God and morality

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, they pretty much operate by instinct, and instinct is fairly Deterministic.

My guess is that it is largely a Christian-Cartesian claim that animals are entirely different from humans and that they do not have qualities characterized by the notion of “soul”. On that point I cannot agree at all. It seems to me biological life presents a gradient. And the animals with higher degrees of intelligence begin to show traits quite similar, for example, to humans children.

The more that I have examined animals, their behavior and reactions, their choices if you will, the more it seems that they share in some very “human” characteristics. Personality, awareness, even thought and choice in limited degrees. And even shame and a type of humor.

Of course their behavior and actions are determined by instinct (biological programming) but then man is very much on the same plane. I mean he starts from that point.

Man is in a bizarre position because mentally and conceptually he can access realms of thought and imagination that are thoroughly metaphysical, and yet he is so to speak trapped or in any case fully ensconced in biological-material existence just like the non-humans.

[phyllo]

[I'm saying that naturalism seems to offer more freedom and less inevitablity than a God which selects a meaning, a purpose and a plan for you.

Yes, that does seem obvious. But we are talking about ‘morality’, right? And though there may be zillions of immoral possibilities, it does seem that moral systems are more restrictive.

Well, if morality is also set by a god, then there is no room for other "possibilities". And if the god is all-knowing, then you can't avoid punishment/reward.

[Immanuel Can]

It seems to me biological life presents a gradient. And the animals with higher degrees of intelligence begin to show traits quite similar, for example, to humans children.

The smartest of these will still be miles less intelligent than a child as it grows. Moreover, it's not only a matter of degree, but of quality, as well. If animals had even one iota of moral capacity, then after the millions or billions of years posited by Naturalistic time-frames, we ought to see whole ethical systems built by chimps, whales or dogs. Even the smallest capacity, once magnified by those timespans, should be abundantly evident.

But there's nothing. So I suggest to you that you're anthropomorphizing animals, and mistaking mere instinctual behaviour for moral awareness.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, if morality is also set by a god, then there is no room for other "possibilities". And if the god is all-knowing, then you can't avoid punishment/reward.

Generally, the “religious picture” that is the most common, is in effect the “Vishnu” model. The religions of the Indian subcontinent, including Buddhism, follow this general line. And Christianity is non-different in this sense. The concept, the metaphysical picture, is that biological and material life is a trap or an entanglement from which one (the soul) must realize its need to ascend and to transcend. The conception of God, or God’s avatar, is of a spiritual being that enters into the human reslm (flesh existence) for the divine purpose of lifting trapped and constrained beings out of their quandary. Vishnu, Krishna, the Buddha and I suppose the Mohammedan religion, represent similar conceptual models.

So then, “morality” is always a tool, a process, a method offered to man by which man can free himself. And it has always seemed to me that morality generally is not part of the natural order but is contrary to it. The Metaphysical Principle, and the fivine figure, ask of a man to act deliberately in contradiction to insinct, desire, selfishness, and of course what is conceived of as being criminal. Essentially one is asked to negate oneself, or “low order desires” so that a higher principle is exalted.

I guess one could see it as you do: morality “set by a god”, and yes unlimited immoral possibilities are counter-productive to that path, that process, by which one is said to disentangle oneself from the “material-biological” trap.

It is true that when the “horizon” of the concept of a world order as I described — for Christians the soul fallen into the trap of sinful existence; for Vaishnavas (Vishnu-worshippers) the soul stuck in “the material entanglement” where actions either 1) tend to liberate or 2) tend to complicate and embroil — when such concept is no longer ‘believed in’, that infinite choices and possibilities are the alternative to a structured ‘moral’ existence.

One can do anything, right? It really does not matter. There is no constraint. If there is no ‘defining order’ that exists metaphysically then that is the only description of the world that is real and truthful.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The smartest of these will still be miles less intelligent than a child as it grows.

Of course and obviously. But what I pointed out is valid: animal life among the intelligent orders is similar in kind. Awareness is there. If your point is to stress man’s differences and distinction it will be a vain effort because I am not arguing for naturalism, rather for better grasp of supernaturalism and for metaphysical concepts to be strengthened.

[MikeNovack]

It seems to me biological life presents a gradient. And the animals with higher degrees of intelligence begin to show traits quite similar, for example, to humans children.

The smartest of these will still be miles less intelligent than a child as it grows. Moreover, it's not only a matter of degree, but of quality, as well. If animals had even one iota of moral capacity, then after the millions or billions of years posited by Naturalistic time-frames, we ought to see whole ethical systems built by chimps, whales or dogs. Even the smallest capacity, once magnified by those timespans, should be abundantly evident.

But there's nothing. So I suggest to you that you're anthropomorphizing animals, and mistaking mere instinctual behaviour for moral awareness.

IC, it is actually rather simple to construct experiments that determine if something is "by instinct" or "learned/taught". Likewise, chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans are less intelligent than us BUT essentially on the human scale. I respect that your religious belief/faith require you to reject parts of science. But sorry, your "need" to have humans distinctly different from other animals is not something you can get rationalists to agree with. Try sticking to "we have a soul and they don't" since the rationalists aren't going to waste their time trying to prove animals have souls.

[Alexis Jacobi]

See, the way to think about this is simply to consider deeply Alexis Jacobi’s advent here on this forum. I come into a twisted, entangled environment. Confusion, suffering, annoying BONGOS and other noises abound (“bickering” I call it). It’s obviously a hellish sort of trap, or a simile of a hell-realm from which the denizens cannot escape.

Huis clos …

But, in an inconceivable generosity I descended here. All humor, lightness, radiance and uplifting brightness like a metaphysical bulb in a glorious hallway of truthfulness and beauty. I have implanted the Keys that if they were picked up and used there would manifest a harmonious tunefulness!

Just imagine Gary, Promethean, Wilbur and IC singing in chorus! Oh glory! This thought sustains me!

And yet patiently, month after month, year after bleary year, it seems no progress has been made. Not so! Each of you is DESTINED to ascend to a higher planet and tap dance under the stars! Then, you’ll see clearly and not through clouded terrestrial eyes.

[Walker]

IC, it is actually rather simple to construct experiments that determine if something is "by instinct" or "learned/taught". Likewise, chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans are less intelligent than us BUT essentially on the human scale.

You can include my dog on that list. I swear she understands more than she should just from studying the patterns of cause and effect.

[Immanuel Can]

I respect that your religious belief/faith require you to reject parts of science.

Show me the "science" of chimp morality. I'll wait.

[Immanuel Can]

The smartest of these will still be miles less intelligent than a child as it grows.

Of course and obviously. But what I pointed out is valid: animal life among the intelligent orders is similar in kind.

That would be a fallacy. Resemblance does not provide an argument for causality, association or even for similarity in kind. It just means X looks like Y to you. It's not a proof of anything.

Awareness is there.

Awareness exists at some level in all living creatures. But what you need to prove is that the awareness is of morality. I really don't think you've got anything for that.

[phyllo]

Well, if morality is also set by a god, then there is no room for other "possibilities". And if the god is all-knowing, then you can't avoid punishment/reward.

Generally, the “religious picture” that is the most common, is in effect the “Vishnu” model. The religions of the Indian subcontinent, including Buddhism, follow this general line. And Christianity is non-different in this sense. The concept, the metaphysical picture, is that biological and material life is a trap or an entanglement from which one (the soul) must realize its need to ascend and to transcend. The conception of God, or God’s avatar, is of a spiritual being that enters into the human reslm (flesh existence) for the divine purpose of lifting trapped and constrained beings out of their quandary. Vishnu, Krishna, the Buddha and I suppose the Mohammedan religion, represent similar conceptual models.

So then, “morality” is always a tool, a process, a method offered to man by which man can free himself. And it has always seemed to me that morality generally is not part of the natural order but is contrary to it. The Metaphysical Principle, and the fivine figure, ask of a man to act deliberately in contradiction to insinct, desire, selfishness, and of course what is conceived of as being criminal. Essentially one is asked to negate oneself, or “low order desires” so that a higher principle is exalted.

I guess one could see it as you do: morality “set by a god”, and yes unlimited immoral possibilities are counter-productive to that path, that process, by which one is said to disentangle oneself from the “material-biological” trap.

It is true that when the “horizon” of the concept of a world order as I described — for Christians the soul fallen into the trap of sinful existence; for Vaishnavas (Vishnu-worshippers) the soul stuck in “the material entanglement” where actions either 1) tend to liberate or 2) tend to complicate and embroil — when such concept is no longer ‘believed in’, that infinite choices and possibilities are the alternative to a structured ‘moral’ existence.

One can do anything, right? It really does not matter. There is no constraint. If there is no ‘defining order’ that exists metaphysically then that is the only description of the world that is real and truthful.

I'm not a dualist.

I don't think a soul can exist without a body or a body exist without a soul. It's one unified package. So there is nothing to "transcend".

Morality is part of the natural order, not separate or contrary to it. That's demonstrated by the fact that animals have morals.
Instinct, desire and selfishness are limiting. Morality shows how to exceed those limits. You desire a marshmallow but by waiting, you can get more than one.

I don't know why people say "One can do anything, right? It really does not matter."

Everything you do matters ... to you and to others. You are not separate or isolated.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I respect that your religious belief/faith require you to reject parts of science.

Show me the "science" of chimp morality. I'll wait.

The famous chimp “Lucy” reacted very strongly to being bit in her private part by another female. That is to say, she reacted to an “injustice”. Did you ever read much on Jane Goodall’s chimps? Leaky saw their culture and behavior as “proto-human”.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Awareness exists at some level in all living creatures. But what you need to prove is that the awareness is of morality. I really don't think you've got anything for that.

That is not the argument I made nor am making.

I am only talking about awareness within Nature snd therefore awareness that is naturalistic. And both animals and humans exist within naturalism.

Obviously, a moral order can only be conceived of by humans, at least as far as all evidences go. And moral choices seem only to be human possibilities.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm not a dualist.

I don't think a soul can exist without a body or a body exist without a soul. It's one unified package. So there is nothing to "transcend".

Morality is part of the natural order, not separate or contrary to it. That's demonstrated by the fact that animals have morals.
Instinct, desire and selfishness are limiting. Morality shows how to exceed those limits. You desire a marshmallow but by waiting, you can get more than one.

I understand. You therefore locate yourself within a “naturalistic” perspective. Why bother even to define “soul”? You really only mean brain or mind, right?

[Alexis Jacobi]

See, if we get clear here it is not hard to see that IC and I, because of metaphysical or spiritual commitments (recognitions), cannot accept the naturalistic view of life. No reason to argue about it really. Just to see and understand the differences. Obviously I operate generally on a far higher planet than IC. Thus I can be compared to a very intelligent and even thoughtful chimpanzee, and IC to a lemur just sitting there with huge, vacant eyes, nibbling a leaf...