Philosophy Now Forum

Skip wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:03 pm If your 'morality' is god-given, then you are obliged to commit whatever atrocity the self-proclaimed conduits to the god command.
That is not merely disposition to, but imposition of totalitarian authority. It is, in fact, the essence of totalitarianism.
That is the ultimate aim of every form of militant theism.

Well, one had best be sure one is serving the true God, then. For submission to an evil version of "god" is likely to get one into a whole lot of moral trouble. I agree.

But the cure for bad legitimation of morality (that is, legitimation by reference to a false god or false view of god) is surely not NO legitimation. And NO legitimation is precisely what Atheism offers. That's why Nietzsche could believe that the secret behind all morality was a hidden "will to power," not anything genuinely moral. If Atheism were true, then Nietzsche would be absolutely correct.

Either way, totalitarianism is the result. And oppression by means of one or another kind of false morality, of course -- if by false religion, a tyranny of lies, and if by Atheism, a tyranny of raw, amoral power.

That is why there can be no substitute for an objective morality based on a truthful view of God. Without that, we're all just going to tyrannize each other in one way or another.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:04 am
That is why there can be no substitute for an objective morality based on a truthful view of God.

And since there is no such thing on this planet, the only reasonable choice is democratic secular law.

Skip wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:32 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:04 am
That is why there can be no substitute for an objective morality based on a truthful view of God.

And since there is no such thing on this planet,...

Is that so? How did you obtain this knowledge? I would be interested in knowing your evidence on that.

...the only reasonable choice is democratic secular law.

Well, the form of democracy (equality-based, human-rights-based) that we have in the West actually depends on Judeo-Christian moral foundations. Nietzsche knew that, and that's why he was no advocate of democracy. Ironically, secularism was also a religious sort of word (from "saeculum," worldly, the complement of "sacred"...both being words applied to different aspects of the same person's life.) Muslims, for example, have no sacred-secular distinction...they regard all matters of life as being, in principle, religious matters. So secularism, ironically, is a Christian artifact.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:13 am
Is that so? How did you obtain this knowledge?

Divine inspiration. Plus reading your claptrap. And a couple hits of the gold.

[...the only reasonable choice is democratic secular law.]
So secularism, ironically, is a Christian artifact.

Excellent. So you will stop trying to undermine it now.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:00 pm

Belinda wrote:Not since Darwin. Intelligence evolved through natural selection.

What I suppose, based on what you write, is that you might not have grasped the dimensions in the word 'intelligence' (intellectus). Here is the definition and a link to the source:

• (Latin intelligere — inter and legere — to choose between, to discern; Greek nous; German Vernunft, Verstand; French intellect; Italian intelletto).
  
  "The faculty of thought. As understood in Catholic philosophical literature it signifies the higher, spiritual, cognitive power of the soul. It is in this view awakened to action by sense, but transcends the latter in range. Amongst its functions are attention, conception, judgment, reasoning, reflection, and self-consciousness. All these modes of activity exhibit a distinctly suprasensuous element, and reveal a cognitive faculty of a higher order than is required for mere sense-cognitions. In harmony, therefore, with Catholic usage, we reserve the terms intellect, intelligence, and intellectual to this higher power and its operations, although many modern psychologists are wont, with much resulting confusion, to extend the application of these terms so as to include sensuous forms of the cognitive process. By thus restricting the use of these terms, the inaccuracy of such phrases as "animal intelligence" is avoided. Before such language may be legitimately employed, it should be shown that the lower animals are endowed with genuinely rational faculties, fundamentally one in kind with those of man. Catholic philosophers, however they differ on minor points, as a general body have held that intellect is a spiritual faculty depending extrinsically, but not intrinsically, on the bodily organism. The importance of a right theory of intellect is twofold: on account of its bearing on epistemology, or the doctrine of knowledge; and because of its connexion with the question of the spirituality of the soul."

I recognise that you likely do not assent to any part of this definition. But it is, of course, at the base of all that I have to say about the 'higher dimensions'. Thus, if one breaks away from a genuine and conscious recognition of relationship, as well as dependence in the strict sense, on what comes to a man and to men from the 'invisible dimension' (of the soul), the potential loss is catastrophic. True, to see it as such you'd have to assent to the terms, which you likely don't, and so we face an impasse.

Yet this is the essence of this debate as I see things. This is the crucial core of the issue. My position is that in no sense and under no circumstances should the soul's relationship with the intelligible world be destroyed. It should be reestablished, re-comprehended, strengthened and also talked about, shared.

I hope that you understand when I say that, if you agree with the material you quoted, then you believe in Cartesian dualism.
In that case, although you may believe that " intellect is a spiritual faculty depending extrinsically, but not intrinsically, on the bodily organism" you may still believe in rule by democracy, and a press that does not tell lies.

Skip wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:51 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:13 am
Is that so? How did you obtain this knowledge?

Divine inspiration. Plus reading your claptrap. And a couple hits of the gold.

So...you don't actually know. You just believe it.

Sounds just about as religious as a belief can get, I would say.

[...the only reasonable choice is democratic secular law.]
So secularism, ironically, is a Christian artifact.

Excellent. So you will stop trying to undermine it now.

I never WAS trying to undermine it. I believe in separation of church and state, not because it's bad for the state if we do otherwise (though it can be, if the term "church" is not rightly understood) but because it's horrible for the church.

What I am undermining is Atheism.

Atheism is not the same as secularism, and in fact, by itself, Atheism would never have discovered even the idea of secularism; for Atheism would wipe out all alternate beliefs and treat them as mere superstitions. So what need would Atheism have to demarcate anything as "secular," since it insists all things are merely mundane, worldly and "secular."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:54 pm So...you don't actually know. You just believe it.

With respect, Mr Can, no one knows.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:54 pmSounds just about as religious as a belief can get, I would say.

Bit of an odd claim from you. You are admitting that religious belief is unknowable.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:54 pmWhat I am undermining is Atheism.

Well, that's the strawman 'Atheism' that you have invented, rather than something anyone actually believes, much less is arguing for on this forum.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:54 pm [S -- Divine inspiration. Plus reading your claptrap. And a couple hits of the gold.]
So...you don't actually know. You just believe it.

Hell, no! At least two of those statements are lies.
Obviously, I don't actually read your claptrap - in either incarnation.
Guess which is the other lie.

What I am undermining is Atheism.

I wonder why you work so hard at trying to undermine something that doesn't exist
and wouldn't pose a threat to anyone even if it did exist.
Why not just blow a trumpet at the imaginary walls?

Skip wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:54 pm What I am undermining is Atheism.

I wonder why you work so hard at trying to undermine something that doesn't exist...

You mean you're not an Atheist? And you think nobody else is either?

...and wouldn't pose a threat to anyone even if it did exist.

The greater part of 148 million dead bodies in the last century say you're wrong about that.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:46 pm I have arrived at the point where the realisation has occurred

I'm guessing we could all say such a thing about our own realizations. Is it not likely that, for each of us, our points of realization support the foundations from which we speak for now -- yet there are countless points and realizations for any of us, revealing/evolving over time? What is the payoff when someone is claiming that they know of one static truth that applies to all?

all that I desire to do is to suggest that 'conceptual pathways' exist to allow for realisations of the sort I value to occur

How do you justify/explain the approach you use of claiming to know better than others, even about themselves? Is it to invalidate their credibility (while elevating yourself) -- when that's not even necessary for presenting conceptual pathways?

Gustav, you keep presenting these alternative histories. There were atheists present in places like ancient Greece. Atheism did not just appear to attack some Christian faith and the scholastics. In fact, many of the people who attacked that line of thinking, people like Newton, were Christians.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:54 pm What I am undermining is Atheism.

You don't even know what it is, because it is not ONE THING. You have built your own ideas of what you want/need to believe it is, and rejected all of the other information/insights (directly from "atheists") provided to you. How is that NOT totally manipulated to please yourself?

IC: You sure do use double standards against atheists. You claim that atheists would never have come up with secularism because atheism would have rejected all other systems of belief. But, I notice that this argument could easily apply to theism ---- theism never would have come up with secularism because theism rejects other beliefs. After all, atheists have not burned witches, drowned "heretics," and sent people to prison for the crime of "blasphemy," but theists have done all of those things.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:58 pm ... theism never would have come up with secularism because theism rejects other beliefs.

But it did create the concept of secularism, as you can see if you looked up the word. Because Theism isn't the vague and monolithic entity Atheists like to imagine themselves as opposing. Rather, there are different forms, and each one entails different ethics.

If a person was a Pantheist, then what you say would be correct. But in monotheisms, God is not coextensive with either mankind or the natural world. They are distinct entities, unlike in Pantheism. So some things that have direct connection to God exist ("the sacred"), and other things that have to do with the natural world exist too ("the secular").

After all, atheists have not burned witches, drowned "heretics," and sent people to prison for the crime of "blasphemy," but theists have done all of those things.

One can only think that if one doesn't even know the difference between different Theisms.

The Catholic Church has certainly done those things. And Puritans have killed a few witches. As for going to prison for blasphemy, I think you might have a case with Catholicism or Islam...but not much else. Whole groups of Christians who have nothing to do with either group have never killed a witch, never held a crusade, never started a war, and in short, have added inestimable value to the world. But Atheism is lousy at giving credit where it is due; its whole care is to carp and smear, not to uncover relevant distinctions. It's not terribly intellectual, actually, just as, for all its talk about human value, it's not notably humane.

More importantly, Atheists don't want to know their own history. While ranting loud and long about things like "Crusades" (predominantly done by Islam, by the way; why the Atheists only remember the Catholic crusades and none of the several centuries of much larger and more violent Islamic ones is a mystery) or "witches," they ignore their own body count completely.

148 million. No religion -- not even Islam -- comes within a mile of that total. And yet Atheists will always insist none of these are their fault. "Don't blame us nice-guy Atheists for what them bad boys did," they'll say. But why not?

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If some vague conception called "Theism" can be blamed for the Catholic Crusades or the trial of witches at Salem, then Atheism can be blamed for the Russian Purges, the Cultural Revolution, two World Wars, the Vietnam and Korean Wars, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and so on.

And at that game, fairly tallied, Atheism loses by a country mile.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:33 pm
The greater part of 148 million dead bodies in the last century say you're wrong about that.

This notion you've got that dead bodies can speak doesn't do a lot for your credibility.