We do have a sense of justice. It's a normal part of being a human. Justice being carried out is not certain, but that doesn't make it not real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I'll brush up on my Blind Watchmaker and my Ken Miller Biology 101, but in the meantime, does anyone care to address the discussion of justice?

What exactly is the topic? The last few posts seemed to argue that God has to exist because if not, then the universe is not just. But clearly our need for justice does not make justice exist. Ergo, our need for justice does not prove the existence of God.

OP here. If you go back a few posts, I offered a version of your argument as unbelievers' "God is wishful thinking" position. I wanted to grant that, and put it aside for a moment.

Rather, I asked if I had my understanding of nonbelievers' position as materialists correct, and it seemed everyone agreed that I did. Which makes sense, because this is the dictionary definition:

"Materialism is a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter."

That being defined, I offered this problem:

"Humans seek justice (through the legal system, through their own work making the world a better place).

But there is great injustice in this life. (Despite our best efforts, evil does well and good suffers.)

So justice cannot be found in this life.

Either justice is found in something beyond this life, or justice is simply not met by reality.

One or the other, not both.

So perhaps our demand for justice is just a subjective quirk of the human psyche. There is no foundation in reality for our instinct to seek justice. No justification for that drive. Seeking justice is a subjective wish we may have, a personal preference, but not an objective reality."

Materialism says the universe is material objects with natural properties. Justice is none of these things. Therefore, it does not exist as objective reality.

And yet, good and evil, fair and unfair, right and wrong, are inescapably part of our human experience. Even the most cold-hearted materialist will yell "Hey! You cut me off! That's not right!" on the Beltway. So it is impossible to say that we have no sense of justice.

The last refuge is to say justice is something we create, something subjective, a personal preference, a feeling. But then it is still actually not real. It is a delusion. There is no supreme, objective standard. There just is what is. So any human act cannot really be evil. We may not like it, but there is no authoritative standard hovering out there.

Either this materialism is true, or it is false. If it is false, then it is a profound falsehood, a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be human. If there is more to a human being than his material, physical form, something immaterial, something which cannot be quantified by the material universe, then that is significant. Viktor Frankl, a famous Jewish psychologist, put it this way:

"If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as a mere project of heredity and environment, we see the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone...the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment--or..."of blood and soil."

Anonymous wrote:If by perfect justice you mean that people will be punished and rewarded in perfect measure in accordance with their deeds, then I do think you need God and an afterlife to get perfect justice.

So, I do not believe there is perfect justice. I do believe that actions can be just or unjust, as I believe in an external moral order. But without a belief in god I do not believe there is a perfect enforcement mechanism for those who behave unjustly.

What is this external moral order?

If by perfect justice you mean that people will be punished and rewarded in perfect measure in accordance with their deeds, then I do think you need God and an afterlife to get perfect justice.

So, I do not believe there is perfect justice. I do believe that actions can be just or unjust, as I believe in an external moral order. But without a belief in god I do not believe there is a perfect enforcement mechanism for those who behave unjustly.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I'll brush up on my Blind Watchmaker and my Ken Miller Biology 101, but in the meantime, does anyone care to address the discussion of justice?

What exactly is the topic? The last few posts seemed to argue that God has to exist because if not, then the universe is not just. But clearly our need for justice does not make justice exist. Ergo, our need for justice does not prove the existence of God.

OP here. I'll brush up on my Blind Watchmaker and my Ken Miller Biology 101, but in the meantime, does anyone care to address the discussion of justice?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your brain analogy is problematic. Random mutation is exactly how natural selection works. And the dame with neural networks. What you are missing is that if successful random changes propagate via a feedback loop then great things can come out of randomness.

and

You're talking in extremes, OP. The brain was not thrown together as a matter of chance. It was built by genetic code from billions of years of natural selection and evolution.

and

Billions of years of chances and natural selection is not the same as one roll of the dice. It's possible that dinosaurs would still rule the earth if there wasn't a single, random incident that killed them off.

and

This is not tough stuff people. There are high school students using genetic algorithms to solve problems. Lots of random changes to lots of algorithms and reward superior algorithms with the chance to propagate. Over millions of iterations, complex problems can be solved with no great design.

In this series of comments, randomness and chance are emphasized.

But there is also talk of systems, with rewards and punishments, success and failure.

Finally, there is an acknowledgement that even mere high school students can solve problems of chance. I assume those students have brains, with some intelligence in those brains, and they use those brains, and that intelligence, to discover the patterns and the solutions that emerge from randomness and chance?

No, a brain is not needed to discover any patterns that emerge in genetic algorithms or neural networks. That is the beauty of it. All you do is create an enviroment in which algorithms that are successful get to reproduce (in genetic algorithms) or neural pathways that solve problems get reinforced. There is no brainpower applied to the actual problem.

For those in doubt of the workings of evolution, please read up on experiments involving simpler life forms, such as bacteria. A scientist can basically mutate the genes with UV light. Then, he can watch the process of natural selection at work. This has been going on for a very long time. It's very basic. The bacteria that can adapt to the most environments will survive and pass on their hearty DNA. The ones that can't will die out. It's quite rational.

A UV light (radiation) usually disrupts the DNA and causes mutations. So, it can happen randomly or be induced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your brain analogy is problematic. Random mutation is exactly how natural selection works. And the dame with neural networks. What you are missing is that if successful random changes propagate via a feedback loop then great things can come out of randomness.

and

You're talking in extremes, OP. The brain was not thrown together as a matter of chance. It was built by genetic code from billions of years of natural selection and evolution.

So which one is it? Random chance, or not?

No one with even a passing familiarity with evolutionary theory (or a junior high school level "Life Sciences" course, for that matter) would ask this question. Sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your brain analogy is problematic. Random mutation is exactly how natural selection works. And the dame with neural networks. What you are missing is that if successful random changes propagate via a feedback loop then great things can come out of randomness.

and

You're talking in extremes, OP. The brain was not thrown together as a matter of chance. It was built by genetic code from billions of years of natural selection and evolution.

and

Billions of years of chances and natural selection is not the same as one roll of the dice. It's possible that dinosaurs would still rule the earth if there wasn't a single, random incident that killed them off.

and

This is not tough stuff people. There are high school students using genetic algorithms to solve problems. Lots of random changes to lots of algorithms and reward superior algorithms with the chance to propagate. Over millions of iterations, complex problems can be solved with no great design.

In this series of comments, randomness and chance are emphasized.

But there is also talk of systems, with rewards and punishments, success and failure.

Finally, there is an acknowledgement that even mere high school students can solve problems of chance. I assume those students have brains, with some intelligence in those brains, and they use those brains, and that intelligence, to discover the patterns and the solutions that emerge from randomness and chance?

This is the problem with not teaching evolutionary theory in primary schools. Not being snarky, I'm dead serious. This stuff is dead simple.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your brain analogy is problematic. Random mutation is exactly how natural selection works. And the dame with neural networks. What you are missing is that if successful random changes propagate via a feedback loop then great things can come out of randomness.

and

You're talking in extremes, OP. The brain was not thrown together as a matter of chance. It was built by genetic code from billions of years of natural selection and evolution.

So which one is it? Random chance, or not?

These two things (a series of random chances at the micro level provide some evolutionary advantage at the macro level)are reconciled neatly by evolutionary theory. If you're actually interested in getting educated in the topic (and it's fascinating, certainly more so than the scholasticism we're engaging in here), you should get a copy of this and read it:

http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703

It's a fantastic popular treatment of the subject.

Anonymous wrote:Your brain analogy is problematic. Random mutation is exactly how natural selection works. And the dame with neural networks. What you are missing is that if successful random changes propagate via a feedback loop then great things can come out of randomness.

and

You're talking in extremes, OP. The brain was not thrown together as a matter of chance. It was built by genetic code from billions of years of natural selection and evolution.

and

Billions of years of chances and natural selection is not the same as one roll of the dice. It's possible that dinosaurs would still rule the earth if there wasn't a single, random incident that killed them off.

and

This is not tough stuff people. There are high school students using genetic algorithms to solve problems. Lots of random changes to lots of algorithms and reward superior algorithms with the chance to propagate. Over millions of iterations, complex problems can be solved with no great design.

In this series of comments, randomness and chance are emphasized.

But there is also talk of systems, with rewards and punishments, success and failure.

Finally, there is an acknowledgement that even mere high school students can solve problems of chance. I assume those students have brains, with some intelligence in those brains, and they use those brains, and that intelligence, to discover the patterns and the solutions that emerge from randomness and chance?

This is not tough stuff people. There are high school students using genetic algorithms to solve problems. Lots of random changes to lots of algorithms and reward superior algorithms with the chance to propagate. Over millions of iterations, complex problems can be solved with no great design.

Are we back the the beginning of the universe chat again?

Billions of years of chances and natural selection is not the same as one roll of the dice. It's possible that dinosaurs would still rule the earth if there wasn't a single, random incident that killed them off.

Anonymous wrote:Your brain analogy is problematic. Random mutation is exactly how natural selection works. And the dame with neural networks. What you are missing is that if successful random changes propagate via a feedback loop then great things can come out of randomness.

and

You're talking in extremes, OP. The brain was not thrown together as a matter of chance. It was built by genetic code from billions of years of natural selection and evolution.

So which one is it? Random chance, or not?