love of our species, which will disappear soon enough anyway. Carrier even claims atheism is a religious preference and should have all the benefits of that! That’s telling. Real atheists want no part of religion.
Carrier starts by stupidly confusing what we want with what we Ought to want, declares happiness to be the highest good (which is meaningless once you begin to cover whatever you want), then sneaks in a mystical claim of equal individual worth – which has its genealogical roots in Kant, who openly said it required God, and back to Christian mythology of divine souls – in order to overcome the obvious problem for his system of killing your enemies.
As an atheist, his preaching and bombastic righteousness is an embarrassment, and his writing is the most verbose and awful possible. Few can say so little in so many words.
cl
says...Hey there. I remember you from Carrier’s blog. Thanks for stopping by. I agree with all your criticisms. If I were an atheist, I’d fall more into the nihilist / error theorist / Camus vein, personally. It just seems to be the only honest, consistent way to be an atheist.
However, I must say, I’m a bit perplexed to see a normative claim in your comment denouncing objective morality… :)
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Solon,
Not just because an atheist has no cause to believe in moral truths but also because entrenching moralism was religion’s function. Yet there are far more atheistic moralists than there are nihilists, and the atheistic moralists can exceed theists in their moralizing. Worst of all, some atheist moralists don’t even understand that they are moralists: they sometimes think they’re “anti-realists.”