What are the Benefits of Theism?

[Belinda]

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.

If you study Descartes you will see that modern theories of existence are based on the idea of ontic substances. The two ontic substances that Descartes believed to exist were separate and theoretically separable substances.

No version of monism holds that there be separate substances.

To get a handle on neutral monism, think of modern approach to 'mental' illness such as schizophrenia. The patient views her percepts subjectively i.e. mind stuff/ symptoms. The modern clinician views the patient objectively i.e. physical stuff/ signs . Two aspects of the same Mary Ann. Mary Ann's brain-mind is the one entity. One entity perceived from the points of view of private mind and of publicly observable body. Not two entities like according to Descartes and traditional theists.

[Skepdick]

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.

OK, but you SAY that you don't call that "a theory", but then you also say that you know you are theorising.

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

Funny you should mention it, most philosophers seem to confuse agreement and disagreement.

You were agreeing with me all the time, but pretending to disagree...

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.

Which is precisely why I am calling you a theist. A theists' reasoning is exactly the same as yours.

You can't observe God/Gravity, but you can observe the consequences/effects of God/Gravity.

The consequences of God -> Reality exists
The consequences of Gravity -> apples fall

And since the consequences/effects are certain beyond reasonable doubt, therefore God/Gravity is not a theory.

It's not the interpretation I am committed to, it's the one I have right now (given all the evidence). If you give me a better interpretation or new evidence to falsify my theory I'll gladly take it...

That's demonstrably, not a waste of time. A waste of time would be if I disregarded falsification. Perhaps there is nothing I can say to convince you that I am committed to Science, not Philosophy.

I am not committed to any of my models beyond their practical utility.

[Skepdick]

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.

Uuuuh. That's not true without context.

1. In how many dimensions
2. To what degree of precision?

The position of each atom then can be obtained with respect to these variables through the constriants.

Yeah... constraints on the degrees of freedom.

Is the number of dimensions a free variable?

[Immanuel Can]

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

Well, Descartes was a Catholic. And as such, he believed that animals were placed under human stewardship...meaning, not as resources to be destroyed, but rather as lower creatures to be managed under the authority of the God who created all.

You could ask that, or expect that, of a creature that had unique responsibility under God. You could ask him/her to tend to the environment and be responsible for lower animals and for the planet. But you could never ask it of a mere animal. All you can ask a mere animal to do is to do whatever it is that animal naturally does. And human beings have a natural propensity to dominate, proliferate, exploit, kill, pollute, and so on.

By Darwinian lights, there is no special duty in human beings, as mere animals, to be more careful, caring or moral than other animals. After all, according to that story, it's all about survival of the fittest and death of the weakest. And for sure, human beings are far and away the most powerful "animals" on the planet.

[bahman]

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.

Uuuuh. That's not true without context.

1. In how many dimensions
2. To what degree of precision?

In the classical regime. Three dimensions. Precision is a matter of how massive is the object.

The position of each atom then can be obtained with respect to these variables through the constriants.

Yeah... constraints on the degrees of freedom.

Is the number of dimensions a free variable?

No.

[Skepdick]

If you study Descartes you will see that modern theories of existence are based on the idea of ontic substances. The two ontic substances that Descartes believed to exist were separate and theoretically separable substances.

No version of monism holds that there be separate substances.

That's one level of abstraction down from where I am viewing this.

All philosophers dualise philosophical thought into "ontology" and "epistemology".

And so even though in the context of "ontology" we talk about one or many substances, we are already in a dualistic framework of thinking.

We have separated mind/brain/thinking (epistemology) from mater/substances/physicality (ontology).

To get a handle on neutral monism, think of modern approach to 'mental' illness such as schizophrenia. The patient views her percepts subjectively i.e. mind stuff/ symptoms. The modern clinician views the patient objectively i.e. physical stuff/ signs. Two aspects of the same Mary Ann. Mary Ann's brain-mind is the one entity. One entity perceived from the points of view of private mind and of publicly observable body. Not two entities like according to Descartes and traditional theists.

Agreed. Dualists draw the line in the wrong place.

The problem with thought experiments like this is that any conversation between two people (such as what is happening now) is necessarily happening in a dualistic framework. To be in a "monistic" framework would require to erase the distinguish between you and I.

[Skepdick]

In the classical regime. Three dimensions. Precision is a matter of how massive is the object.

Precision isn't a matter of mass - it's a matter of all the possible configurations of the system.

If you are operating with real numbers than you have infinite precision in three dimensions.

Which means object can move any arbitrary distance. 0.001 meter or 0.000001 meter or 1 * 10^-1000000000000000000 meters.

Good luck with that.

No.

So why are you assuming a 3-dimensional frame?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Well, I agree. He's right. Aesthetics is certainly "the port of last call," especially when it comes to questions like one's relationship to God and the disposition of one's soul. There could be nothing more harmful, actually, than a creed that was aesthetically attractive but untruthful. All that would be is a pretty lie.

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.

Well, it is. Scientists don't actually understand, even, what the force in question actually is. What they know is that it works, whatever it is...but they are definitely waiting upon a better theory of what it consists of. And it functions like a theory in practice, too. After all, if I see something seemingly seemingly defying gravity, it forces me to have a new theory about what's going on.

there is no test that can prove that the universe is not an idea in the mind of God.

There are no tests that can "prove" anything, if by "prove" we mean 100% certainty. But there are plenty of standards, evidences, observations and so on that make the existence of God overwhelmingly likely. That will do.

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?

Well, there's a whole literature on that. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-virtue/ But it's far too much stuff for us to do here. Suffice to say, there are ways to tell such things, once again on a probabilistic basis. Get a constellation of such virtues, and it becomes extremely likely your theory is approaching truth. Lack them, and it's almost absolutely certain that the theory one is holding is wrong.

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.

Yes, sure there is. But there is also, very clearly, the silly nonsense. And where it's worst is in departments like Literature, History, Political Science, Gender Studies, Critical Theory, Postcolonial Studies, Religious Studies, some Sociology departments, and par excellence, the Faculties of Education. These have lately become veritable hubs of bad, indoctrinatory scholarship. Meanwhile, the situation remains better in STEM or in Business, though even those departments are not immune. And recently, Philosophy departments have actually become increasingly conservative on the sort of "Critical Theory" nonsense.

So it's a mix. But like all mixes, it becomes dangerous if one is not alert to the difference between the mental "food" and the poison being introduced into it.

[bahman]

In the classical regime. Three dimensions. Precision is a matter of how massive is the object.

Precision isn't a matter of mass - it's a matter of all the possible configurations of the system.

If you are operating with real numbers than you have infinite precision in three dimensions.

An object can move any arbitrary distance. 0.001 meter or 0.000001 meter or 1 * 10^-1000000000000000000 meters.

Infenitismals.

The precision that can be achieved is a matter of how massive is the object. Of course it cannot be less than Plank lenght to be more precise.

No.

So why are you assuming a 3-dimensional frame?

Dimension is what define the framework. One particle has defenitive number of degree of freedom withing a given framework.

[Skepdick]

The precision that can be achieved is a matter of how massive is the object. Of course it cannot be less than Plank lenght to be more precise.

The massivity of the object is immaterial if the universe is infinite.

Can this object move 10 units from its current location across the X axis? 100 units? Infinite units?

How many degrees of freedom are there across any axis?

Dimension is what define the framework. One particle has defenitive number of degree of freedom withing a given framework.

In addition to the number of axis, you also need the degree of freedom within each axis.

[bahman]

The precision that can be achieved is a matter of how massive is the object. Of course it cannot be less than Plank lenght to be more precise.

The massivity of the object is immaterial if the universe is infinite.

It is matterial.

Can this object move 10 units from its current location across the X axis? 100 units? Infinite units?

Not infinite units.

How many degrees of freedom are there across any axis?

Infinite if the universe is infinite.

Dimension is what define the framework. One particle has defenitive number of degree of freedom withing a given framework.

In addition to the number of axis, you also need the degree of freedom within each axis.

No.

[Skepdick]

It is matterial.

It really isn't.

However massive the object, its size is X.

Not infinite units.

Great! so if the size of the object is X, and the size of the universe is Y, how many degrees of freedom are there between 0 and Y/X?

Infinite if the universe is infinite.

I don't know about you, but I don't have a clue how to precisely describe infinity.

No.

Yes.

How many numbers are there between 0 and infinity?

[bahman]

It is matterial.

It really isn't.

However massive the object, its size is X.

Not infinite units.

Great! so if the size of the object is X, and the size of the universe is Y, how many degrees of freedom are there between 0 and Y/X?

The degrees of freedom are X/PL^3 where PL is Planck length.

Infinite if the universe is infinite.

I don't know about you, but I don't have a clue how to precisely describe infinity.

Unreachable.

No.

Yes.

How many numbers are there between 0 and infinity?

Infinity.

[Skepdick]

The degrees of freedom are X/PL^3 where PL is Planck length.

No, the degrees of freedom are (Y/X/PL)^3

And if the universe (Y) is infinite then that's... (∞/X/PL)^3. Which is ∞^3 so... ∞

Unreachable.

Ok, but then you have to give me a value for Y.

Because a massive object in a box of the size Y has half the degrees of freedom than if it was in a box of size 2*Y.

Infinity.

So you have infinite degrees of freedom on each axis?

Awkward.

[DPMartin]

just look at what kind of politicians are elected and those nut jobs are the result of what they public thinks.

There's a real question as to whether all elections reflect the public will at all. But yes, I agree that wisdom in the masses seems to be in a bit of a short supply these days. Can we thank the media for that?

and to be clear there is no such thing a socialist paradise.

That is historically certain. However, that's what they keep aiming at, it seems. Certainly reality has little enough to do with their aspirations.

this is a generation that has been taught by Disney and the like that they should dream, and they are entitled access to the fulfillment thereof. heck they are convinced that because they dreamed it, it must be good.

thing is if you what socialism there are counties that proport to live by such, why don't they go there? back in the day when people wanted the freedom to pursue a life in capitalism they came here with their last dime. these people now want what they want handed to them because they are here, when they can go elsewhere and reap the benefits of socialism.