Thanks for that interview (and thanks Brandon for those thoughtful questions).

So Doug, in your comments below you mentioned how it's beneficial for humans to recognise patterns - and you gave an example of recognising that sick people often spread their sicknesses. I just want to pick up on that notion of the benefit of recognising the pattern of something that's bad for us, and then presumably having the evolutionarily correct response, which is to avoid that thing.

I've read that in times of plagues in earlier European history, everyone would avoid the sick and they would be left to die because mingling with them meant a much higher chance of sickness and death. That would seem like the evolutionarily correct thing to do. But then come on the scene these crazy Christians who defy this survival mechanism, and they go along and tend to the sick by cleaning them and feeding them and providing for them in what way they can. Many Christians die as a result.

We don't usually think, "those Christians were a bunch of bloody fools. They did the stupid thing". We usually think "wow. That's a heroic display of selflessness in the face of adversity." We see beauty in the act of loving others even in such a foolish and certainly such a radical manner, a beauty motivated by this ideal that "love is stronger than death".

How is it that an evolutionarily stupid and foolish act (that has the real potential of wiping out an entire people) can also be beautiful? Is it that our notions of "heroic" and "beautiful" are warped and disfigured by our religious beliefs, or could it be that the natural world takes you only so far but then one can transcend the natural world by using a belief such as 'love is stronger than death' as their diving board? (or is there some other explanation?)

And so we come back to the fact that we are both using valid definitions of the term and therefore talking past each on this point.

I agree with the part about talking past each other.

It is apparent to me, after exchanging several posts with you, that you and I are using quite a few words differently.

This is the only one I've noticed. But we can make the corrections as we go along.

That is not the Merriam-Webster definition. It is a Merriam-Webster definition, and it is not a complete definition, but only a summary statement. Here is the complete entry from Merriam-Webster's website:

It is a valid definition, however. And I'm only pointing out that we are using the word differently and perhaps misunderstanding each other on this point.

I have read no work by any scientist who agrees that science is a subset of logic. I assume you are not a scientist. Let me suggest an analogy. Suppose a Protestant tells me, "Catholics worship the virgin Mary." If several Catholics tell me, "No, we don't worship the virgin Mary, we worship only God," whom do you think I should believe?

I think you should believe Catholics.

But your analogy is flawed. Protestants lie when they claim that Catholics worship the Virgin Mary. It simply is not true.

But I am not lying when I use my VALID definition of the term "logic". I have provided the definition from a dictionary and that is a well known authority on the meaning of words.

This anonymous person on the internet uses the terms the same way as I do:

Rader's Biology4Kids.com

The scientific method is a rational, logical thought process that is used to figure out facts and truths. All of the answers must be able to be proved.

If he can describe the scientific method as "logical", then he considers the scientific method as a subset of some group which he considers logical systems.

And so we come back to the fact that we are both using valid definitions of the term and therefore talking past each on this point.

I think we may be using the word "logic" differently.

It is apparent to me, after exchanging several posts with you, that you and I are using quite a few words differently.

I use the Merriam-Webster definition:

: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something

That is not the Merriam-Webster definition. It is a Merriam-Webster definition, and it is not a complete definition, but only a summary statement. Here is the complete entry from Merriam-Webster's website:

log·ic noun ˈlä-jik

: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something

: a particular way of thinking about something

: the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning

Full Definition of LOGIC
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic [modal logic] [Boolean logic] (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge

b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety

c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable

d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves

2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason [the logic of war]

I see the scientific method as a subset.

I have read no work by any scientist who agrees that science is a subset of logic. I assume you are not a scientist. Let me suggest an analogy. Suppose a Protestant tells me, "Catholics worship the virgin Mary." If several Catholics tell me, "No, we don't worship the virgin Mary, we worship only God," whom do you think I should believe?

I believe it is absolutely reliable when used properly. Like any other tool, it can be misused.

Agreed.

I don't believe "compare" is the right term to use. There are many components making up the scientific method, and logic is one of them.

My workshop includes a table saw. I might compare my workshop with someone else's shop, or I might compare my table saw with his table saw, but I don't compare my table saw with my workshop.

That non-comparison sounded very much like a comparison.

I think we may be using the word "logic" differently.

I use the Merriam-Webster definition:

: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something

I see the scientific method as a subset. It is one, particular, way of understanding things.

I regard logic as a tool of thinking rather than as a way of thinking.

Do you consider it reliable in all contexts?

I believe it is absolutely reliable when used properly. Like any other tool, it can be misused.

Do you consider it reliable in all contexts?

Similarly, how do you compare it to the scientific method? Which do you consider superior in all contexts?

As for me, I consider the scientific method a subset of logic.

In my opinion, logic is a way of thinking that is reliable in all contexts.

I regard logic as a tool of thinking rather than as a way of thinking.

In my opinion, logic is a way of thinking that is reliable in all contexts. Science (i.e. the scientific method, the idea that results must be reproduced independently in order to be acceptable) is a logical methodology which cannot be applied in all contexts. In other contexts, other logical methodologies can be used. Such as the philosophical methods of St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle.

Have you ever read "De Moralitate Atheorum" by Mike Flynn? It's an argument in 'sed contra' format on morality and atheism.

I had not. But I found it and much enjoyed reading it. He makes a lot of good points.

I think the argument is more compelling if it phrased in terms of "morality versus materialism" though. For how can a materialist even begin to describe what "should" and "shouldn't" even mean? Do you agree?

Not entirely.

Insofar as Flynn presupposes an identity between atheism and materialism, I don't agree at all. Of course a materialist must be an atheist, but the converse does not hold. There is no inconsistency between denying God's existence and affirming the existence of an objective morality. Or at least, there is no necessary inconsistency. It is possible, of course, that one's reasons for rejecting theism would also, if consistently applied, lead one to reject the existence of objective moral principles. But atheism per se does not commit one to any particular ontological framework. By itself, atheism says nothing more than that, of all the things that could exist or probably exist, God is not one.

I am not aware of any reliable polling data, but I suspect that most atheists are, as a matter of contingent fact, materialists. And, I do reject the existence of objective morality, not because I am an atheist but because I am a materialist.

Must I then deny that words such as "should" or "shouldn't" are meaningful? I don't see why. The meaning of any word is established by usage, not by any authority's fiat. Those words do mean something, even when atheists or materialists use them, and even if precise definitions are difficult to articulate.

Flynn quotes Rorty: "For liberal ironists, there is no answer to the question 'Why not be cruel?'" What little I have read of Rorty's work was not about liberal irony, and I have no idea what he means by it or whether he would think I am a liberal ironist. But I do have an answer to that question, and I really don't care whether Rorty would consider it an acceptable answer.

I cannot adequately defend that answer in the space of a forum post, but my ethical philosophy begins with the observation that we are a social species. We don't live in communities just because we like to, but because we must. With exceptions too rare to be relevant, we cannot survive long living in solitude. Necessity aside, communal life does have advantages, more or less obvious, over solitary life. But there is no free lunch. One of the costs of communal life is the occasional need to subordinate one's immediate personal interests to the interests of the community, because if those interests are not adequately served, then the community does not survive as a community, and if the community does not survive, then neither do its members.

There must be rules, agreed upon by the community in general (not necessarily unanimously), specifying the situations in which that subordination must occur and the means by which the community may respond to noncompliance with its rules. Such rules are called nowadays by various names depending on the contexts in which they may be applied: laws, moral principles, codes of etiquette, etc.

The particulars of the rules are less important than their existence. The diversity of human cultures is testimony to the extent of possible variation in the rules. The nonexistence of any genuine anarchy is likewise testimony to the necessity of enforceable rules of some kind.

From this perspective, then, I would argue that the real basis of any morality is just our own survival. Someone will then ask: Why should we care whether we survive? I reply: We do care, and we're not going to stop caring, no matter whether or not there is any sense in which we should care. Our survival instinct is just a brute fact. We will do what we must in order to keep ourselves alive as long as we can. Any proposed moral code that was inconsistent with human survival, if it could be implemented in some community, would be rendered moot by its very implementation, because that community would cease to exist.