What are the Benefits of Theism?

[Immanuel Can]

There is practical advantage in neutral monism(supports science), and practical disadvantage in Cartesian dualism(cruel to animals).

That's a bizarre thought, B. why would monism be less likely than dualism to prevent cruelty to animals?

Animals are, after all, cruel to one another...brutally so. And if we are no more than animals, then what would rationalize you making us the only creatures in the universe with an alleged duty not to "be cruel" to other animals?

On the other hand, if we're something different than animals, you might have a rationale for asking us to behave better than animals. You'll never get the "lower" animals to be morally responsible for anything they do; but you might get people who expect more of themselves than of animals to do it for you.

[tillingborn]

Honestly, you seem so mixed up you don't know what you're advocating.

No. I think I've been fairly consistent. Going through this process has helped me refine my thinking a bit, so thank you to you, Skepdick and others for your contributions. I haven't changed my original thesis, which is simply that there is a limit to what evidence and logic can tell us, beyond which theories are speculative. Fundamentally all I'm saying is that people create metaphysical theories, which is hardly original or contentious.

there is no way to distinguish between idealism and materialism.

Funny that we have two words for them, and other people think we can define them, and you just used both of those terms.

Perhaps 'distinguish' is too ambiguous. What I mean is that as metaphysical hypotheses, despite there being a wealth of literature in support of those and other competing theories, there is no conclusive evidence or argument that falsifies either option. Two people can do the same degree course, work equally as hard, read the same books and listen to the same arguments, write their thesis in support of opposing beliefs and get the same qualification. That much is demonstrably true. The thing that decides their beliefs is not the evidence or the arguments; it is something more like your example of one person liking vanilla ice cream and another chocolate.

No, that is the horse-manure we can speak, when we should have stayed silent.

You don't like the idea, I get it.

[Immanuel Can]

Fundamentally all I'm saying is that people create metaphysical theories, which is hardly original or contentious.

No, it's not. I can go with that.

But the theory that aesthetics is all we have to go on? I'm not at all persuaded by that one. Are you, or have you modified that one?

...there is no conclusive evidence or argument that falsifies either option.

But in a field which we have both agreed is comprised of probabilistic theories, that's not at all surprising. All it means is that there are some theories that are, say 99% likely (like, say gravity), 85% likely, some that are 50% likely, and some that are, perhaps, less than 1% likely (like unicorns). And that being so, we're not going to treat them all the same, or conclude there's no difference between them. So what's the point of pointing out that we never have 100% certainty? We're still way better with the better theories. And the better theories are the ones that conform best to facts, evidence, tests, rationality, plausibility, consistency, integrity, coherence, and so on.

Two people can do the same degree course, work equally as hard, read the same books and listen to the same arguments, write their thesis in support of opposing beliefs and get the same qualification.

Perhaps that's just a sad commentary on the education system. So?

You're talking about an institution that offers degrees in all sorts of "woke" non-subjects. As the two Sokal Hoaxes proved, their standards don't indicate a whole lot about integrity. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ax/572212/

[Skepdick]

There is practical advantage in neutral monism(supports science), and practical disadvantage in Cartesian dualism(cruel to animals).

I think if one looked hard enough one could find an attack vector against any philosophical position, which is why it's best to only treat philosophies as a point of conversational departure, not permanent fixtures.

2 minutes into any conversation all interlocutors have long abandoned their original positions.

[Belinda]

There is practical advantage in neutral monism(supports science), and practical disadvantage in Cartesian dualism(cruel to animals).

That's a bizarre thought, B. why would monism be less likely than dualism to prevent cruelty to animals?

Animals are, after all, cruel to one another...brutally so. And if we are no more than animals, then what would rationalize you making us the only creatures in the universe with an alleged duty not to "be cruel" to other animals?

On the other hand, if we're something different than animals, you might have a rationale for asking us to behave better than animals. You'll never get the "lower" animals to be morally responsible for anything they do; but you might get people who expect more of themselves than of animals to do it for you.

Did you not know that Descartes 'proved' animals have no souls?

[Belinda]

There is practical advantage in neutral monism(supports science), and practical disadvantage in Cartesian dualism(cruel to animals).

I think if one looked hard enough one could find an attack vector against any philosophical position, which is why it's best to only treat philosophies as a point of conversational departure, not permanent fixtures.

2 minutes into any conversation all interlocutors have long abandoned their original positions.

Since Descartes, the Christian Church adopted Cartesian dualism as its ontological underpinning . Men had souls: other animals were automata. This permitted the Church to legitimate capitalist exploitation of animals accompanied by the sort of moral laissez faire we allocate to plants.

A similar capitalistic legitimation happened with slavery of black Africans when black Africans were not regarded as persons but as commodities.

If there are going to be historians of the future God knows what they will say about us who morally legitimate the consumption of meat and dairy .

Neutral monism holds that bodies and souls /minds are aspects of the same substance, the monists' one substance. One substance, of which infinity of aspects are available to God, means that we who have insight into ourselves know that there is no substantial moral difference between men, animals, and vegetation, and the biosphere that holds us all. This belief outlaws capitalism especially in its more laissez faire behaviours.

Christians of the future, if there will be a human future, will not presume any hierarchy of moral stature but will hold all the things of nature in equal respect.

Since perfect actions are impossible for men any men that survive this present holocaust will not treat nature or other beings as if they are ours to exploit.

[Skepdick]

Since Descartes, the Christian Church adopted Cartesian dualism as its ontological underpinning . Men had souls: other animals were automata. This permitted the Church to legitimate capitalist exploitation of animals accompanied by the sort of moral laissez faire we allocate to plants.

A similar capitalistic legitimation happened with slavery of black Africans when black Africans were not regarded as persons but as commodities.

If there are going to be historians of the future God knows what they will say about us who morally legitimate the consumption of meat and dairy .

Neutral monism holds that bodies and souls /minds are aspects of the same substance, the monists' one substance. One substance, of which infinity of aspects are available to God, means that we who have insight into ourselves know that there is no substantial moral difference between men, animals, and vegetation, and the biosphere that holds us all. This belief outlaws capitalism especially in its more laissez faire behaviours.

Christians of the future, if there will be a human future, will not presume any hierarchy of moral stature but will hold all the things of nature in equal respect.

Since perfect actions are impossible for men any men that survive this present holocaust will not treat nature or other beings as if they are ours to exploit.

I think Philosophy in general is confused about the interpretation of monistic and dualistic ideas.

To create a dualism from a monism is to draw a distinction.
To create a monism from a dualism is to erase a distinction.

Drawing distinctions and unifying differences IS thinking.

If we start from a natural-monistic view-point then the problem of morality is simply creating the distinction of "right" and "wrong".
If we erase that distinction, we return to our monistic view-point - a world in which "right" and "wrong" do not exist and that's just nihilism.

So while philosophers spend eternity arguing over immaterial distinctions, the right/wrong distinction is the first and most important one.

If we can't distinguish right from wrong - all other distinctions don't even matter.

[tillingborn]

Fundamentally all I'm saying is that people create metaphysical theories, which is hardly original or contentious.

No, it's not. I can go with that.

But the theory that aesthetics is all we have to go on? I'm not at all persuaded by that one. Are you, or have you modified that one?

No, but as I have tried to make clear, that has never been my position. Skepdick tells me I suck at communicating, so perhaps his words are clearer:

Beyond this point is where I think we differ. My belief is that there is no way to distinguish between some theories using the better standards.

Certainly, if there's nothing better than "aesthetics" to break the deadlock then that's what we'll use to select from "otherwise-equivalent options", but if there's something better than aesthetics, even if it's marginal, then we should use THAT.

...there is no conclusive evidence or argument that falsifies either option.

But in a field which we have both agreed is comprised of probabilistic theories, that's not at all surprising. All it means is that there are some theories that are, say 99% likely (like, say gravity), 85% likely, some that are 50% likely, and some that are, perhaps, less than 1% likely (like unicorns).

We have different ideas about what a theory is. In my view gravity is not a theory. It is not 99% probable that an apple will fall; on planet Earth, if you drop an apple, it will 100% fall. Something is making that apple fall, and whatever that something is, we call gravity. So in my view, gravity is not probable, it is absolutely certain. It is the theories about what causes gravity that can be assigned a probability.

And that being so, we're not going to treat them all the same, or conclude there's no difference between them. So what's the point of pointing out that we never have 100% certainty? We're still way better with the better theories. And the better theories are the ones that conform best to facts, evidence, tests, rationality, plausibility, consistency, integrity, coherence, and so on.

The fact is that apples fall. The evidence is overwhelming, but you can still test it and you will consistently find that apples fall. Aesthetics has nothing to do with any of that. Things get muddier when it comes to theories (my use) about why they fall. Facts, evidence and consistency can only be determined if a test can be devised for some prediction that a particular theory makes. That is often not possible in practice because of current technological limits. Sometimes it is ruled out in principle; there is no test that can prove that the universe is not an idea in the mind of God. So then you are left with things like rationality, plausibility, integrity, coherence and so on, which all sound better than aesthetics but, unicorns aside, how does anyone decide any of those things? Which is more rational: General Relativity or Modified Newtonian Dynamics? Which is more plausible: monism or dualism? Skepdick is right that in all cases that there is even a marginally better alternative to aesthetics we should use it, but my point is that for some of our most fundamental beliefs, there isn't anything better.

Two people can do the same degree course, work equally as hard, read the same books and listen to the same arguments, write their thesis in support of opposing beliefs and get the same qualification.

Perhaps that's just a sad commentary on the education system. So?

You're talking about an institution that offers degrees in all sorts of "woke" non-subjects. As the two Sokal Hoaxes proved, their standards don't indicate a whole lot about integrity. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ax/572212/

Alan Sokal was in the same department as me. As well as a lot of silly nonsense, there is some serious stuff going on in some universities.

[Skepdick]

We have different ideas about what a theory is.

Then lets settle it quick.

Apples fall. We accept THAT it happens. And to side-step the entire semantic issue of inertial vs non-inertial reference frames, we could also say that the distance between the apple and the ground diminishes over time.


Any attempt to address WHY or HOW it happens is a theory.

In my view gravity is not a theory. It is not 99% probable that an apple will fall; on planet Earth, if you drop an apple, it will 100% fall. Something is making that apple fall, and whatever that something is, we call gravity. So in my view, gravity is not probable, it is absolutely certain. It is the theories about what causes gravity that can be assigned a probability.

As far as I can tell, you have at. least two theories already.

Theory A. Something is making the apple fall (but I don't know what)
Theory B. Something is making the apple fall, and I know that it's Gravity.

And so in that regard you are making the exact same error as Theists do.

SOMETHING caused the Big Bang (but I don't know what)
God caused the Big Bang.

[attofishpi]

We have different ideas about what a theory is. In my view gravity is not a theory. It is not 99% probable that an apple will fall; on planet Earth, if you drop an apple, it will 100% fall. Something is making that apple fall, and whatever that something is, we call gravity. So in my view, gravity is not probable, it is absolutely certain.

But is the apple falling? OR is the sub-atomic binary makeup of reality - where the apple is about to appear - slightly below its original position - NOW composed of what an apple actually is - that apple.

[Skepdick]

But is the apple falling? OR is the sub-atomic binary makeup of reality - where the apple is about to appear - slightly below its original position - NOW composed of what an apple actually is - that apple.

Heh!

And to side-step the entire semantic issue of inertial vs non-inertial reference frames, we could also say that the distance between the apple and the ground diminishes over time.

[tillingborn]

As far as I can tell, you have at. least two theories already.

Theory A. Something is making the apple fall (but I don't know what)
Theory B. Something is making the apple fall, and I know that it's Gravity.

It's not what I call a theory but:
A+B. Something is making the apple fall. I don't know what, but it's called gravity.

[Skepdick]

It's not what I call a theory but:
A+B. Something is making the apple fall. I don't know what, but it's called gravity.

When you think/say "Something is making the apple fall" you are already theorising a causal framework.

If you don't know what it is, then you certainly don't get to name it.

Suppose I come up with a better theory tomorrow and I call it "Superattraction" and it explains what we are observing much much better than anything so far. In effect it superattraction would have falsified gravity.

Then it would be "true" that superattraction is making the apple fall. And then you'll say yeah THAT's gravity!

No, that's God of the gaps.

[tillingborn]

It's not what I call a theory but:
A+B. Something is making the apple fall. I don't know what, but it's called gravity.

When you think/say "Something is making the apple fall" you are already theorising a causal framework.

Yes Skepdick, I know. I know I am making the aesthetic choice that we are living in what might loosely be called a 'real' world and not in the mind of God or a simulation in the way that Nick Bostrom suggests.

If you don't know what it is, then you certainly don't get to name it.

Everybody gets to call everything anything they want. Whether you agree with the names I choose is entirely up to you.

Suppose I come up with a better theory tomorrow and I call it "Superattraction" and it explains what we are observing much much better than anything so far. In effect it superattraction would have falsified gravity.

Then it would be "true" that superattraction is making the apple fall. And then you'll say yeah THAT's gravity!

No, that's God of the gaps.

If that's the interpretation you like and will stick to no matter what I say, it would be a waste of time arguing. I will just say again that in my view gravity is not a theory.

[bahman]

We have different ideas about what a theory is. In my view gravity is not a theory. It is not 99% probable that an apple will fall; on planet Earth, if you drop an apple, it will 100% fall. Something is making that apple fall, and whatever that something is, we call gravity. So in my view, gravity is not probable, it is absolutely certain.

But is the apple falling? OR is the sub-atomic binary makeup of reality - where the apple is about to appear - slightly below its original position - NOW composed of what an apple actually is - that apple.

The atoms are constraint and have relations with each other in the case of solid objects. It can be shown that 6 variables are enough to describe the motion of a solid object. The position of each atom then can be obtained with respect to these variables through the constriants.