You just gotta love the guy. He treated the culture war with as much respect and dignity as it deserves, which to John meant absolute scathing irreverence and mockery.

Goodbye, John.

"Thank you for allowing me to instigate all of you into so freely exposing your monumental ignorance, your bigotry and your "prescribed," "born that way," congenital "groupthink" mentalities for all to see and savor. The pleasure has been mine, all mine.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!"

-JAD

[Obituary.]

•This ancestral mechanism diverged into the six modern mechanisms.

•The divergences in mechanisms relate to key branching events in evolutionary development.

•The ancestral mechanism was robust, redundant, multi-layered, and poised to exploit future environmental changes such as increased oxygen levels.

Viewed under the mindset of abiogenesis, biologists see the picture of early life as klunky, unrefined and highly unstable. As researcher Eric Smith says, "It seems likely that the earliest cells were rickety assemblies whose parts were constantly malfunctioning and breaking down".

But if we instead view this under the mindset of design, we actually see some very ingenious design principles at work. Mainly, this is an amazingly adaptive system. Check it out:

•Redundancy – one system breaks down, another is there to do the job.
•Multi-layered – several different mechanisms in play simultaneously.
•Support for future contingencies – ie: designed for anaerobic environment but ready to exploit an aerobic environment.

This was a robust system that was prepared to adapt to many environmental variables. Not only would this system facilitate future evolutionary divergence, and novel processes like photosynthesis, but it also seems geared to support protein based biology.

It was a major stroke of luck for dirt to accomplish this all by itself.

Engineers, however, will recognize this as just good, sensible, intelligent design.

Scientists are no different from most people. Dangle big wads of cash or prestige in front of them and they'll do just about anything to get it. Here's some key quotes:

During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 "landmark" publications — papers in top journals, from reputable labs — for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development.

Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated.

Note this is not a random sampling. It represents what the head of Amgen research thought was "the best of the best" in cancer research.

Scientists at Bayer did not have much more success. In a 2011 paper titled, "Believe it or not," they analyzed in-house projects that built on "exciting published data" from basic science studies. "Often, key data could not be reproduced,"…Of 47 cancer projects at Bayer during 2011, less than one-quarter could reproduce previously reported findings, despite the efforts of three or four scientists working full time for up to a year.

You know, when supposed cold-fusion experiments turn out to not be replicable it usually means public disgrace. Why is there no disgrace in cancer research, especially when the public is pouring money into the enterprise?

Bayer and Amgen found that the prestige of a journal was no guarantee a paper would be solid.

Apparently upwards of 75% of the time in some fields. So much for peer review.

"We went through the paper line by line, figure by figure," said Begley. "I explained that we re-did their experiment 50 times and never got their result. He said they'd done it six times and got this result once, but put it in the paper because it made the best story. It's very disillusioning."

Mmmm. Smell the hubris.

On Tuesday, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences heard testimony that the number of scientific papers that had to be retracted increased more than tenfold over the last decade; the number of journal articles published rose only 44 percent. Ferric Fang of the University of Washington, speaking to the panel, said he blamed a hypercompetitive academic environment that fosters poor science and even fraud, as too many researchers compete for diminishing funding.

This needs no commentary. I just wanted to say "Ferric Fang" is one of the coolest names ever. Iron Tooth! Awesome.

"If you can write it up and get it published you're not even thinking of reproducibility," said Ken Kaitin, director of the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. "You make an observation and move on. There is no incentive to find out it was wrong."

Science without testing and falsification is not science. It's just observation and hypothesis – also known as speculation. Karl Popper went as far as to call it pseudoscience. Now we have an entire scientific enterprise that is taking your tax money and your donations not for research, but to speculate.

Some public disgrace should be in order.

We often hear talk of scientists claiming that evolution is a purposeless process. Some claim that purpose is an illusion because of evolution by natural selection. For example, Professor Larry Moran, a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto has this to say:

“One of the most astonishing discoveries of modern science is that the universe does not exhibit any signs of "purpose" or "goals." This single conclusion is probably more responsible for the profound conflict between science and religion than any other. The attractiveness of religion was that it seemed to answer the "why" questions that science, presumably, could not answer. Now, modern science tells us that the question was meaningless.”

He goes on to cite two other scientists, Douglas Futuyma and Richard Dawkins, who share the same views regarding purpose and evolution. Professor Moran also argues that this view comes naturally to many evolutionary biologists. This may very well be true for the majority of evolutionary biologists.

The question of whether there is purpose or not is of course not something that can be solved with empirical science. There is no experiment to test whether there is or isn’t purpose. Scientists do not qualitatively or quantitatively measure whether there is purpose. They don’t look through a microscope or use some other instrument and conclude that there is no evidence of purpose within a 99% interval of certainty. In other words, the question regarding whether there is or isn’t purpose is irrelevant to the empirical and real sciences. Professor Moran is right on this, the question of purpose is meaningless to empirical science. Empirical science does not deal with the question of purpose.

The question of purpose is for the logical and rational sciences. You guessed it, it is ultimately a metaphysical issue. Aristotle was one of the first to provide a full treatment of the concept of purpose. Later, scholars such as Aquinas built upon his ideas. For Aristotle, the purpose of something is identified with its natural ends or final causes. Teleology is the view that natural ends are natural phenomena and intrinsic to natural substances. Aristotelian teleology can be distilled to its simplest form as “every agent acts towards an end”.

I will use three simple examples to explain what this means. Firstly, an example of two electrons being repelled. Secondly, the role helicase proteins play in replication. Lastly, the example of gravity.

For electrons, simply put, the natural ends of electrons are;

1) The generation of an electric field.

2) The generation of an electrostatic potential.

3) The generation of a magnetic field.

4) The generation of a vector potential.

What happens with two interacting electrons is that each electron generates an electric field (among other natural ends). These fields interact and generate a force. This force results in the movement of the electrons away from each other. The electrons, interacting electric fields and forces all have natural ends and these include the generation of electric field, generation of force and generation of movement respectively.

Helicases are known to be ring-shaped (typically hexamers) motor proteins. DNA replication occurs at about 1000 base pairs per second. In the cell, DNA forms a double helix. However, during DNA replication in a cell helicases unwind DNA. They unwind DNA at about the same speed that DNA replication occurs. Helicase is the blue, round protein unwinding the DNA in red in this video (at around 2:00-2:30 mins). Simply put, the natural end of helicase is to unwind DNA.

Gravity is a force that causes objects of mass to attract each other with a force proportional to their mass. Therefore, it simply follows that the natural end of gravity is to attract objects of mass with a force proportional to their mass. We may not know much about the mechanisms of gravity. There are various theories in loop quantum theory or M-theory etc. This however, does not take away what we know about gravity's natural ends.

Aristotelian teleology is a simple concept to grasp. Importantly, it should not be confused with Paley's or the IDers' "complexity" arguments for design. Richard Dawkins is an example of someone that mistakenly confuses Aristotelian teleology for Paley's views on design. In his book "River out of Eden", he writes:

"Notoriously, of course, the apparent purposefulness of living bodies has dominated the classic Argument from Design, invoked by theologians from Aquinas to William Paley to modern "scientific" creationists."

In his book, "The God Delusion" Dawkins also deals with Aquinas' teleological argument. Dawkins does not appear to be aware of the simple fact that the fifth way has NOTHING to do with Paley's watchmaker analogy or ID. Dawkins completely misses this and tears down a straw man. So to be sure, Aristotelian teleology and design arguments from complexity are very different and one should NOT be confused with thinking they are the same.

As it turns out, even Darwin was a teleologist. Darwin had good things to say about Aristotle. From Allan Gotthelf's article "Darwin on Aristotle": Darwin in a letter to William Ogle:

"Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods, though in very different ways, but they were mere schoolboys to old Aristotle."

The reason why Darwin was a teleologist is associated with his view of natural selection. Darwin's idea of natural selection preserves elements of Aristotle's teleology. Professor Andre Ariew points out (in his article "Platonic and Aristotelian Roots of Teleological Arguments in Cosmology and Biology") that:

“How is natural selection a teleological "force"? I see remnants of two sorts of teleology operating in Darwin. The key to seeing both is within Darwin’s concept of natural selection which can be summed up as follows: as a result of individuals possessing different heritable abilities striving to survive and reproduce in local environments, comes an explanation for changes in trait composition of populations through time. Traits become prevalent in populations because they are useful to organisms in their struggle to survive. Aristotle's functional teleology is preserved through the idea that an item's existence can be explained in terms of its usefulness (Lennox 1993). What makes a trait useful is that it provides certain individuals an advantage over others in their own struggle to survive and reproduce. Secondly, the concept of individual striving to survive and reproduce plays the fundamental role in Darwin's explanation for the origins of organic diversity. The same concept reminds us of Aristotle's formal teleology – the striving for self-preservation.”

The natural ends of natural selection are just to "maximize reproductive success in particular environmental niches".  Alternatively, it "maintains” the prevalence of beneficial mutations. On the other hand, it "limits" or "favours" some variations over other variations. Natural selection may "steer" biological change toward the local maxima in the "fitness landscape". So it turns out even natural selection has a natural end if we accept that it is a real cause and force of evolution and not merely a descriptive term.

Professor John O. Reiss also notes that the fitness landscape metaphor has teleological implications. Implicit in the fitness landscape metaphor is the view that natural selection acts "as a force driving the population toward this improved future state". If evolution is anything close to the metaphor then the process is fundamentally teleological. The natural end of evolution, if the fitness landscape was not metaphorical, would then be improved future states.

Where then is the purposelessness of evolution? Perhaps it is associated with random variation. As it turns out, the random part in random variation is not really random when it comes to mutations. Professor Dan Graur writes in his article “Single-base Mutation” in Encyclopedia of Life Sciences that mutations do not occur randomly throughout the genome and the direction of mutation is not random. The only way variation is seen as random is that it is random in respect to the effect variation has on fitness.

The major problem with this is that the precise meaning of fitness has not been settled. There is still a major debate about what exactly fitness is supposed to mean (see this post for more on this issue).

John O. Reiss also makes the following interesting remark:

“The rigor of this approach, however, is lessened because there is as yet no universally agreed upon measure of fitness; fitness is either defined metaphorically, or defined only relative to the particular model or system used. It is fair to say that due to this lack, there is still no real agreement on what exactly the process of natural selection is. This is clearly a problem.”

Without a proper definition of fitness, we can’t really say what natural selection is. Also, without a proper definition of fitness we can’t really make any sense of how variation can be random relative to fitness in the first place. Still, some evolutionary biologists would like to see evolution as "random, purposeless variation acted on by blind, purposeless natural selection". Stephen L. Talbott in his article Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness makes this point much more forcefully.

Yet, on a macro level, we observe the natural ends of organisms. Eating, breathing, mating etc. are all natural ends of living organisms. On a molecular level, the wonderful natural ends of molecular machines and even simple chemical reactions are all there. Moving to ever-smaller things we also see elementary particles acting for an end e.g. generation of fields, forces electrostatic potentials etc.

However, as Stephen Talbott point out, we are to believe that all these natural ends and evolution are apparently because of more basic processes that are essentially random, purposeless or without any natural ends. The question is where are these purposeless and random processes? Which gap do they fit in? What are these assertions based on? They certainly are not based on any empirical science and it looks like a "purposelessness of the gaps" kind of argument.

Among his various "cures" for the planet's fever are:

1) A "meat patch" that makes you puke when you eat meat.
2) Hormones that stunt your children's growth.
3) Drugs that make you want to write checks.
4) Genetically engineering humans with "cat eyes" so we don't need light bulbs.

Of course, Matthew assures us that no one will be forced to do any of these things. The government will simply set limits to how much carbon your family can produce or set drastic limits on consumption. Then you get all the freedom you need to decide whether you want to have 2 really small children, or one medium sized child, or perhaps one large child who will be required to wear a "meat patch".

Progressivism! Enhancing your freedom – by limiting your freedom!

No, it's not a joke.

"Isn't it about time someone created a junk yard dog style outfit like Eugenie Scott's racket, except on the other side, to be a continuous hammer on the heads of the Darwinista liars, deceivers, and disinformationists with respect to public schools?

I say yes."

I respond: What possible good could come from that?

Kornbelt, you might just as well start a watchdog organization that debunks and exposes the failings of the Taliban. And for all your hard work, the next time they behead some woman in a soccer stadium they will blame your organization for corrupting her.

It's not like you're dealing with deliberative, rational, critical thinking, honest truth seekers. The folks at the NCSE imagine themselves to be some self-appointed warrior class, sworn to the cause of protecting society. They are entrenched, indoctrinated, dedicated, and they really, really like what they do. You aren't going to change that.

Kornbelt, the only thing to do is teach your children to be honest men and women of good character. Teach them to value truth and humility, and to eschew duplicity and bigotry. Teach them the 10 signs of intellectual honesty. The Eugenies, the Gleicks, the Matzkes, the Rosenhouses, the Hesses will become such a stark contrast that no honest young person would ever in a million years take them seriously. These papier mache warriors really are nothing to worry about. And they'll be gone anyway in 30 or 40 years or so.

And it helps to laugh heartily at all the culture warriors while we're waiting for them to leave the planet. They are, after all, little more than overgrown children playing dwarves and trolls in the woods with styrofoam swords. Utterly harmless. Utterly silly. Instead of fashioning our own styrofoam swords and cardboard shields, I humbly suggest instead we make some popcorn, set out some lawn chairs and watch the show. They are not dangerous.

As Jesus said of another famous culture warrior, they would have no power were it not given to them from above.

This is an interesting statement. You often hear or read about this in conversations and debates surrounding the existence of God. A person may ask another person “why are you an atheist” and the atheist may reply, “purely because there is no evidence for God”.

As always, definitions play a crucial role in any debate and conversation. I cannot claim that there is no evidence for the existence of Bodwilstin if I do not have a definition for it. If someone asks me why I am an aBodwilstinist, I cannot tell that person “purely because there is no evidence for Bodwilstinist”. I do not even have a clear definition of what it is that there is no evidence of. So the “there is no evidence” line is irrational if an atheist does not have a definition of God. The most rational stance towards something for which there is no definition is agnosticism or ignosticism.

The standard classical theist view or definition of God is that if God exists then nothing can come into being or continue to happen without God creating it and sustaining it in existence.  If classical theism is true it just logically follows that every contingent being that has ever existed and will ever exist is evidence for the existence of God. It does not matter if the universe has existed for infinity, if abiogenesis is true or false, if there is a multiverse or if humans had a common ancestor with other apes or not or all of the above etc. Of course, defining something does not mean it exists or that it is logically coherent. It may be that theism is false and have better other explanations for why things begin to exist and continue to exist.

For the classical theist, the existence of God can be known via reason and logic. To give an example, Aquinas’ second argument (First Cause) is a standard logical demonstration. It follows the same reasoning as mathematical proofs. The following principles are important:
1) The Principle of Causality
2) The distinction between essence and the act of existing.
3) The distinction between per accidens causes and per se causes.

1) The Principle of Causality
The traditional view is that:
1) "Whatever happens has a cause; Whatever begins to be has a cause; Whatever is contingent has a cause; Nothing occurs without a cause."2) The axiom Ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing, nothing comes) is a negative statement of the same principle.
3) Another way of saying it is “something can only be reduced from potentiality to actuality by something in a state of actuality” (Aquinas, a Beginner's guide, p65).

From an Aristotelian-Scholastic point of view, the empirical data from quantum mechanics pose no problem for the principle of causality. In fact, quantum physics and the Aristotelian concepts of prime matter and pure potentiality actually fit in quite nicely with the indeterminate nature of quantum physics. As explained here. In addition, some might argue that science has demonstrated that "from nothing, nothing comes" is false. Such assertions are usually based on a faulty or inadequate definition of "nothingness".

2) The distinction between essence and the act of existing.
Another principle that is important in Aquinas' second way is the distinction between something's essence and its act of existing.

Take the example of water. When you think about water you may ask "what is water"? To answer such a question is to provide the essence or nature of water. From an Aristotelian point of view, when one fully understands what water is one knows its full essence or nature. One can of course come to understand some part of the essence of water without it ever actually existing or experiencing it the moment you understand it. You can now think about the concept of water and fully understand it. However, from a Scholastic point of view, when you see a drop of water, the water is actually existing. That is, the essence of water is combined with its act of existing.

Also, material substances begin to exist. You and me for example did not exist 200 years ago. We began to exist at some instant. The same goes for a water molecule when it begins to exist in a reaction between hydrogen and oxygen. So let's use the example of water.

Before the water begins to exist you can still intellectually abstract what it is, you grasp its essence. However, the moment it begins to exist its essence and act of existence are conjoined to form a complete actual material substance. From a Scholastic point of view all actually existing material things right here right, right now are complete substances whose essence or nature are conjoined with their act of existing.

3) The distinction between per accidens causes and per se causes.
A third important principle is the distinction between accidentally ordered causes and essentially ordered causes. Accidentally ordered causes (per accidens causes) are prior in time. Essentially ordered causes (per se causes) are prior in nature.

Let's use the water example again. Hydrogen and oxygen in this case are the per accidens causes of water. They are accidentally ordered causes. Hydrogen and oxygen occurred prior to the water that came into existence as a result of these accidental causes.

Now the water in the reaction began to exist. The moment water started to be an actually existing material substance, its essence is conjoined with its act of existing. Also, whenever water is actually existing its essence is continually conjoined with its act of existing. The next question is “what causes its essence to be conjoined to its act of existing”? It can't be something that exists before it came into being. In other words, it cannot be an accidentally ordered cause. It has to be something that is also actually existing the very same moment the water exists. It thus follows that it is something that is an essentially ordered cause but is prior in nature (not time) to the water.

Aquinas’ argument using the water example can thus be summarized as follows:
1) Whenever water begins to actually exist, its essence is conjoined with its act of existing.
2) Something causes the essence of water to be conjoined to its act of existing.
3) Such a cause cannot be water itself and the cause has to be prior in nature and not prior in time (as argued above).
4) The cause may be something contingent.
5) Everything that is contingent has an essence that is distinct from its act of existing (as argued above).
6) If the cause is something that is contingent then it too needs a cause to conjoin its essence with it act of existing.
7) However, essentially ordered causes cannot go on to infinity, as there would then be no explanation for why something begins to exist.
8 ) The First Cause in an essentially ordered series of causes will have to be something whose essence is not distinct from its act of existing. Something whose essence is its act of existing. For the classical theist this is God.

Aquinas' second way gets you to something whose essence is its act of existing. Now this kind of argument is not meant to convince everyone. I think it is unreasonable to think this. In fact, I think it is unreasonable to even think that standard mathematical proofs are meant to convince everyone. Some people may be ultra-skeptics and claim nothing can be known with absolute certainty or any kind of certainty at all. Some might argue that consciousness and your intellect are illusions. Still others just don’t care.

The point is, for the classical theist, God can be known via reason and logic. Classical theism is affirmed by Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Pagans thinkers such as Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna and Plotinus respectively. Aquinas’ five ways can in principle demonstrate the existence of something that just is necessary being itself (3rd way), whose essence is its existence 2nd way), that is intelligence analogously speaking (5th way), that just is good (4th way) and is purely actual (1st way). That is what classical theists call God.

It is accepted based on the coherence of the definition of God not because there is no evidence. If a person is or was a classical theist then he accepts it or rejects it not because of the evidence. One accepts or rejects classical theism based on reason and logic.

Rational acceptance or scepticism of theism
Now there are of course the standard philosophical problems with classical theism. Alisdair McinTyre summarizes the three main problems in his book "God, Philosophy, Universities: A Selective History of the Catholic Philosophical Tradition".

The first problem is associated with the view that finite contingent beings have powers of their own. For example, water has the power to dissolve salt. Humans have the power to have rational thoughts. Magnets have the power to attract or repel each other. However, if God exists then God is the cause of every change, every contingent power. This appears to be a problem for the view that humans are accountable for their actions and have their own powers (and anything else that has its own powers) to do things. So the classical theist has the problem of reconciling his view of his independent powers (and that of other things) and that of God’s unlimited power.

The second problem is associated with the various evils (natural, social and moral) associated with finite beings. If the following is correct:
1) God is unlimited in power and goodness and wills the good of every finite being.
2) Evil occurs and this entails that God is responsible for evil.
then the classical theist is faced with believing a logical contradiction.

The third problem is associated with how we can even talk meaningfully about God. Since we are contingent finite beings, all our descriptions of God e.g. God’s power, goodness, knowledge etc. are limited. We may use comparative and superlative linguistic inventions by describing power and goodness and knowledge as either more or less but we are never able to fully understand the full essence of what it actually means to have unlimited power, goodness and knowledge since we are finite, contingent beings.

The rational way, I would argue, is to engage in solving these problems. Those are examples of how one can rationally and logically accept or reject or be sceptical ofclassical theism. If such problems can be solved, again via reason and logic, then one can rationally accept classical theism. If not, one can reject it or be sceptical or be agnostic.

Now the person that claims to be an atheist “purely because there is no evidence for God” can make this claim as a result of:
1) Some strange definition or view of God which no classical theist really accepts. It would essentially be a straw man objection to view of God that theists probably don't have.
2) Having no definition of God so he has no way of even having any evidence at all anyway. But this is of course irrational. You can't rationally and logically claim there is no evidence for something which you don't even have a definition for.
3) Accepting the standard view of God and still claim there is no evidence. But this is irrational. It amounts to saying something like "I accept that the definition of the X, whereby if X exists one would expect to see boiling water. I see boiling water but I don't believe in X because there is no evidence for X". Or to put it differently, "I accept the standard view of God whereby if God exists then nothing can come into being or continue to happen without God creating it and sustaining it in existence. I exist, but I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God".

None of the above reasons for the "there is no evidence" objection really make sense from a theistic point of view. The objections appears irrational or they just miss the point completely. The next obvious question is, if you claim there is no evidence for the existence of God, what exactly are you talking about? In what way do you think it even makes sense to make such a claim? Why do you think this is not a face-palm worthy claim?

Apparently, the fortunes of Dawkins' ancestors were built on the backs of slaves. You see there is a reason for this – evolutionary psychology. Our selfish genes drive us to behave in ways that propagate them.

In the case of slavery, more slaves result in greater wealth and we all know how greater wealth results in increased propagation for selfish genes. The trick in those days was to keep the slaves once you have them. The best way to do this was to try to keep them uneducated.

Richard Dawkins' selfish genes are still driving him to behave in ways to propagate them.  Unfortunately for him slavery has been abolished, and rightly so. Therefore, the next best thing to have is zombies. The mechanics are the same. More zombies that buy your books and T-shirts and bingo, propagation of selfish genes AND memes. The trick in keeping zombies is also to keep them uneducated and in this case, un-educable.

Dawkins is quite good at zombie herding. First he writes a few sciency books to give him some street cred as a scientist. Then he writes The God Delusion. By the time some people begin to realize the logical fallacies and bad scholarship in the book it is too late. The gnu zombies are hooked on bad philosophy and metaphysics masqueraded as science and scholarship. If you point out that Dawkins can't even get Aquinas' cosmological arguments right,  that he can't even distinguish between the teleological argument and Paley's watchmaker argument, that Darwin was a teleologist or that Dawkins' central argument is hopelessly flawed, all you get is the Myers Shuffle and cowardice to engage their critics. Gnu zombies are uneducated when it comes to philosophy, logic and metaphysics. And unlike slaves who are educable, gnu zombies appear to be immune to any form education that is contra their indoctrination.

You cannot really blame Dawkins for all this. Blame his zombie herding on his selfish genes he inherited from his slave-herding ancestors. Natural selection did result in the propagation of these selfish genes. And after all, no action no matter how stupid "is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment".

Open Thread, Have Fun.

"They talk the language of science, but it is really a post-God religion that rejects relativist materialism."

-BBC reporter Michael Buerke

Podcast Transcription below the fold.

The Fifth Column –

Michael Buerk on the Climate Summit

The latest so-called Climate Summit, that’s been taking place in Durban, hasn’t made many waves. It could be because global warming seems less daunting if you can no longer afford heating bills. It could also be that we’re getting fed up with the bogus certainties and quasi-religious tone of the great climate change non-debate.

As with all religions, whether the underlying narrative is true, has become beside the point.”

– Michael Buerk, 16 Dec 2011

Trust is a pretty important factor that plays a positive role in a functioning society. To trust someone basically entails that you can rely on the actions of another person to conform to certain virtues or expectations while basically abandoning your own control over the situation.

Let’s look at two examples of where trust plays an important role. Firstly, you have money to do empirical research. You provide the money to a scientific researcher with a good track record and you ask him to do research on the clinical effects of a certain compound. You trust the scientist to use your money in such a manner that will result in good results. You are basically abandoning your own control over the situation (doing your own research) and transferring control to another. The outcome is unknown, but you trust that it will end in a certain manner i.e. good results.

Secondly, in a democratic society the voters vote for politicians whom they trust will do the job they want them to do. For example, if voters want a certain service and a political party makes certain promises and the voters like the promises and they vote for the party, then the voters are essentially abandoning their own control and transferring control to the party. Again, the outcome is unknown but the voters trust that the party leaders will stick to their word.

Now there are at least two ways to be a moral relativist. You can agree that different cultures have different moral values and that there is not a single universal moral that is shared by all cultures.  Call it “descriptive moral relativism”. You can also assert that there are no objectively and intrinsically good or evil actions. Call it “meta-ethical moral relativism”. Empirical data seems to suggest that descriptive moral relativism is true. It is however a logical fallacy to claim that this demonstrates that meta-ethical moral relativism is true. A person can be a descriptive moral relativist and not be a meta-ethical moral relativist.

There are also at least two ways to be a moral absolutist. The first way is to argue that if action X is absolutely and intrinsically morally wrong then action X is ALWAYS absolutely and intrinsically morally wrong. Call it “universal moral absolutism”. The second way is argue that if it is wrong for one person to commit act X in situation Z, then it is wrong for any person to commit act X in the same situation Z. The second view thus allows for a situation where action X in situation Z is wrong but is not absolutely and intrinsically wrong at different moments. Call it “situational moral absolutism”.

In what way can a person be trusted you may ask? Here again there are at least two ways to trust a person. One can trust a person based on reason and logic and one can trust a person in a manner that is not based on reason and logic. For example a person can trust another for emotional reasons, whatever they may be.  You can basically trust anything or any person in a manner that is not based on reason and logic. You can trust a wild lion that is chasing after you to not eat you because you may perhaps be emotionally attached to cats, or you can trust you’re a hijacker not to kill you because you think deep down he is a good person. To trust someone or something in a way that is not based on reason and logic is basically trusting a person or something on faith that is not grounded in any reason and logic. People of course do this all the time, it’s called blind faith.

Now the kind of moral relativism I wish to focus on in this entry is the one that denies both kinds of moral absolutism discussed and I want to know how any person can trust a meta-ethical moral relativist in a manner that is based on reason and logic?

Let’s get back to the two examples. Is there any way a person can logically trust a scientist to do good research (irrespective of his credentials) if he states that there are no objectively and intrinsically good or evil actions? Is there any way a voter can logically trust the promises of a person that states that there are no objectively and intrinsically good or evil actions?

In both of the above cases I would argue no and in general I don’t think there is a logical and rational way to trust a meta-ethical moral relativist. The moral beliefs of a meta-ethical moral relativist might be just what the voters or hos financial backers are looking for. He or she might believe individual rights are good, but he can’t believe they are objectively good, and does think it is only relatively bad and good. He might later on change his mind on any issue he supported, or lie about anything and still think his choices are relatively good and relatively bad. A meta-ethical moral relativist can basically lie, be corrupt and fake a very good personality, policies and empirical data and still feel morally superior to those who disapprove of his choices, even if he contradicts himself.

A few studies have now pointed out that atheists are among the most distrusted groups of people. I wonder whether this has something to do with how people may perceive atheists as meta-ethical moral relativists?

The main issue is how can you trust a meta-ethical moral relativist in such manner that does not collapse into blind faith that is not grounded in reason and logic?