More Warfare Thesis
If you attend Taede Smedes talk at Trinity College this Thursday on “Why is Special Divine Action a Probem?” beware that his use of the term “theological naturalism” falls into the Warfare Thesis category. As Smedes explains:As I will argue in this lecture, the problems surrounding the plausibility of SDA are mainly theological and philosophical in nature. The main problem is what I will call “theological naturalism” and that depicts the tendency to conceptualize theological ideas using ideas and ways of thinking taken from the natural sciences, which results in a distortion of the theological concepts involved. Rather than defending a particular view or even “theory” of SDA, this lecture aims at a philosophical diagnosis that aims at clarifying some of the conceptual confusion surrounding the concept of SDA. Perhaps SDA remains a problematic concept, but not for the reasons that are so often given.
It would be interesting to know what are the reasons from the natural science against SDA “that are so often given” because, in fact, I don’t know of any. There are, on the other hand, a plethora of reasons against SDA, that are often given, from theology. Here is how I discussed “theological naturalism” in Science’s Blind Spot:
There are, as it were, theological ground rules imposed on science. And although these theological concerns are varied, they all funnel toward a similar consequence. Put simply, the primary theological ground rule is that scientific explanations must be purely naturalistic. The term naturalism can take on different meanings when used by historians and philosophers of science. Here it is used to refer to this restriction of science to naturalistic explanations for religious reasons. I use a new term, theological naturalism, to clarify this and avoid ambiguity.
This term theological naturalism reminds us that the assumption of naturalism in science is neither a result of atheistic influence nor an empirically based scientific finding. It is a consequence of metaphysical reasoning, and the implications for science are profound. Theological naturalism provides science with well defined universal criteria to which it conforms. Instead of merely following the data where ever it may lead, science has a framework already in place. The answer, to a certain extent, is already in place.
Nonetheless the Warfare Thesis continues to attract adherents from all sides.
It seems to me that science is following the data wherever it might lead. The objections come from those who are annoyed that it doesn't go where they think it ought to go according to their religious beliefs. It is not the fault of science that the data does not lead towards whichever god people happen to believe in but there will be war if they try and force it in that direction.
ReplyDeleteCH: It would be interesting to know what are the reasons from the natural science against SDA “that are so often given” because, in fact, I don’t know of any. There are, on the other hand, a plethora of reasons against SDA, that are often given, from theology.
ReplyDeleteOne need not appeal to theology to criticize SDA. We only need look to the problem of our relatively recent, rapid, exponential growth of human knowledge. What change which resulted in this growth? What did we start doing differently?
I'd suggest that an explanation for this growth is one of the most important universal truths that's it's possible to know things about the physical world.
Our current, best explanation for this growth is our relatively recent tendency to prefer long chains of hard to vary, independently formed explanations about how the world works, in reality. However, "that's just what some designer must have wanted" is easily varied and shallow since it's only connected to the phenomena in question by the claim itself.
To put in another way, good explanations cannot be easily varied without significantly impacting their ability to explain the phenomena in question.
For example, "An abstract designer did it" is a bad explanation, in that it's similar to the Greek myth of the seasons: they are both shallow and easily varied, the cast of characters are only connected to seasons though the myth itself, and the roles they play could be varied without significantly reducing it's ability to explain seasons, or the biosphere, respectively.
This is in contrast to our current explanation of the seasons, which represents a long chain of hard to vary explanations across multiple fields. The earth's rotation is titled in respect to it's orbit around the sun. A spinning sphere retains it's tilt. Surfaces titled away from radiant heat are headed less. The origin of star light (nuclear fusion), etc. If we break any part of this chain, there is no easy way to vary this explanation without significantly impacting it's ability to explain the seasons. There is no where go. Furthermore, these links were formed independently of each other.
Our explanation for the seasons is good not only because it's falsifiable, but because it's hard to vary.
While we cannot rule out bad explanations as being logically possible, we discard an infinite number of logical possibilities each and every day.
To repeat a recent example....
One of the unique things about people is that we're universal explainers. That we we can create explanations and use them as a criteria for what possibilities we test.
For example, it's unlikely that anyone has performed research to determine if eating a square meter of grass each day for a week would cure the common cold. Why is this? Is it because it's logically impossible? No. Is it because it's unfalsifiable? No, this would be trivial to test. Is it because it's a non-natural? No. Why then is it unlikely to be the subject of research? Because we lack an explanation as to how and why eating a square meter of grass each day for a week would cure the common cold. As such, we discard it, a priori, even before we bother to test it.
And we do this for a near infinite number of mere possibilities every day, in every field of science.
IOW, we need not appeal to theism because SDA conflicts with our current, best explanation for the growth of knowledge. It's a bad explanation.
Of course, this assumes you do not deny there actually has been a relatively recent, rapid, exponential growth in human knowledge, or that we can make progress in explaining what change caused it. Is that what you're suggesting?
If not, then why does't this represent a valid criticism of SDA?
Or perhaps you have an alternate explanation for this relatively recent, rapid, exponential growth in human knowledge which doesn't make SDA problematic? If so, what is it?
Could it be that the growth of knowledge is the result of SDA?
DeleteScott: Of course, this assumes you do not deny there actually has been a relatively recent, rapid, exponential growth in human knowledge, or that we can make progress in explaining what change caused it. Is that what you're suggesting?
DeleteNat: Could it be that the growth of knowledge is the result of SDA?
Can you elaborate on what you mean? Specifically, I'm referring to our relatively recent, rapid exponential growth in human knowledge, not just the ability for knowledge to grow as a whole.
Are you suggesting relatively recent changes we made are irrelevant and our growing tendency to prefer long chains of hard to vary, independently formed explanations about how the world works, in reality, had nothing to do with it?
If so, you're implicitly denying that we can make progress explaining this growth because we cannot explain how SDA works. Nor can we criticize and find errors in SDA to make further improvements. Furthermore, some future SDA could repeal this growth and we'd have no recourse. We're just along for the ride.
IOW, you seem to be suggesting our relatively recent, rapid exponential growth in human knowledge occurred because "That's just what some designer must have wanted".
Would that be an accurate assessment? If not, how does your view differ, in detail? Please be specific.
"relatively recent changes we made are irrelevant and our growing tendency to prefer long chains of hard to vary, independently formed explanations about how the world works, in reality, had nothing to do with it?"
DeleteI'm not sure it is irrelevant, just not the whole answer. Its really complicated. And I'm not sure that the approach you are suggesting is that relatively recent. The Greeks were into long chains of explanations as well. And some stuff we discovered recently was the result of accidental discoveries. Could it be that there was some SDA involved?
Y:know,we don't even know for sure how knowledge works. Maybe it always involves SDA,
DeleteNat: I'm not sure it is irrelevant, just not the whole answer.
DeleteSo, what would you add to the explanation?
Nat: Its really complicated.
Progress in this field takes the form of unification. So, no, I'm suggesting it's actually not that complicated. All knowledge grows via conjecture and criticism.
Nat: And I'm not sure that the approach you are suggesting is that relatively recent. The Greeks were into long chains of explanations as well.
The Greek myth of the seasons was a long chain of hard to vary, independently formed explanations?
Nat: And some stuff we discovered recently was the result of accidental discoveries.
Out tendency to prefer good explanatory theories doesn't mean that all of our conjectured explanations will actually solve their target problems. In some cases, they will solve other problems they were not intended to solve.
Nat: Could it be that there was some SDA involved?
It it logically possible? Yes. That's about it.
Denial, the technique used by science to deny SDAs.
ReplyDeleteThis is what denial looks like:
I am a type 2 diabetic, and have been for about 20 years. As this disease has progressed, I ended up on full insulin -- like a type 1 diabetic.
About 3 years ago I was convinced to try going off of wheat. Within 3 days it was clear that my pancreas was waking up, and that I needed less, much less, insulin. Within 2 weeks my insulin needs were reduced by about 3/4. By two months I had lost 30 pounds. I was not dieting. I was not reducing my carb intake. I had replaced wheat with potatoes and rice.
I went to my doctor, and told him why I needed so much less insulin. He declared, "honeymoons are a strange thing." (A honeymoon, in this context, is a phenomenon where the pancreas wakes up for a short time after having been "given a break" by the use of insulin.) I tried to explain to him about the strong correlation between going off wheat and getting these results. I tried to explain to him that my sugars would go out of whack every time I accidentally ate some wheat.
He walked out on me!
That is what denial looks like.
If the doctor must respond to alternative medicine with denial, how much more do scientist have to respond to SDAs with denial?
Are you still off wheat? Did you continue to need much less insulin after the usual honeymoon period would have ended?
DeleteIOW, what people cannot deny is progress.
Well, they can, but they have to resort to general purpose means of denying, well, anything.
I am still off wheat. I am still at 1/4 the insulin that I used to use. My blood sugar meter is still a powerful tool for finding hidden wheat in food.
DeleteThe last time I went to my doctor, my A1C (a measure of long-term sugar control) was in the normal range for a non-diabetic. My doctor's response, "That's really good. That never happens!" Yet he refuses to consider that wheat might be my problem. (I don't bring it up because I don't want to loose my doctor. In Canada, a family doctor can be hard to come by.)
Glad to hear you're still seeing improvements.
Delete"It is not the fault of science that the data does not lead towards whichever god people happen to believe in but there will be war if they try and force it in that direction."
ReplyDeleteRight. It is not the fault of science that the data does not lead towards evolutionists god and religion (philosophical naturalism) no matter how hard they try and force it in that direction without merit.
"Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Michael Ruse
"God is the foundation of everything. All true science is in harmony with His works; all true education leads to obedience to His government. Science opens new wonders to our view; she soars high, and explores new depths; but she brings nothing from her research that conflicts with divine revelation. Ignorance may seek to support false views of God by appeals to science, but the book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other.[...] Those who take the written word as their counselor will find in science an aid to understand God. " Ellen White
Darcy Right. It is not the fault of science that the data does not lead towards evolutionists god and religion (philosophical naturalism) no matter how hard they try and force it in that direction without merit.
ReplyDeleteWithout merit? The computer you use to write those words is a product of naturalistic science. The knowledge we now have of diabetes, which was being discussed earlier, is the product of naturalistic science. In these and many other cases, this knowledge was not handed down from on high, inscribed on tablets of stone. It was discovered piece by piece, slowly and painstakingly by naturalistic science. Naturalism is assumed because naturalism works.
Darcy "Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Michael Ruse
Ruse is wrong. Evolution is to religion what quantum physics is to Lord of the Rings
Darcy "God is the foundation of everything. All true science is in harmony with His works; all true education leads to obedience to His government. Science opens new wonders to our view; she soars high, and explores new depths; but she brings nothing from her research that conflicts with divine revelation. Ignorance may seek to support false views of God by appeals to science, but the book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other.[...] Those who take the written word as their counselor will find in science an aid to understand God. " Ellen White
Such eloquence cannot hide the fact that the Old Testament contains many accounts of atrocities and what we would now call crimes against humanity. Until Christianity is prepared to repudiate them and excise them from the Bible, the faith stands tarnished and condemned by its own Scripture. Neither science nor any other human enterprise should want to be in harmony with the Old Testament God and his works.
I thought that the cause of diabetes was discovered by accident.
ReplyDeletenatschuster I thought that the cause of diabetes was discovered by accident.
DeleteThe symptoms of the disease have been observed at least as far back as Ancient Egypt but it wasn''t until the end of the 19th century that they were also noticed in dogs whose pancreas had been removed. This led to the hypothesis that the disease was caused by a deficiency in that organ but it took a lot of painstaking research to identify insulin and tease out its role in sugar metabolism. There are millions alive today who owe their lives to science not divine intervention.
Ian:
ReplyDeleteWhat is your basis for saying that your morality is superior to Biblical morality? What is your basis for saying morality even exists?
natschuster What is your basis for saying that your morality is superior to Biblical morality? What is your basis for saying morality even exists?
DeleteMorality has no existence other than in the minds of intelligent agents such as ourselves. If some catastrophe wiped us from the universe our morality would be gone with us, although something similar may exist elsewhere on some other planet.
As for why I consider my morality superior:
If I were a creator of living beings, I would not punish them for failings that i built into them.
If one of my creations committed an offense against my laws, I might punish the offender but not all their descendants in perpetuity
I would not coerce a parent into sacrificing their beloved child as a test of their loyalty to me.
I would not myself, nor would I order my followers, to invade and seize territory that belonged to others. I would not drive them out of their homes or kill them where they stood of they refused and resisted.
After winning a battle, I would not slaughter all prisoners of war except for the young girls. I would not give those young girls to my troops to do with as they chose.
I would not rain fire and destruction on entire cities because I found the behavior of their citizens offensive.
I would not wipe out almost all life on earth just because they hadn't turned out quite as I expected them to.
What's not to feel superior about?
Ian:
ReplyDeleteI'm hearing a lot of opinion, but not a lot of logic or evidence. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't any basis beyond your own opinion for saying your morality is better. And to the best of my knowledge after the midianites were defeated the young girls became slaves, but they were not raped.
Slavery is bad enough and I seriously doubt those all those soldiers were able to keep their hands off all those girls.
DeleteAs for not seeing a lot of logic or evidence, Christians should be accustomed to that. The Ten Commandments were not supplied with supporting documentation detailing the logical arguments and evidence behind each directive. The Sermon on the Mount can be read as a fine statement of unimpeachable aspirations but it is long on poetry and short on logic and evidence. I'm sure the meek are encouraged by the promise that they will inherit the Earth but I don't see any detailed explanation of why that should be the case.
As I've said before, if you look at what morals actually do - or are supposed to do - it looks as if their function is to regulate the way human beings behave towards one another in society. The purpose of that regulation is to prevent people acting in ways that do harm to their fellows so that all can enjoy a safe and secure life. They have evolved and developed over time, often slowly and painfully but isn't it ultimately for us to decide what is or isn't moral just as we decide, through our elected representatives, what laws should apply to us. The American colonies fought a war, in part, to be free of arbitrary laws, in which they had no say, being imposed by some remote authority.
[The computer you use to write those words is a product of naturalistic science.]
ReplyDeleteNo, there's no "product" of science that justifies philosophical naturalism.
Maxwell, Boyle, Babbage and many other great scientists didn't need any philosophical naturalism to perform their job and get scientifc advances which resulted in computers. The same for medical improvements. Science goes very well without "theological naturalism" and the vain evolutionary speculations.
[Ruse is wrong.]
Not by asserting the truth that "Evolution is a religion". Maybe he is wrong by not seeking (yet?) the true religion.
[Such eloquence cannot hide the fact that the Old Testament...]
Being eloquent doesn't mean necessarily being false or true. But, you see, truth is not incompatible with eloquence.
Every man and nation relies in and is long to be in "harmony" with, albeit imperfectly, the general principles determined by the God revealed in the Old Testament. Atheists (old and new ones) are the ones who try to "hide" His character.
Justice, mercy, love, care for the oppressed and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" come from Him. BTW, those who, knowing that, try to "hide" His character and instead show a distorted facet based on the limitations of human understanding of His justice are incuring in dishonesty and "false witness" and will be justly judged for that (because He is just, but don't expect Justice from philosophical naturalism).
"God is the eternal, uncreated Fountain of all good. All who trust in Him will find Him to be this." Ellen White
Darcy No, there's no "product" of science that justifies philosophical naturalism.
DeleteEvery successful application of a naturalistic approach tends to confirm it as a productive metaphysics and methodology. That is all we need.
DarcyMaxwell, Boyle, Babbage and many other great scientists didn't need any philosophical naturalism to perform their job and get scientifc advances which resulted in computers. The same for medical improvements. Science goes very well without "theological naturalism" and the vain evolutionary speculations.
Whatever their personal religious beliefs, Maxwell and the others all conducted their research on the assumption that there was an ordered and comprehensible natural world out there. They assumed that gravity would continue to be an attractive force from day to day, that it wouldn't suddenly reverse and throw us all into space. They assumed that the forces holding matter together would not suddenly disappear and everything would fly apart. However it might have been created - and whoever it might have been created by - they assumed the Universe to be a natural phenomenon.
Darcy Not by asserting the truth that "Evolution is a religion". Maybe he is wrong by not seeking (yet?) the true religion
Maybe there will come a day when we have no further need of any religion, true ro otherwiae. I don't foresee that happening for a very long time, certainly not while we are as we are, but there may come a time when we have much greater mastery over ourselves and the Universe in which we live so that religion becomes irrelevant.
Darcy Being eloquent doesn't mean necessarily being false or true. But, you see, truth is not incompatible with eloquence.
I didn't say it was but it is also true that eloquence can mask an incoherent argument or a lack of substance and meaning.
DarcyEvery man and nation relies in and is long to be in "harmony" with, albeit imperfectly, the general principles determined by the God revealed in the Old Testament. Atheists (old and new ones) are the ones who try to "hide" His character.
"Aye, and there's the rub". Which of God's principles as revealed in the Old Testament are we supposed to align ourselves with? The one that says that it is okay to seize by force the territory of others and drive the inhabitants from their homes or kill them if they resist? The one that says that it's okay to lay waste to whole cities if the behavior of some of their inhabitants is offensive? Or the one that says it's okay to wipe out almost all life on earth because it hasn't turned out as you expected?
Justice, mercy, love, care for the oppressed and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" come from Him. BTW, those who, knowing that, try to "hide" His character and instead show a distorted facet based on the limitations of human understanding of His justice are incuring in dishonesty and "false witness" and will be justly judged for that (because He is just, but don't expect Justice from philosophical naturalism).
Darcy "God is the eternal, uncreated Fountain of all good. All who trust in Him will find Him to be this." Ellen White
It would be nice if that were true but it doesn't seem to turn out that way.
[Every successful application of a naturalistic approach tends to confirm it as a productive metaphysics and methodology]
DeleteThanks to God, science advances are completely indifferent to and independent from naturalistic metaphysics. Naturalistic metaphysics being taken seriously would lead men to no knowledge, no science.
[Whatever their personal religious beliefs, Maxwell and the others all conducted their research on the assumption that there was an ordered and comprehensible natural world out there]
"Because of" their personal religious beliefs, Maxwell and the others all conducted their research on the assumption that there was an ordered and comprehensible natural world out there. They wouldn't do that if they had assumed philosofical naturalism dogma (nature is all there is), since they reasoned consistently "an ordered and comprehensible natural world" is expected from a rational Creator (God), not from mindless forces. Iow, Science advances completely ignored "philosophical/theological naturalism" then. We didn't need it then. And we don't need it at all now.
[Maybe there will come a day when we have no further need of any religion]
Religion is intrinsic to human nature, which is another reason naturalism is out of touch with reality. We were created by God to relate to Him. "When a Man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything." [even Evolution]. Chresterton
[However it might have been created - and whoever it might have been created by - they assumed the Universe to be a natural phenomenon]
They assumed the natural Universe was created by a rational and supernatural Being (God) which means "philosofical/theological naturalism" had/has no merit in the advances of science.
[it is also true that eloquence can mask an incoherent argument or a lack of substance and meaning]
As I said, I agree. I supose (and hope) many who read Russel, Dawkins and his friends arguments (are they eloquent?) know that by experience..."There must be earnest study and close investigation. Sharp, clear perceptions of truth will never be the reward of indolence." Ellen White
[Aye, and there's the rub". Which of God's principles as revealed in the Old Testament are we supposed to align ourselves with?]
DeleteWell, if one's faith is naturalism, there is no naturalistic code which can warrant what one supose to be right or wrong is really right or wrong (your opion is so valid as Hitler was), so no one is supose to care about moral issues.
But since you don't live (I hope) by your naturalistic faith, I'm glad you've asked. Here are some principles which may amplify your very restrictive vision about Old Testament. Any one you or your nation don't want to align with? ( and I'm not quoting the fundamental of these principles, the "Ten commandments"):
"Love your neighbor as yourself", mentioned before.
Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God.
Do not steal. ‘Do not lie. ‘Do not deceive one another.
Do not defraud or rob your neighbor. “ ‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.
Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the Lord.
Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
Do not go about spreading slander among your people. “ ‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the Lord.
Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt.
Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.
Get up from your seats before the white-haired, and give honour to the old, and let the fear of your God be before you: I am the Lord.
And if a man from another country is living in your land with you, do not make life hard for him;
Let him be to you as one of your countrymen and have love for him as for yourself; for you were living in a strange land, in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
Do not make false decisions in questions of yard-sticks and weights and measures.
Have true scales, true weights and measures for all things: I am the Lord your God, who took you out of the land of Egypt;
[your link]
DeleteIt's a very bad "non sequitur" to point human fault as "proof" of God's fault. This link is about human responsability, not God and His character:
"If you are the Son of God," he (Satan) said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'
Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" Mat. 4:6-7
I'm not saying the link you provided ilustrates the issues mentioned in the following quotes; Anyway, I'm bringing them out just to, again, amplify your auto restricted vision:
"In the word of God we have instruction relative to special prayer for the recovery of the sick. But the offering of such prayer is a most solemn act, and should not be entered upon without careful consideration. In many cases of prayer for the healing of the sick, that which is called faith is nothing less than presumption.
Many persons bring disease upon themselves by their self-indulgence. They have not lived in accordance with natural law or the principles of strict purity. Others have disregarded the laws of health in their habits of eating and drinking, dressing, or working. Often some form of vice is the cause of feebleness of mind or body. Should these persons gain the blessing of health, many of them would continue to pursue the same course of heedless transgression of God"s natural and spiritual laws, reasoning that if God heals them in answer to prayer, they are at liberty to continue their unhealthful practices and to indulge perverted appetite without restraint. If God were to work a miracle in restoring these persons to health, He would be encouraging sin.
It is labor lost to teach people to look to God as a healer of their infirmities, unless they are taught also to lay aside unhealthful practices. In order to receive His blessing in answer to prayer, they must cease to do evil and learn to do well. Their surroundings must be sanitary, their habits of life correct. They must live in harmony with the law of God, both natural and spiritual."
...
"Often there is danger of error here. Believing that they will be healed in answer to prayer, some fear to do anything that might seem to indicate a lack of faith. But they should not neglect to set their affairs in order as they would desire to do if they expected to be removed by death. Nor should they fear to utter words of encouragement or counsel which at the parting hour they wish to speak to their loved ones.
Those who seek healing by prayer should not neglect to make use of the remedial agencies within their reach. It is not a denial of faith to use such remedies as God has provided to alleviate pain and to aid nature in her work of restoration. It is no denial of faith to co-operate with God, and to place themselves in the condition most favorable to recovery. God has put it in our power to obtain a knowledge of the laws of life. This knowledge has been placed within our reach for use. We should employ every facility for the restoration of health, taking every advantage possible, working in harmony with natural laws. When we have prayed for the recovery of the sick, we can work with all the more energy, thanking God that we have the privilege of co-operating with Him, and asking His blessing on the means which He Himself has provided." Ellen White
Here are some of the results of "more optimal behaviors" based in trusting in the principles revealed by God (Old and New Testament):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11434797
More sources on the topic here:
http://www.llu.edu/public-health/health/pubs.page
I still don't see anything from you about whether morality even exists. Monkeys have instincts that govern the way they interact as well. We don't call it morality. And mabe morality s about everyman for himself. Y'know, social Darwinism. Why is your approach. At least Social Darwinism sounds scientific.
ReplyDeleteThese are good questions. In what sense can morality be said to exist? If it is part of the fabric of the Universe, as some argue, what form does it take, where does it exist?
DeleteThere have also been many different moralities. Which, if any, are better and why? How do you choose between them?
If by "Social Darwinism" you mean that some form of "survival of the fittest" is held to be the best way to organize a society that is not scientific because it commits the Naturalistic Fallacy. Just because we observe something in nature does not mean it is necessarily 'good' an any moral sense. You cannot argue from 'is' to 'ought'.