Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
I had an interesting conversation with a young co-worker of mine who asked me that question, after so told him I grew up Mormon and quit believing in prophets and God on 9/11, when he fell deafeningly silent.
He said, so what now?
I said,”It was an existential crisis for me. I did a lot of soul searching and I finally landed on Spinoza’s god, which is the same god as Einstein and Sagan and Hawking, nature,
That’s when he asked me where I get my morals without believing in the God of the Bible.
I said, look around. The whole world obeys laws, the laws of nature and so far those laws have worked to keep everything in perfect balance enough to create and sustain life on Earth alone for four billion years.
The Bible only covers about 4,000 of those years and not very well. It’s a retelling of far more ancient myths, most of which got debunked long ago by science.
The rest of the story is written in our DNA and in the structure of everything in the universe, which is made out of the same substance, god particle, minus the particle, since it’s a universal field that connects everything and created everything.
He said,”Yeah but all of our laws are built upon the foundation of Christian ethics and morals. That’s why people obey them. They wouldn’t obey laws if they didn’t come from God. How do you get people to obey laws if they’re just following their natural instincts and intuition?”
I said,”How do you think people obey laws in Asia, when they don’t care at all about what’s in the Bible?”
He said he didn’t think they were all that great.
I said,”They are far less religious than we are in the West, yet you never hear about mass murder or crime happening in those places. Crime is relatively non-existent in Japan and they don’t believe in God. Why is that?”
He said he didn’t agree that crime was non-existent in Japan, but they must have some kind of religion that made them obey laws.
I said they’re very secular, but there is a saying in Japan that they are Zen Buddhist when they are born and Shinto when they die. In other words they worship nature. And if you are in tune with nature you find your balance, individually, and collectively. They care about the collective oneness.
The Tao.
The singularity
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2023 03:20PM by schrodingerscat.
He said, so what now?
I said,”It was an existential crisis for me. I did a lot of soul searching and I finally landed on Spinoza’s god, which is the same god as Einstein and Sagan and Hawking, nature,
That’s when he asked me where I get my morals without believing in the God of the Bible.
I said, look around. The whole world obeys laws, the laws of nature and so far those laws have worked to keep everything in perfect balance enough to create and sustain life on Earth alone for four billion years.
The Bible only covers about 4,000 of those years and not very well. It’s a retelling of far more ancient myths, most of which got debunked long ago by science.
The rest of the story is written in our DNA and in the structure of everything in the universe, which is made out of the same substance, god particle, minus the particle, since it’s a universal field that connects everything and created everything.
He said,”Yeah but all of our laws are built upon the foundation of Christian ethics and morals. That’s why people obey them. They wouldn’t obey laws if they didn’t come from God. How do you get people to obey laws if they’re just following their natural instincts and intuition?”
I said,”How do you think people obey laws in Asia, when they don’t care at all about what’s in the Bible?”
He said he didn’t think they were all that great.
I said,”They are far less religious than we are in the West, yet you never hear about mass murder or crime happening in those places. Crime is relatively non-existent in Japan and they don’t believe in God. Why is that?”
He said he didn’t agree that crime was non-existent in Japan, but they must have some kind of religion that made them obey laws.
I said they’re very secular, but there is a saying in Japan that they are Zen Buddhist when they are born and Shinto when they die. In other words they worship nature. And if you are in tune with nature you find your balance, individually, and collectively. They care about the collective oneness.
The Tao.
The singularity
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2023 03:20PM by schrodingerscat.
I said relatively non-existent
As in, relative to us, in the US
Where our murder rate is 26x’s and rape 66x’s higher than in Japan, yet they are not Christians and we are, for the most part.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Japan/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime
How do Christians explain that?
As in, relative to us, in the US
Where our murder rate is 26x’s and rape 66x’s higher than in Japan, yet they are not Christians and we are, for the most part.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Japan/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime
How do Christians explain that?
You're the one who used the word non-existent
I said relatively non-existent.
And backed it up.
And backed it up.
A comparison of Japanese crime rates (and it should probably just be "violent crime" probably isn't the best example of a secular moral argument. Japanese criminal justice is based on an extremely harsh system that allows people to be imprisoned up to 23 days on suspicion alone. The rate of confessions is astronomical. Overall, it's a better example of the effects of a legal system based on harsh punishment than a system of secular morality.
I get most of my morals and ethics from the people who have gone before me, just like most people. Human beings have been thinking about these things for thousands of years and continue to do so. The thing about religions is, they believe the thinking has been done and their ethics therefore stagnate and even crystallize.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2023 04:13PM by Soft Machine.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2023 04:13PM by Soft Machine.
Also from genetics. Social animals like humans cannot survive and reproduce without a network of trusting relationships with others. Can you imagine a woman rearing an infant without family given that human babies take two or three years to reach the competence of a two-day old deer or horse or elephant?
There are all sorts of problems with the limited nature of the morality that humans and other social animals derive from their DNA, but it would be a mistake not to recognize that there's a reason almost all human cultures have similar moral codes at least with regard to their own groups.
There are all sorts of problems with the limited nature of the morality that humans and other social animals derive from their DNA, but it would be a mistake not to recognize that there's a reason almost all human cultures have similar moral codes at least with regard to their own groups.
Selfishness. The more you treat people well the more you get what you want. So, if you don't want anything from them then . . .
From my parents. Before I ever heard about gawd.
The most honest man I knew was my never Mormon, agnostic father.
Your religious friend needs to do a bit more reading on the subject of the crusades and the Spanish inquisition. the Bible and Christian teachings have been used to justify countless atrocities.
> I said they’re very secular, but there is a
> saying in Japan that they are Zen Buddhist when
> they are born and Shinto when they die. In other
> words they worship nature.
wildly incorrect.
First, most Japanese are not Zen. They adhere to many other sects, not the singularly least social. Second, they are Buddhist in the sense that they perceive their basic morality as stemming from the Buddhist tradition and Shinto not because of animism but because the rituals surrounding death have traditionally been overseen by Shinto priests.
Japanese don't "worship nature." They do what their parents did.
> saying in Japan that they are Zen Buddhist when
> they are born and Shinto when they die. In other
> words they worship nature.
wildly incorrect.
First, most Japanese are not Zen. They adhere to many other sects, not the singularly least social. Second, they are Buddhist in the sense that they perceive their basic morality as stemming from the Buddhist tradition and Shinto not because of animism but because the rituals surrounding death have traditionally been overseen by Shinto priests.
Japanese don't "worship nature." They do what their parents did.
You better inform, Nippon.com they don’t know what they are talking about,
https://www.nippon.com/en/views/b05213/#:~:text=The%20essence%20of%20Koshint%C5%8D%20is,wind%20and%20thunder%20are%20kami.
“Shintō as it was practiced in the remote past, before the advent of shrine Shintō, is referred to as Koshintō (old Shintō). The essence of Koshintō is nature worship. It is an animistic religion that regards every element of nature as divine. Mountains, seas, and rivers are all kami (divine spirits or gods), as are the sun, the moon, and the North Star. The wind and thunder are kami. Even the seasons and time itself are regarded as divinities. In short, Koshintō holds that nothing in this world or this cosmos is devoid of divine energy; the kami are present everywhere.”
https://www.nippon.com ›
Nature Worship in Old Shintō | Nippon.com”
https://www.nippon.com/en/views/b05213/#:~:text=The%20essence%20of%20Koshint%C5%8D%20is,wind%20and%20thunder%20are%20kami.
“Shintō as it was practiced in the remote past, before the advent of shrine Shintō, is referred to as Koshintō (old Shintō). The essence of Koshintō is nature worship. It is an animistic religion that regards every element of nature as divine. Mountains, seas, and rivers are all kami (divine spirits or gods), as are the sun, the moon, and the North Star. The wind and thunder are kami. Even the seasons and time itself are regarded as divinities. In short, Koshintō holds that nothing in this world or this cosmos is devoid of divine energy; the kami are present everywhere.”
https://www.nippon.com ›
Nature Worship in Old Shintō | Nippon.com”
I read the entire article. It never says what you claim.
Compare this:
1) Cat:
> . . . there is a
> saying in Japan that they are Zen Buddhist when
> they are born and Shinto when they die. In other
> words they worship nature.
With this:
2) Cat's Article:
Cat's article is about Koshinto, or Old Shinto, which was the religion of the Jomon Period, which in turn ended in 300 BCE. The article says nothing about any form of Shinto over the last two thousand years.
The article about Cat's claim that Japanese say they are Shinto when they die: silence.
The article about Cat's claim that modern Shinto is nature worship: silence.
3) Conclusion: Cat's article does not support any of Cat's claims.
Compare this:
1) Cat:
> . . . there is a
> saying in Japan that they are Zen Buddhist when
> they are born and Shinto when they die. In other
> words they worship nature.
With this:
2) Cat's Article:
Cat's article is about Koshinto, or Old Shinto, which was the religion of the Jomon Period, which in turn ended in 300 BCE. The article says nothing about any form of Shinto over the last two thousand years.
The article about Cat's claim that Japanese say they are Shinto when they die: silence.
The article about Cat's claim that modern Shinto is nature worship: silence.
3) Conclusion: Cat's article does not support any of Cat's claims.
That is often the case
There is such a thing called common sense.
That's a ridiculous question. It's as simple as, "If I don't want someone to hit me, then maybe I shouldn't hit them." Or, "How would I feel if someone stole something from me? It wouldn't feel nice at all. Then maybe I shouldn't steal from them."
All of religion is God amazingly telling his followers that the rules don't really apply to them.
>>..he asked me where I get my morals without believing in the God of the Bible
If I were asked that question specifically, I would point out Christians don't really get their morals from the Bible either. I can easily find two devoted Christians with very different morals. It's all in how they cherry pick, and that doesn't need a Bible. The God of the Bible has inconsistent and questionable morals too. I would ask them where they get their criteria to cherry pick.
Then I would add that someone who thinks they need God to be moral can't be trusted if they should lose faith. If his fear of God or hope for God's favor is all that keeps him from being a horrible person, I don't view that person as reliably moral.
We want to survive and we want our children to survive with a minimum of suffering. Reciprocity and cooperation give the best results, which seems to be a foundation for what we consider moral behavior.
If I were asked that question specifically, I would point out Christians don't really get their morals from the Bible either. I can easily find two devoted Christians with very different morals. It's all in how they cherry pick, and that doesn't need a Bible. The God of the Bible has inconsistent and questionable morals too. I would ask them where they get their criteria to cherry pick.
Then I would add that someone who thinks they need God to be moral can't be trusted if they should lose faith. If his fear of God or hope for God's favor is all that keeps him from being a horrible person, I don't view that person as reliably moral.
We want to survive and we want our children to survive with a minimum of suffering. Reciprocity and cooperation give the best results, which seems to be a foundation for what we consider moral behavior.
dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We want to survive and we want our children to
> survive with a minimum of suffering. Reciprocity
> and cooperation give the best results, which seems
> to be a foundation for what we consider moral
> behavior.
I agree and like I said to him every species has their own rules they follow to survive, like don’t eat your own offspring. We had morals before there was religion. I mean the Greeks and Egyptians all got along and evolved, before monotheism came along. How did they not go around raping and murdering each other without god telling them not to?
-------------------------------------------------------
> We want to survive and we want our children to
> survive with a minimum of suffering. Reciprocity
> and cooperation give the best results, which seems
> to be a foundation for what we consider moral
> behavior.
I agree and like I said to him every species has their own rules they follow to survive, like don’t eat your own offspring. We had morals before there was religion. I mean the Greeks and Egyptians all got along and evolved, before monotheism came along. How did they not go around raping and murdering each other without god telling them not to?
>... every species has their own rules they follow to survive, like don’t eat your own offspring.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21790572
"Zoologists have observed filial cannibalism, the act of eating one's offspring, in many different types of animals, including bank voles, house finches, wolf spiders and many fish species."
But, you say, what about higher animals
https://a-z-animals.com/blog/7-animals-that-eat-their-young/
"Chimps are some of the smartest animals on the planet — and one of the species most closely related to humans — but they also have a propensity for eating their young."
"But males have also been seen simply stealing newly born infants from the arms of their mothers and killing and devouring them, and scientists believe that it’s so they can increase the number of breeding opportunities."
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21790572
"Zoologists have observed filial cannibalism, the act of eating one's offspring, in many different types of animals, including bank voles, house finches, wolf spiders and many fish species."
But, you say, what about higher animals
https://a-z-animals.com/blog/7-animals-that-eat-their-young/
"Chimps are some of the smartest animals on the planet — and one of the species most closely related to humans — but they also have a propensity for eating their young."
"But males have also been seen simply stealing newly born infants from the arms of their mothers and killing and devouring them, and scientists believe that it’s so they can increase the number of breeding opportunities."
> "But males have also been seen simply stealing
> newly born infants from the arms of their mothers
> and killing and devouring them, and scientists
> believe that it’s so they can increase the
> number of breeding opportunities."
There are some simple rules about which mammals will king the young of their species, all based on evolutionary dynamics.
The first principle is that everything depends on whether the male is likely to have been the babies' father. If not, he will kill them so that he can impregnate the female with his own DNA soon rather than waiting for the infants to stop nursing.
A more intense pattern characterizes "tournament" species, in which an alpha male defeats his rivals and consequently enjoys a monopoly over access to the females for a given period of time. He has an innate sense for how long he is likely to remain at the apex and wants to maximize his reproductive success during that period. If the typical alpha will stay atop the group for 1-2 years and the species' gestational period is longer than one year, the probability of his killing all the babies but those he knows are likely his own, increases sharply.
All of which means sentimentality is much rarer in the animal world than red-in-tooth-and-claw evolutionary logic.
> newly born infants from the arms of their mothers
> and killing and devouring them, and scientists
> believe that it’s so they can increase the
> number of breeding opportunities."
There are some simple rules about which mammals will king the young of their species, all based on evolutionary dynamics.
The first principle is that everything depends on whether the male is likely to have been the babies' father. If not, he will kill them so that he can impregnate the female with his own DNA soon rather than waiting for the infants to stop nursing.
A more intense pattern characterizes "tournament" species, in which an alpha male defeats his rivals and consequently enjoys a monopoly over access to the females for a given period of time. He has an innate sense for how long he is likely to remain at the apex and wants to maximize his reproductive success during that period. If the typical alpha will stay atop the group for 1-2 years and the species' gestational period is longer than one year, the probability of his killing all the babies but those he knows are likely his own, increases sharply.
All of which means sentimentality is much rarer in the animal world than red-in-tooth-and-claw evolutionary logic.
It's a stupid question that pastors and imams really like to push onto the faithful in order to make them fearful.
More fearful, more faithful.
More fearful, more faithful.
"It's a stupid question that pastors and imams really like to push onto the faithful in order to make them fearful."
COMMENT: It may indeed be a stupid question, but what is even more stupid are attempts to provide a substantive alternative account of moral justification (moral theory) -- like the forced naturalistic account of Sam Harris (and many others before him) that are dismissive of G.E. Moore's obvious truism (from Hume) that "You cannot get an 'ought' out of an 'is."
In short, there are no facts about the world that dictate human values, and thus no facts that dictate what human beings are morally required to do. That requires *moral* facts, and the only moral facts are societal, which have no inherent *moral* authority, as evidenced by their cross-cultural relativity.
COMMENT: It may indeed be a stupid question, but what is even more stupid are attempts to provide a substantive alternative account of moral justification (moral theory) -- like the forced naturalistic account of Sam Harris (and many others before him) that are dismissive of G.E. Moore's obvious truism (from Hume) that "You cannot get an 'ought' out of an 'is."
In short, there are no facts about the world that dictate human values, and thus no facts that dictate what human beings are morally required to do. That requires *moral* facts, and the only moral facts are societal, which have no inherent *moral* authority, as evidenced by their cross-cultural relativity.
If you need to the threat of eternal punishment to do what is right or the promise of eternal life to keep yourself from doing what is wrong, you don't know right from wrong.
anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you need to the threat of eternal punishment to
> do what is right or the promise of eternal life to
> keep yourself from doing what is wrong, you don't
> know right from wrong.
An oversimplification of course.
But no different to pointing out that many people out there rely on the threat of legal punishment to stop them committing crimes. Whenever that breaks down, then some people will take advantage of it. In fact, it is fair enough to say that the vast majority of criminals do things because they think they can get away with them or that the risk is worth taking. But it takes the implicit threat of incarceration, violence or financial penalties to stop many people from committing crimes.
Unfortunately it works the other way. Plenty of people will do wrong when the authorities tell them to.
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you need to the threat of eternal punishment to
> do what is right or the promise of eternal life to
> keep yourself from doing what is wrong, you don't
> know right from wrong.
An oversimplification of course.
But no different to pointing out that many people out there rely on the threat of legal punishment to stop them committing crimes. Whenever that breaks down, then some people will take advantage of it. In fact, it is fair enough to say that the vast majority of criminals do things because they think they can get away with them or that the risk is worth taking. But it takes the implicit threat of incarceration, violence or financial penalties to stop many people from committing crimes.
Unfortunately it works the other way. Plenty of people will do wrong when the authorities tell them to.
but to learn what is evil, an hour is too long.
All cultures have developed norms and mores in order to survive, cooperate, divide the labor, be more productive, have trust in each other.
If some religions codify their view into lists, or articles, or scripture, or holy text or monuments, temples, cathedrals or whatever and include a god or spirit or demon or Satan, it's fine with me. It doesn't make one point of view of morality any more authentic than the next.
If some religions codify their view into lists, or articles, or scripture, or holy text or monuments, temples, cathedrals or whatever and include a god or spirit or demon or Satan, it's fine with me. It doesn't make one point of view of morality any more authentic than the next.
Agreed and that’s the pragmatic point I was trying to make, that all cooperative species like people live according to laws. Laws of nature, laws written into their DNA, according to Logic and what works. Morality works. Laws work for us, for the most part.
"That’s when he asked me where I get my morals without believing in the God of the Bible."
I wouldn't choose the God of the Bible as a role model. People have a habit of dying around Him. My body count is currently zero and I have no plans to change it.
I wouldn't choose the God of the Bible as a role model. People have a habit of dying around Him. My body count is currently zero and I have no plans to change it.
bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "That’s when he asked me where I get my morals
> without believing in the God of the Bible."
>
> I wouldn't choose the God of the Bible as a role
> model. People have a habit of dying around Him. My
> body count is currently zero and I have no plans
> to change it.
Haha, love it!
Same.
When people point to God as any kind of a moral authority I ask them,”Where was God on 9-11?”
-------------------------------------------------------
> "That’s when he asked me where I get my morals
> without believing in the God of the Bible."
>
> I wouldn't choose the God of the Bible as a role
> model. People have a habit of dying around Him. My
> body count is currently zero and I have no plans
> to change it.
Haha, love it!
Same.
When people point to God as any kind of a moral authority I ask them,”Where was God on 9-11?”
"That’s when he asked me where I get my morals without believing in the God of the Bible."
COMMENT: So, in this conversation, you acknowledge that you have rejected the traditional God of the Bible in favor of "Spinoza's God," whatever that might mean. What follows is a question that places a burden upon you as to what theory of morality now guides your moral behavior. You then accept this burden as the substance of the debate and proceed accordingly.
Note that there are two aspects of moral theory that you are now required to account for: (1) Moral authority: What is the source of any mandate that requires you to morally act in a certain way that is otherwise contrary to your perceived self-interest or disposition? (2) Moral Agency: What is your theory of human nature that explains the capacity of human beings to make moral choices?
If you do not answer these two questions you lose this
debate.
________________________________________________
"I said, look around. The whole world obeys laws, the laws of nature and so far those laws have worked to keep everything in perfect balance enough to create and sustain life on Earth alone for four billion years."
COMMENT: So what? This has nothing whatever to do with either (1) or (2) above.
________________________________________________
"The Bible only covers about 4,000 of those years and not very well. It’s a retelling of far more ancient myths, most of which got debunked long ago by science."
COMMENT: Debunking, or attempting to debunk, the theistic account of morality does not meet your burden to provide a substantive account of "where YOU get YOUR morality." Remember, this is the burden you accepted!
______________________________________
"The rest of the story is written in our DNA and in the structure of everything in the universe, which is made out of the same substance, god particle, minus the particle, since it’s a universal field that connects everything and created everything."
COMMENT: How so? There is no moral authority (1) or moral agency (2) that is instantiated by DNA, or the structure of the universe, however (incorrectly) you describe that structure. Both represent physical systems only, without the slightest hint of moral implication. The same is true if you add neurology (brain states and functions.)
_______________________________________
COMMENT: At this point the discussion gets off the track. Human intuitions about morality are NOT what is at issue here. Both the theist and atheist can (and do) agree that we all share (more or less) the same basic moral intuitions. The questions remain: What is the moral authority of such intuitions, and do human beings have the capacity make moral choices conforming to such intuitions? The same questions apply if such intuitions are formalized by secular laws.
_______________________________________
"I said they’re very secular, but there is a saying in Japan that they are Zen Buddhist when they are born and Shinto when they die. In other words they worship nature. And if you are in tune with nature you find your balance, individually, and collectively. They care about the collective oneness.
The Tao.
The singularity
COMMENT: I don't care much regarding your accuracy about religious thought in Japan. However, your apparent fallback to such things as "balance of nature" or "collective oneness," or the Tao; or the Singularity, as in any way explanatory as to any coherent moral theory is laughable. You have entered the world of fantasyland.
In short, your young coworker friend appears to have a much better understanding of moral theory than you do. At least he or she knows that some coherent explanation of morality is required.
COMMENT: So, in this conversation, you acknowledge that you have rejected the traditional God of the Bible in favor of "Spinoza's God," whatever that might mean. What follows is a question that places a burden upon you as to what theory of morality now guides your moral behavior. You then accept this burden as the substance of the debate and proceed accordingly.
Note that there are two aspects of moral theory that you are now required to account for: (1) Moral authority: What is the source of any mandate that requires you to morally act in a certain way that is otherwise contrary to your perceived self-interest or disposition? (2) Moral Agency: What is your theory of human nature that explains the capacity of human beings to make moral choices?
If you do not answer these two questions you lose this
debate.
________________________________________________
"I said, look around. The whole world obeys laws, the laws of nature and so far those laws have worked to keep everything in perfect balance enough to create and sustain life on Earth alone for four billion years."
COMMENT: So what? This has nothing whatever to do with either (1) or (2) above.
________________________________________________
"The Bible only covers about 4,000 of those years and not very well. It’s a retelling of far more ancient myths, most of which got debunked long ago by science."
COMMENT: Debunking, or attempting to debunk, the theistic account of morality does not meet your burden to provide a substantive account of "where YOU get YOUR morality." Remember, this is the burden you accepted!
______________________________________
"The rest of the story is written in our DNA and in the structure of everything in the universe, which is made out of the same substance, god particle, minus the particle, since it’s a universal field that connects everything and created everything."
COMMENT: How so? There is no moral authority (1) or moral agency (2) that is instantiated by DNA, or the structure of the universe, however (incorrectly) you describe that structure. Both represent physical systems only, without the slightest hint of moral implication. The same is true if you add neurology (brain states and functions.)
_______________________________________
COMMENT: At this point the discussion gets off the track. Human intuitions about morality are NOT what is at issue here. Both the theist and atheist can (and do) agree that we all share (more or less) the same basic moral intuitions. The questions remain: What is the moral authority of such intuitions, and do human beings have the capacity make moral choices conforming to such intuitions? The same questions apply if such intuitions are formalized by secular laws.
_______________________________________
"I said they’re very secular, but there is a saying in Japan that they are Zen Buddhist when they are born and Shinto when they die. In other words they worship nature. And if you are in tune with nature you find your balance, individually, and collectively. They care about the collective oneness.
The Tao.
The singularity
COMMENT: I don't care much regarding your accuracy about religious thought in Japan. However, your apparent fallback to such things as "balance of nature" or "collective oneness," or the Tao; or the Singularity, as in any way explanatory as to any coherent moral theory is laughable. You have entered the world of fantasyland.
In short, your young coworker friend appears to have a much better understanding of moral theory than you do. At least he or she knows that some coherent explanation of morality is required.
Let's beat this dead horse once again ...
Good Without god -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usi7F8FSUFs&t=24s
Good Without god -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usi7F8FSUFs&t=24s
There is a lot to be said for the LDS "comfort" parishioners inside of the Latter-day faith might experience, having their sing-song espousing leadership assuring such a direct contact with God. Joseph Smith practiced steps, from the beginning!
Climbing and crawling far away from this non viable theology of tricks and techniques has one spectacular outcome, even if found in the happy circumstances finding some simple serendipity.
God don't fit in your box!
Climbing and crawling far away from this non viable theology of tricks and techniques has one spectacular outcome, even if found in the happy circumstances finding some simple serendipity.
God don't fit in your box!
I think it goes back to raising your kids. My parents raised me to be a decent human being and a contributing member of society. But in the course of my career, I've seen a lot of kids who are not being raised. And we've all heard the stories of Mormon parents who also abandon parenting, thinking that their church will get the job done. And it doesn't, and it can't.
I don't know how much my church of birth (the Roman Catholic church) reinforced this. The RC church puts an unhealthy emphasis on even the tiniest sin not being okay with God. And for a child, its emphasis on teaching morality via the Ten Commandments can be odd. Try explaining, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" to a seven year old.
My opinion is that a church, at best, can only reinforce what is being taught by parents or grandparents. And churches can also do damage, putting an unhealthy emphasis on minor sins and things that should never be sins at all, such as masturbation.
I don't know how much my church of birth (the Roman Catholic church) reinforced this. The RC church puts an unhealthy emphasis on even the tiniest sin not being okay with God. And for a child, its emphasis on teaching morality via the Ten Commandments can be odd. Try explaining, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" to a seven year old.
My opinion is that a church, at best, can only reinforce what is being taught by parents or grandparents. And churches can also do damage, putting an unhealthy emphasis on minor sins and things that should never be sins at all, such as masturbation.
What your parents purport to teach you may be vastly different from what you learn by watching them...especially when they think you don't see them.
Governance often works this way.
This is why the the joke about taking only one mormon on a fishing trip can cause laughter.
What you say you know about the Tao guarantees nothing with regard to how you'll act when push comes to shove.
Governance often works this way.
This is why the the joke about taking only one mormon on a fishing trip can cause laughter.
What you say you know about the Tao guarantees nothing with regard to how you'll act when push comes to shove.
I AM a Christian and heavily religious, BUT, basic morality isn't a religious thing.
It boils down to whether you are selfish or wish to promote society and the betterment of civilization.
For example, freedom.
Freedom is the ability to do what you want unless it infringes on the freedom of someone else.
I don't think that's a religious idea. That's an idea that allows you to do what you want while respecting others ability to do the same thing.
That's called wanting a society where people can be together and work together to make each other's lives better.
You don't need religion to want something or desire something like that and to understand that in order to have something like that you need to have a basic idea of how something like that could work.
It boils down to whether you are selfish or wish to promote society and the betterment of civilization.
For example, freedom.
Freedom is the ability to do what you want unless it infringes on the freedom of someone else.
I don't think that's a religious idea. That's an idea that allows you to do what you want while respecting others ability to do the same thing.
That's called wanting a society where people can be together and work together to make each other's lives better.
You don't need religion to want something or desire something like that and to understand that in order to have something like that you need to have a basic idea of how something like that could work.
And if I wanted to become a great liar, I could to thanks to the Mormon church.
Whoops I said the same thing before I saw yours.
To what you said, I would add besides learning to lie, the Mormon Church was a great teacher on how to be passive aggressive. I try not to be but I keep it in my back pocket. Can be very helpful in certain situations.
To what you said, I would add besides learning to lie, the Mormon Church was a great teacher on how to be passive aggressive. I try not to be but I keep it in my back pocket. Can be very helpful in certain situations.
The 99C store.
So many people have no interest in them anymore than you can get them for peanuts.
So many people have no interest in them anymore than you can get them for peanuts.
It is often said that Christianity and Western religion generally *define* the moral good simply as God's will. Whatever God thinks and proclaims is per se *good* and *morally right* irrespective of what human beings might think of the matter. By such an account, morality is not to be found in any reality outside of God's will, and without God there is no morality. The theistic downside is that by such a definition, God cannot of himself or herself be *good* without tautology, and human beings cannot be good of themselves, but only obedient. (The proposition "God is Good" is similar in form to the statement "An Unmarried male is a bachelor." It is just true by definition, or fiat, and not true because of any factual contingency in the universe.)
Alternatively, religion sometimes defines 'the good' as a universal metaphysical reality that is independent of God's will, thus allowing God's goodness to be a relation between his Being and this independent reality. On this view, individuals -- be they Christians or atheists -- can be morally good by the same principle, i.e. adherence to the proposed independent moral law. One problem of this view for God, is that our intuitions about good and evil do not cohere with what we take to be the actions (or inaction) of God! (The Problem of Evil)
Notice that on this latter view, God's moral authority arises not by fiat, but by a divine mandate that human beings live in accordance with the universal moral law just as he does (presumably perfectly?). Human beings were created (supposedly) "in the image of God" as independent agents also having free will to conform or not conform to the moral law. This moral law reveals itself to everyone through human intuitions, but also by God's proclamations as to its content, and his mandate to follow it on pain of some divine retribution.
Of course, postulating such an independent metaphysical moral reality suggests a Platonic reality logically far removed from physical law, and removed from any evidence beyond our intuitive judgments. (Kind of like postulating a Platonic reality for mathematics in order to explain its influence in the Universe, but that's another story.) Moreover, our moral intuitions are often not consistent, and seem relative across individuals and societies.
Notwithstanding such metaphysical difficulties, and others, the latter religious moral view is infinitely more coherent than a view where (1) moral intuitions are left without authoritative foundation at all; (2) our moral sense is identified solely as various brain states, and (3) free will is denied. In that case, you have nihilism; no morality at all.
This is why a theological view or morality that is well- articulated, and however speculative, will defeat a view of morality that is based upon physical law, biology, psychology, evolutionary theory, or modern science. The problem is that there is no moral "ought" to be found in any of these academic disciplines. If you don't believe me, just check the index of any textbook covering any of these subjects.
Alternatively, religion sometimes defines 'the good' as a universal metaphysical reality that is independent of God's will, thus allowing God's goodness to be a relation between his Being and this independent reality. On this view, individuals -- be they Christians or atheists -- can be morally good by the same principle, i.e. adherence to the proposed independent moral law. One problem of this view for God, is that our intuitions about good and evil do not cohere with what we take to be the actions (or inaction) of God! (The Problem of Evil)
Notice that on this latter view, God's moral authority arises not by fiat, but by a divine mandate that human beings live in accordance with the universal moral law just as he does (presumably perfectly?). Human beings were created (supposedly) "in the image of God" as independent agents also having free will to conform or not conform to the moral law. This moral law reveals itself to everyone through human intuitions, but also by God's proclamations as to its content, and his mandate to follow it on pain of some divine retribution.
Of course, postulating such an independent metaphysical moral reality suggests a Platonic reality logically far removed from physical law, and removed from any evidence beyond our intuitive judgments. (Kind of like postulating a Platonic reality for mathematics in order to explain its influence in the Universe, but that's another story.) Moreover, our moral intuitions are often not consistent, and seem relative across individuals and societies.
Notwithstanding such metaphysical difficulties, and others, the latter religious moral view is infinitely more coherent than a view where (1) moral intuitions are left without authoritative foundation at all; (2) our moral sense is identified solely as various brain states, and (3) free will is denied. In that case, you have nihilism; no morality at all.
This is why a theological view or morality that is well- articulated, and however speculative, will defeat a view of morality that is based upon physical law, biology, psychology, evolutionary theory, or modern science. The problem is that there is no moral "ought" to be found in any of these academic disciplines. If you don't believe me, just check the index of any textbook covering any of these subjects.
Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is why a theological view or morality that is
> well- articulated, and however speculative, will
> defeat a view of morality that is based upon
> physical law, biology, psychology, evolutionary
> theory, or modern science.
I don’t think Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris would ever concede that a theological argument for morality is in anyway better than their views of morality based upon a logical, scientific viewpoint.
> The problem is that
> there is no moral "ought" to be found in any of
> these academic disciplines. If you don't believe
> me, just check the index of any textbook covering
> any of these subjects.
Check, “the Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris
Or “The God Delusion” The Roots of Morality, Why Are We Good?” Richard Dawkins
“A new concept of god: “something not very different from the sum total of the physical laws of the universe; that is, gravitation plus quantum mechanics plus grand unified field theories plus a few other things equaled god. And by that all they meant was that here were a set of exquisitely powerful physical principles that seemed to explain a great deal that was otherwise inexplicable about the universe. Laws of nature…that apply not just locally, not just in Glasgow, but far beyond: Edinburgh, Moscow…Mars…the center of the Milky Way, and out by the most distant quarters known. That the same laws of physics apply everywhere is quite remarkable. Certainly that represents a power greater than any of us.” Carl Sagan, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is why a theological view or morality that is
> well- articulated, and however speculative, will
> defeat a view of morality that is based upon
> physical law, biology, psychology, evolutionary
> theory, or modern science.
I don’t think Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris would ever concede that a theological argument for morality is in anyway better than their views of morality based upon a logical, scientific viewpoint.
> The problem is that
> there is no moral "ought" to be found in any of
> these academic disciplines. If you don't believe
> me, just check the index of any textbook covering
> any of these subjects.
Check, “the Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris
Or “The God Delusion” The Roots of Morality, Why Are We Good?” Richard Dawkins
“A new concept of god: “something not very different from the sum total of the physical laws of the universe; that is, gravitation plus quantum mechanics plus grand unified field theories plus a few other things equaled god. And by that all they meant was that here were a set of exquisitely powerful physical principles that seemed to explain a great deal that was otherwise inexplicable about the universe. Laws of nature…that apply not just locally, not just in Glasgow, but far beyond: Edinburgh, Moscow…Mars…the center of the Milky Way, and out by the most distant quarters known. That the same laws of physics apply everywhere is quite remarkable. Certainly that represents a power greater than any of us.” Carl Sagan, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God
I don’t think Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris would ever concede that a theological argument for morality is in anyway better than their views of morality based upon a logical, scientific viewpoint.
COMMENT: Probably not. But could they defend their position? Probably not.
_______________________________________
Check, “the Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris
Or “The God Delusion” The Roots of Morality, Why Are We Good?” Richard Dawkins.
COMMENT: Read them both. Not impressed. BUT WHY DON'T YOU SUMMARIZE THEIR ARGUMENTS AND TRY TO DEFEND THEM. YOU SMUGGLY DENOUCE YOUR CHRISTIAN FOIL BUT CANNOT OFFER ANY SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE TO MY CLEAR, EXPLICIT, LOGICAL ARGUMENTS. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?
_______________________________________
“A new concept of god: “something not very different from the sum total of the physical laws of the universe; that is, gravitation plus quantum mechanics plus grand unified field theories plus a few other things equaled god. And by that all they meant was that here were a set of exquisitely powerful physical principles that seemed to explain a great deal that was otherwise inexplicable about the universe. Laws of nature…that apply not just locally, not just in Glasgow, but far beyond: Edinburgh, Moscow…Mars…the center of the Milky Way, and out by the most distant quarters known. That the same laws of physics apply everywhere is quite remarkable. Certainly that represents a power greater than any of us.” Carl Sagan, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God."
COMMENT: Sagan's "personal view of God," as stated here is manifestly incoherent, unless the "power greater than any of us," is defined as some creative teleological force or agency. Nature by itself merely represents the regularities found by human beings to exist in the Universe and nothing more.
COMMENT: Probably not. But could they defend their position? Probably not.
_______________________________________
Check, “the Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris
Or “The God Delusion” The Roots of Morality, Why Are We Good?” Richard Dawkins.
COMMENT: Read them both. Not impressed. BUT WHY DON'T YOU SUMMARIZE THEIR ARGUMENTS AND TRY TO DEFEND THEM. YOU SMUGGLY DENOUCE YOUR CHRISTIAN FOIL BUT CANNOT OFFER ANY SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE TO MY CLEAR, EXPLICIT, LOGICAL ARGUMENTS. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?
_______________________________________
“A new concept of god: “something not very different from the sum total of the physical laws of the universe; that is, gravitation plus quantum mechanics plus grand unified field theories plus a few other things equaled god. And by that all they meant was that here were a set of exquisitely powerful physical principles that seemed to explain a great deal that was otherwise inexplicable about the universe. Laws of nature…that apply not just locally, not just in Glasgow, but far beyond: Edinburgh, Moscow…Mars…the center of the Milky Way, and out by the most distant quarters known. That the same laws of physics apply everywhere is quite remarkable. Certainly that represents a power greater than any of us.” Carl Sagan, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God."
COMMENT: Sagan's "personal view of God," as stated here is manifestly incoherent, unless the "power greater than any of us," is defined as some creative teleological force or agency. Nature by itself merely represents the regularities found by human beings to exist in the Universe and nothing more.
>free will is denied. In that case, you have nihilism; no morality at all.
Oh, baloney.
That is all.
Oh, baloney.
That is all.
I was struck by this gem above:
> "You cannot get an 'ought' out of an 'is.'"
That phrase implies that if a person "is" good because of genetics, biology, social norms, or education, his actions cannot be considered moral. Why? Because once a person does what he should do or has become what he should be, there is no "ought" left. By Henry's lights, the state of "being" moral is no longer possible.
Which is just silly. Henry's just doing what he always does: defining terms arbitrarily such that his conclusions are the only ones possible.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2023 12:17AM by Lot's Wife.
> "You cannot get an 'ought' out of an 'is.'"
That phrase implies that if a person "is" good because of genetics, biology, social norms, or education, his actions cannot be considered moral. Why? Because once a person does what he should do or has become what he should be, there is no "ought" left. By Henry's lights, the state of "being" moral is no longer possible.
Which is just silly. Henry's just doing what he always does: defining terms arbitrarily such that his conclusions are the only ones possible.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2023 12:17AM by Lot's Wife.
"I was struck by this gem above:
> "You cannot get an 'ought' out of an 'is.'"
That phrase implies that if a person "is" good because of genetics, biology, social norms, or education, his actions cannot be considered moral. Why? Because once a person does what he should do or has become what he should be, there is no "ought" left. By Henry's lights, the state of "being" moral is no longer possible.
Which is just silly. Henry's just doing what he always does: defining terms arbitrarily such that his conclusions are the only ones possible."
COMMENT: Sometimes your ignorance transcends the pathetic to the comical. As with all your posts, let the buyer beware.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
> "You cannot get an 'ought' out of an 'is.'"
That phrase implies that if a person "is" good because of genetics, biology, social norms, or education, his actions cannot be considered moral. Why? Because once a person does what he should do or has become what he should be, there is no "ought" left. By Henry's lights, the state of "being" moral is no longer possible.
Which is just silly. Henry's just doing what he always does: defining terms arbitrarily such that his conclusions are the only ones possible."
COMMENT: Sometimes your ignorance transcends the pathetic to the comical. As with all your posts, let the buyer beware.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Three points, Bemis.
First, here you cite Wikipedia but in the post immediately below and written 2.5 hours previously you cast shade on BoJ for citing Wikipedia. What gives?
Second, a 1903 book on philosophy does not disprove science, or science-informed philosophy, conducted over the ensuing 120 years. I have often remarked on your atavistic reliance on books from the 1950s and the 1970s yet here you go back much farther in time. You're a lot like a pimply Mormon missionary toting his scriptures about and testifying that anything that contradicts them is false.
Third, if we are going back to Hume it's important to note that his version of the "is-ought problem" differs substantially from yours. You take it as indicating that "moral facts are societal." Hume said no such thing. He said that that there is no logical connection between what "is" and what "out to be," including societal norms.
Can you explain why Hume was wrong?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2023 11:56AM by Lot's Wife.
First, here you cite Wikipedia but in the post immediately below and written 2.5 hours previously you cast shade on BoJ for citing Wikipedia. What gives?
Second, a 1903 book on philosophy does not disprove science, or science-informed philosophy, conducted over the ensuing 120 years. I have often remarked on your atavistic reliance on books from the 1950s and the 1970s yet here you go back much farther in time. You're a lot like a pimply Mormon missionary toting his scriptures about and testifying that anything that contradicts them is false.
Third, if we are going back to Hume it's important to note that his version of the "is-ought problem" differs substantially from yours. You take it as indicating that "moral facts are societal." Hume said no such thing. He said that that there is no logical connection between what "is" and what "out to be," including societal norms.
Can you explain why Hume was wrong?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2023 11:56AM by Lot's Wife.
First, here you cite Wikipedia but in the post immediately below and written 2.5 hours previously you cast shade on BoJ for citing Wikipedia. What gives?
COMMENT: I don't like citing Wiki because it is often wrong. I do it because (1) it does offer a "bird's eye view of an issue, and (2) people on RfM are familiar with it and are not generally familiar with sources I might otherwise cite, including their credibility.
___________________________________________
Second, a 1903 book on philosophy does not disprove science, or science-informed philosophy, conducted over the ensuing 120 years. I have often remarked on your atavistic reliance on books from the 1950s and the 1970s yet here you go back much farther in time. You're a lot like a pimply Mormon missionary toting his scriptures about and testifying that anything that contradicts them is false.
COMMENT: Your constant emphasis on dates is misplaced, both here and elsewhere. Although I realize that modern science creates context for earlier views and sometimes calls such views into question, I do not cite sources that are so dated. And I would note that you never explicitly explain how any specific citation is outdated, or otherwise currently invalid. You only raise a general objection, as you did here. Because of that, there is no way for me to substantively respond to such suggestions.
_______________________________________
Third, if we are going back to Hume it's important to note that his version of the "is-ought problem" differs substantially from yours. You take it as indicating that "moral facts are societal." Hume said no such thing. He said that that there is no logical connection between what "is" and what "out to be," including societal norms.
COMMENT: The "naturalistic fallacy" as is currently understood is mostly attributed to G.E. Moore, with Hume's moral skepticism cited as a prior source. Notwithstanding, Hume was an empiricist, essentially believing that all knowledge was based upon sensory experience. That being the case, since we do not experience morality by sensory experience (but only intuitively), it therefore cannot exist. Therefore, what "is" (exists by experience) cannot generate what is not so experienced, that is any moral "ought."
___________________________________________
Can you explain why Hume was wrong?
COMMENT: In my judgment reality is not merely what is *objectively* revealed by the human physical senses. It encompasses not only a much more expanded notion of what is "physical," but also an additional "metaphysical" reality that includes minimally, consciousness, mind, and free will (and mathematics), which are only intuitively revealed, and which serve as the fundamental basis of human nature, human life, and morality. What "Platonic" metaphysics underlies this reality is unknown, but its existence seems to me to be obvious. There is just too much that we *subjectively* experience through intuition, introspection, and ordinary cognition, to assume that all the universe is "materialistic" in the scientific sense.
COMMENT: I don't like citing Wiki because it is often wrong. I do it because (1) it does offer a "bird's eye view of an issue, and (2) people on RfM are familiar with it and are not generally familiar with sources I might otherwise cite, including their credibility.
___________________________________________
Second, a 1903 book on philosophy does not disprove science, or science-informed philosophy, conducted over the ensuing 120 years. I have often remarked on your atavistic reliance on books from the 1950s and the 1970s yet here you go back much farther in time. You're a lot like a pimply Mormon missionary toting his scriptures about and testifying that anything that contradicts them is false.
COMMENT: Your constant emphasis on dates is misplaced, both here and elsewhere. Although I realize that modern science creates context for earlier views and sometimes calls such views into question, I do not cite sources that are so dated. And I would note that you never explicitly explain how any specific citation is outdated, or otherwise currently invalid. You only raise a general objection, as you did here. Because of that, there is no way for me to substantively respond to such suggestions.
_______________________________________
Third, if we are going back to Hume it's important to note that his version of the "is-ought problem" differs substantially from yours. You take it as indicating that "moral facts are societal." Hume said no such thing. He said that that there is no logical connection between what "is" and what "out to be," including societal norms.
COMMENT: The "naturalistic fallacy" as is currently understood is mostly attributed to G.E. Moore, with Hume's moral skepticism cited as a prior source. Notwithstanding, Hume was an empiricist, essentially believing that all knowledge was based upon sensory experience. That being the case, since we do not experience morality by sensory experience (but only intuitively), it therefore cannot exist. Therefore, what "is" (exists by experience) cannot generate what is not so experienced, that is any moral "ought."
___________________________________________
Can you explain why Hume was wrong?
COMMENT: In my judgment reality is not merely what is *objectively* revealed by the human physical senses. It encompasses not only a much more expanded notion of what is "physical," but also an additional "metaphysical" reality that includes minimally, consciousness, mind, and free will (and mathematics), which are only intuitively revealed, and which serve as the fundamental basis of human nature, human life, and morality. What "Platonic" metaphysics underlies this reality is unknown, but its existence seems to me to be obvious. There is just too much that we *subjectively* experience through intuition, introspection, and ordinary cognition, to assume that all the universe is "materialistic" in the scientific sense.
> COMMENT: In my judgment reality . . . encompasses not only a
> much more expanded notion of what is "physical," but also an
> additional "metaphysical" reality . . .
That is exactly what religion does. It assumes "a much more expanded notion of what is 'physical,' but also an additional 'metaphysical' reality. You have merely replaced God with your own version of extra-physical--and hence untestable--reality.
------------------
. . . that includes
> minimally, consciousness , mind, and free will (and
> mathematics), which are only intuitively revealed. . .
Truth that is "only intuitively revealed?" You feel comfortable with views of the physical universe based on what is "intuitively revealed?" Revealed by whom?
-----------------,
> . . . and which serve as the fundamental basis of human
> nature, human life, and morality. What "Platonic"
> metaphysics underlies this reality is unknown, but
> its existence seems to me to be obvious. T
There is the problem. You see your own intuition as a better source of truth than physical reality as perceived through science. You've replaced God, or at least his prophets, with yourself.
--------------
> There is
> just too much that we *subjectively* experience
> through intuition, introspection, and ordinary
> cognition, to assume that all the universe is
> "materialistic" in the scientific sense.
Having put yourself in the position of God, you now try to persuade us that the collective "we *subjectively* experience" the same things you do.
But how do you know what we subjectively experience? Why is what you intuit logically preferable to what we feel?
----------------
I think we've identified the problem. You view what you personally intuit as true and expect the rest of us to agree.
Having acknowledged that, why do you need old books at all? The source of universal truth is you.
> much more expanded notion of what is "physical," but also an
> additional "metaphysical" reality . . .
That is exactly what religion does. It assumes "a much more expanded notion of what is 'physical,' but also an additional 'metaphysical' reality. You have merely replaced God with your own version of extra-physical--and hence untestable--reality.
------------------
. . . that includes
> minimally, consciousness , mind, and free will (and
> mathematics), which are only intuitively revealed. . .
Truth that is "only intuitively revealed?" You feel comfortable with views of the physical universe based on what is "intuitively revealed?" Revealed by whom?
-----------------,
> . . . and which serve as the fundamental basis of human
> nature, human life, and morality. What "Platonic"
> metaphysics underlies this reality is unknown, but
> its existence seems to me to be obvious. T
There is the problem. You see your own intuition as a better source of truth than physical reality as perceived through science. You've replaced God, or at least his prophets, with yourself.
--------------
> There is
> just too much that we *subjectively* experience
> through intuition, introspection, and ordinary
> cognition, to assume that all the universe is
> "materialistic" in the scientific sense.
Having put yourself in the position of God, you now try to persuade us that the collective "we *subjectively* experience" the same things you do.
But how do you know what we subjectively experience? Why is what you intuit logically preferable to what we feel?
----------------
I think we've identified the problem. You view what you personally intuit as true and expect the rest of us to agree.
Having acknowledged that, why do you need old books at all? The source of universal truth is you.
"Oh, baloney.
COMMENT: There are numerous citations within the philosophical literature to support this claim, which I could cite, even though the arguments I have made in this thread are logically self-contained. In any event, here is what Wiki says on this subject: (A source I am sure you are familiar with.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism
Moral Nihilism
"Moral nihilism today broadly tends to take the form of an Error Theory: The view developed originally by J.L. Mackie in his 1977 book Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Error theory and nihilism broadly take the form of a negative claim about the existence of objective values or properties. Under traditional views there are moral properties or methods which hold objectively in some sense beyond our contingent interests which morally obligate us to act. For Mackie and the Error Theorists, such properties do not exist in the world, and therefore morality conceived of by reference to objective facts must also not exist. Therefore, morality in the traditional sense does not exist."
_________________________________________
"That is all."
COMMENT: The Oracle as spoken! All the thinking has been done.
You really should be more careful when offering non-substantive soundbites on subjects you know nothing about.
COMMENT: There are numerous citations within the philosophical literature to support this claim, which I could cite, even though the arguments I have made in this thread are logically self-contained. In any event, here is what Wiki says on this subject: (A source I am sure you are familiar with.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism
Moral Nihilism
"Moral nihilism today broadly tends to take the form of an Error Theory: The view developed originally by J.L. Mackie in his 1977 book Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Error theory and nihilism broadly take the form of a negative claim about the existence of objective values or properties. Under traditional views there are moral properties or methods which hold objectively in some sense beyond our contingent interests which morally obligate us to act. For Mackie and the Error Theorists, such properties do not exist in the world, and therefore morality conceived of by reference to objective facts must also not exist. Therefore, morality in the traditional sense does not exist."
_________________________________________
"That is all."
COMMENT: The Oracle as spoken! All the thinking has been done.
You really should be more careful when offering non-substantive soundbites on subjects you know nothing about.
I apparently need to spell this out in more detail.
The questioner in the Original Post was making the implicit argument that if you don't believe in God, you are a nihilist and have no morality.
>free will is denied. In that case, you have nihilism; no morality at all.
This is the exact same argument, except you changed the antecedent from "God is denied" to "free will is denied"
Neither premise supports the conclusion. People who don't believe in God can have a perfectly reasonable moral code. People who think that free will is an illusion can likewise have a perfectly reasonable moral code.
Both arguments are baloney.
The questioner in the Original Post was making the implicit argument that if you don't believe in God, you are a nihilist and have no morality.
>free will is denied. In that case, you have nihilism; no morality at all.
This is the exact same argument, except you changed the antecedent from "God is denied" to "free will is denied"
Neither premise supports the conclusion. People who don't believe in God can have a perfectly reasonable moral code. People who think that free will is an illusion can likewise have a perfectly reasonable moral code.
Both arguments are baloney.
I apparently need to spell this out in more detail.
The questioner in the Original Post was making the implicit argument that if you don't believe in God, you are a nihilist and have no morality.
COMMENT: To the extent this was an implicit assumption it is wrong.
____________________________________
>free will is denied. In that case, you have nihilism; no morality at all.
This is the exact same argument, except you changed the antecedent from "God is denied" to "free will is denied"
COMMENT: It is NOT the same argument at all. God beliefs are not the same as free will beliefs. You can believe in God without believing in free will, and you can believe in free will without believing in God. (I am an example!) They require entirely different necessary and sufficient conditions.
_____________________________________
Neither premise supports the conclusion. People who don't believe in God can have a perfectly reasonable moral code.
COMMENT: Correct!
______________________________________
People who think that free will is an illusion can likewise have a perfectly reasonable moral code.
COMMENT: NO! Free will is a prerequisite for morality, as I have explained repeatedly. Of course, you can act morally, and can profess a moral code, but by definition you are being inconsistent if you also deny free will because moral choice requires the ability to make decisions between alternative courses of action.
________________________________________
Both arguments are baloney.
COMMENT: You need to do a bit more reading on this!
The questioner in the Original Post was making the implicit argument that if you don't believe in God, you are a nihilist and have no morality.
COMMENT: To the extent this was an implicit assumption it is wrong.
____________________________________
>free will is denied. In that case, you have nihilism; no morality at all.
This is the exact same argument, except you changed the antecedent from "God is denied" to "free will is denied"
COMMENT: It is NOT the same argument at all. God beliefs are not the same as free will beliefs. You can believe in God without believing in free will, and you can believe in free will without believing in God. (I am an example!) They require entirely different necessary and sufficient conditions.
_____________________________________
Neither premise supports the conclusion. People who don't believe in God can have a perfectly reasonable moral code.
COMMENT: Correct!
______________________________________
People who think that free will is an illusion can likewise have a perfectly reasonable moral code.
COMMENT: NO! Free will is a prerequisite for morality, as I have explained repeatedly. Of course, you can act morally, and can profess a moral code, but by definition you are being inconsistent if you also deny free will because moral choice requires the ability to make decisions between alternative courses of action.
________________________________________
Both arguments are baloney.
COMMENT: You need to do a bit more reading on this!
I know you keep repeatedly saying it. It is almost as if you could not do otherwise, an apparent lack of free will. Oh, the irony.
It’s possible to come up with a theory of how the world works without resorting to free will. I don’t know if such a theory is correct, but I don’t see enough contrary evidence to just dismiss it out of hand,
It’s possible to come up with a theory of how the world works without resorting to free will. I don’t know if such a theory is correct, but I don’t see enough contrary evidence to just dismiss it out of hand,
"I know you keep repeatedly saying it. It is almost as if you could not do otherwise, an apparent lack of free will. Oh, the irony."
COMMENT: This is as logically clear a statement as anyone can make, from Peter Van Inwagen's classic essay, *An Essay on Free Will* (p.192-193):
"If we do not have free will, then there is no such thing as moral responsibility. This proposition, one might think, certainly deserves to be commonplace. If someone charges you with, say, lying, and if you can convince him that it was simply not within your power *not* to lie, then it would seem that you have done all that is necessary to absolve yourself of responsibility for lying. Your accuser cannot say, "I concede it was not within your power not to lie; none the less you ought not to have lied." *Ought*, as the saying goes, implies *can.* . . . Similarly, if someone charges you with *not* having done something he maintains you ought to have done, he must withdraw his charge if you can convince him that you couldn't have done it. . . .
"It would seem to follow from these considerations that without free will there is no responsibility: if moral responsibility exists, then someone is morally responsible for something he has done or something he has left undone; to be morally responsible for some act or failure to act is at least to be able to have acted otherwise, whatever else it may involve; to be able to have acted otherwise is to have free will. Therefore, if moral responsibility exists, someone has free will. Therefore, if no one has free will, moral responsibility does not exist."
_________________________________________
"It’s possible to come up with a theory of how the world works without resorting to free will. I don’t know if such a theory is correct, but I don’t see enough contrary evidence to just dismiss it out of hand."
COMMENT: "Coming up with a theory of how the world works" involves the free will of the person coming up with such a theory. After all, a decision was made to come with that theory as opposed to some other theory. At some point there was deliberation by a conscious agent, which logically entails alternative choices.
So, there's that. Thus, in science, denying free will is self-defeating! Unless you think that when the Universe came into existence, the seeds of Einstein's Theory of Relativity were already in its deterministic place, and he, as a cognitive agent, had nothing to do with it. So much for "genius."
COMMENT: This is as logically clear a statement as anyone can make, from Peter Van Inwagen's classic essay, *An Essay on Free Will* (p.192-193):
"If we do not have free will, then there is no such thing as moral responsibility. This proposition, one might think, certainly deserves to be commonplace. If someone charges you with, say, lying, and if you can convince him that it was simply not within your power *not* to lie, then it would seem that you have done all that is necessary to absolve yourself of responsibility for lying. Your accuser cannot say, "I concede it was not within your power not to lie; none the less you ought not to have lied." *Ought*, as the saying goes, implies *can.* . . . Similarly, if someone charges you with *not* having done something he maintains you ought to have done, he must withdraw his charge if you can convince him that you couldn't have done it. . . .
"It would seem to follow from these considerations that without free will there is no responsibility: if moral responsibility exists, then someone is morally responsible for something he has done or something he has left undone; to be morally responsible for some act or failure to act is at least to be able to have acted otherwise, whatever else it may involve; to be able to have acted otherwise is to have free will. Therefore, if moral responsibility exists, someone has free will. Therefore, if no one has free will, moral responsibility does not exist."
_________________________________________
"It’s possible to come up with a theory of how the world works without resorting to free will. I don’t know if such a theory is correct, but I don’t see enough contrary evidence to just dismiss it out of hand."
COMMENT: "Coming up with a theory of how the world works" involves the free will of the person coming up with such a theory. After all, a decision was made to come with that theory as opposed to some other theory. At some point there was deliberation by a conscious agent, which logically entails alternative choices.
So, there's that. Thus, in science, denying free will is self-defeating! Unless you think that when the Universe came into existence, the seeds of Einstein's Theory of Relativity were already in its deterministic place, and he, as a cognitive agent, had nothing to do with it. So much for "genius."
> COMMENT: "Coming up with a theory of how the world
> works" involves the free will of the person coming
> up with such a theory.
That's circular.
--------------------
> After all, a decision was
> made to come with that theory as opposed to some
> other theory. At some point there was deliberation
> by a conscious agent, which logically entails
> alternative choices.
This is where your refusal to look at science--neurology, perception, brain function, genetics, among other fields, and epigenetics--makes it impossible for you to perceive anything that challenges your own conclusions.
------------------
> So, there's that. Thus, in science, denying free
> will is self-defeating!
In our years of discussing these issues you claimed first to be a microbiologist, then to have a degree in philosophy of science before finally acknowledging that your education was in plain old philosophy and law. Never once have you pointed to a scientific or mathematical paper published in peer-reviewed articles.
It is therefore literally impossible for you to know if there are plausible alternatives to your "intuitive" model.
> works" involves the free will of the person coming
> up with such a theory.
That's circular.
--------------------
> After all, a decision was
> made to come with that theory as opposed to some
> other theory. At some point there was deliberation
> by a conscious agent, which logically entails
> alternative choices.
This is where your refusal to look at science--neurology, perception, brain function, genetics, among other fields, and epigenetics--makes it impossible for you to perceive anything that challenges your own conclusions.
------------------
> So, there's that. Thus, in science, denying free
> will is self-defeating!
In our years of discussing these issues you claimed first to be a microbiologist, then to have a degree in philosophy of science before finally acknowledging that your education was in plain old philosophy and law. Never once have you pointed to a scientific or mathematical paper published in peer-reviewed articles.
It is therefore literally impossible for you to know if there are plausible alternatives to your "intuitive" model.
>> The problem is that there is no moral "ought" to be found in any of these academic disciplines.
There is often no moral "ought" to be found in religion. Religions get *some* things right, and drop the ball on others. Look at the Roman Catholic's church persistent refusal to adopt a comprehensive child abuse protection policy (something that every U.S. public school has in place.) Look at historical and current policies that demean and disempower blacks, women, gays, etc. Look at major Mormon failures of morality such as the order of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the scourge of polygamy, etc.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2023 02:38AM by summer.
There is often no moral "ought" to be found in religion. Religions get *some* things right, and drop the ball on others. Look at the Roman Catholic's church persistent refusal to adopt a comprehensive child abuse protection policy (something that every U.S. public school has in place.) Look at historical and current policies that demean and disempower blacks, women, gays, etc. Look at major Mormon failures of morality such as the order of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the scourge of polygamy, etc.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2023 02:38AM by summer.
And don't forget about the birth control ban. If they really cared about their people they would do everything they could to reduce pregnancy and lift so many of their followers out of the abject poverty and problems that comes from it. We watch a show, Smugglers. Almost always the people that are involved do it because of poverty. Poverty like we don't even have here in the US. And almost always they have multiple kids.
Absolutely. The birth control ban was the first thing that drove me out of the Catholic church at an early age, because I realized that birth control is a moral "good."
I'm amused at your use of the word "speculative" as an overly generous euphemism for unfounded. I'm also amused at how you leveraged that bit of generosity to declare a "defeat" of naturalistic morality.
There is no "defeat". Theistic morality fails its own claims, without any relative comparison to something else. It's silly to think that a "defeat" can be handed down from a failure.
There is no "defeat". Theistic morality fails its own claims, without any relative comparison to something else. It's silly to think that a "defeat" can be handed down from a failure.
At least have the courtesy to make what is attributed to me explicit. This is what I said:
"This is why a theological view or morality that is well- articulated, and however speculative, will defeat a view of morality that is based upon physical law, biology, psychology, evolutionary theory, or modern science. The problem is that there is no moral "ought" to be found in any of these academic disciplines. If you don't believe me, just check the index of any textbook covering any of these subjects."
Now as to your concerns:
"I'm amused at your use of the word "speculative" as an overly generous euphemism for unfounded. I'm also amused at how you leveraged that bit of generosity to declare a "defeat" of naturalistic morality."
COMMENT: As to the first point, I concur that theistic theories of morality are factually unfounded. After all, there is no fact of the existence of God. I was talking about a logically "well-articulated" theistic theory only, not its factual basis. The point is that when generating *any* theory, you have to start with a logical structure that is minimally consistent. Well-articulated theistic theories have such consistency. On the other hand, I have not seen a naturalistic (materialist) account of morality that *is* consistent; specifically by meeting the two requirements I posted above of any such theory: (1) Moral authority; and (2) Moral agency.
___________________________________________
"There is no "defeat". Theistic morality fails its own claims, without any relative comparison to something else. It's silly to think that a "defeat" can be handed down from a failure."
COMMENT: I did not say that theistic morality logically implies a "defeat" of naturalistic moral theories. Naturalistic moral theories are "defeated" by their own inconsistency. (the Naturalistic fallacy) My use of the word "defeat" in the above quote was only meant in the context of a debate, where logical consistency, and a meaningful articulation of the theory, always "defeats" an alternative theory that is logical inconsistent. The debate context was established by the OP.
"This is why a theological view or morality that is well- articulated, and however speculative, will defeat a view of morality that is based upon physical law, biology, psychology, evolutionary theory, or modern science. The problem is that there is no moral "ought" to be found in any of these academic disciplines. If you don't believe me, just check the index of any textbook covering any of these subjects."
Now as to your concerns:
"I'm amused at your use of the word "speculative" as an overly generous euphemism for unfounded. I'm also amused at how you leveraged that bit of generosity to declare a "defeat" of naturalistic morality."
COMMENT: As to the first point, I concur that theistic theories of morality are factually unfounded. After all, there is no fact of the existence of God. I was talking about a logically "well-articulated" theistic theory only, not its factual basis. The point is that when generating *any* theory, you have to start with a logical structure that is minimally consistent. Well-articulated theistic theories have such consistency. On the other hand, I have not seen a naturalistic (materialist) account of morality that *is* consistent; specifically by meeting the two requirements I posted above of any such theory: (1) Moral authority; and (2) Moral agency.
___________________________________________
"There is no "defeat". Theistic morality fails its own claims, without any relative comparison to something else. It's silly to think that a "defeat" can be handed down from a failure."
COMMENT: I did not say that theistic morality logically implies a "defeat" of naturalistic moral theories. Naturalistic moral theories are "defeated" by their own inconsistency. (the Naturalistic fallacy) My use of the word "defeat" in the above quote was only meant in the context of a debate, where logical consistency, and a meaningful articulation of the theory, always "defeats" an alternative theory that is logical inconsistent. The debate context was established by the OP.
"I was talking about a logically "well-articulated" theistic theory only, not its factual basis."
A logical argument that isn't factual is equally as worthless as an illogical argument.
A logical argument that isn't factual is equally as worthless as an illogical argument.
"A logical argument that isn't factual is equally as worthless as an illogical argument."
COMMENT: We are talking about theories here. A theory is often presented with assumed facts that are not yet proven or certain to be true, such that if they were true the conclusion of the theory would (supposedly) follow. Thereafter, such theories are (hopefully) confirmed or otherwise falsified by evidence. In any case, such theories are methodologically useful, if not necessary, in scientific discourse.
On the other hand, an inconsistent theory is dead on arrival. As such, it is manifestly NOT "equally" worthless.
COMMENT: We are talking about theories here. A theory is often presented with assumed facts that are not yet proven or certain to be true, such that if they were true the conclusion of the theory would (supposedly) follow. Thereafter, such theories are (hopefully) confirmed or otherwise falsified by evidence. In any case, such theories are methodologically useful, if not necessary, in scientific discourse.
On the other hand, an inconsistent theory is dead on arrival. As such, it is manifestly NOT "equally" worthless.
I suppose it depends, then, on what you value. To me, validity is of no value if soundness is lacking. The conclusion is still suspect.
Nice try. But this *is* Henry.
> COMMENT: We are talking about theories here. A
> theory is often presented with assumed facts that
> are not yet proven or certain to be true, such
> that if they were true the conclusion of the
> theory would (supposedly) follow. Thereafter,
> such theories are (hopefully) confirmed or
> otherwise falsified by evidence.
Yet you refuse even to look at the evidence. You insist on old books, old philosophical utterances, and refuse across the board to look at the science that has accumulated in the last 20 years, the last 30 years, the last 70 years, even the literally last 120 years.
How can you "hope" to verify or falsify anything if you close your eyes to the evidence?
> theory is often presented with assumed facts that
> are not yet proven or certain to be true, such
> that if they were true the conclusion of the
> theory would (supposedly) follow. Thereafter,
> such theories are (hopefully) confirmed or
> otherwise falsified by evidence.
Yet you refuse even to look at the evidence. You insist on old books, old philosophical utterances, and refuse across the board to look at the science that has accumulated in the last 20 years, the last 30 years, the last 70 years, even the literally last 120 years.
How can you "hope" to verify or falsify anything if you close your eyes to the evidence?
Evidence is way too volatile to be taken lightly!
Best to wait until its potency is below a lethal threshold.
"No matter how old a pillow is, it is still higher off the mattress than no pillow at all."
--Judic West, Obispo de Apropos du Naught
Best to wait until its potency is below a lethal threshold.
"No matter how old a pillow is, it is still higher off the mattress than no pillow at all."
--Judic West, Obispo de Apropos du Naught
When philosophically speaking are the phrases using ought, and want, and need, possibly being treated much differently than in the grammatically usage, concerning definitions?
His thing was,”Jesus said to love your fellow man as yourself, where do you get that if not from Christ? Our whole set of morals is built upon that.”
Like I said to him,”The Golden Rule wasn’t unique to Jesus. Epicurus had the Law of Reciprocity 400yrs before Christ. That was one of the most prominent schools of thought along with Stoicism, which only grew in influence in the ancient Roman Empire. It’s common to all religions. You want to talk about egalitarianism, look at the oldest existent religions in the world, Jainism. They sweep the ground in front of them so they don’t accidentally step on a bug and kill it.
That’s empathy.
I’m a pragmatist.
Do what works and destroy what doesn’t.
Things like kindness and logic work.
Cruelty and delusion don’t work and need to be destroyed.
Like I said to him,”The Golden Rule wasn’t unique to Jesus. Epicurus had the Law of Reciprocity 400yrs before Christ. That was one of the most prominent schools of thought along with Stoicism, which only grew in influence in the ancient Roman Empire. It’s common to all religions. You want to talk about egalitarianism, look at the oldest existent religions in the world, Jainism. They sweep the ground in front of them so they don’t accidentally step on a bug and kill it.
That’s empathy.
I’m a pragmatist.
Do what works and destroy what doesn’t.
Things like kindness and logic work.
Cruelty and delusion don’t work and need to be destroyed.
I get my morals from the same place as theist's... life experiences.
Moral qualities are not a primary factor of the universe. Instead, they are secondary characteristics imposed upon experiences by human observers. We have(or observe) things happening around us (or to us) and we call them good, or evil.
HH =)
Moral qualities are not a primary factor of the universe. Instead, they are secondary characteristics imposed upon experiences by human observers. We have(or observe) things happening around us (or to us) and we call them good, or evil.
HH =)
Which god do I not "believe in" ?
Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which god do I not "believe in" ?
You tell me. But the Christian I was speaking with meant the God of the Buy-bull.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which god do I not "believe in" ?
You tell me. But the Christian I was speaking with meant the God of the Buy-bull.
Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed. Please start another thread and continue the conversation.