Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:35 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 1:40 am In a God-less world, there's no reason to either to think one has "moral responsibility," nor any explanation for the cries of that thing called "conscience."

So then, presumably, you do not have any moral feelings or opinions of your own, you leave it entirely in the hands of God.

Quite the opposite. When I have a moral feeling, I need to check immediately, to see if there's something substantial to it. I may be afoul of objective moral truth, which is what the "alarm system" of conscience may be informing me.

But I will need to check. The mere fact that I have a twinge doesn't prove anything. I'll have to see what precept or associated principle applies to the situation I'm in. If I can identify one, it's time to do something about it. If I cannot, it may well be a product of some squeamishness, excessive sensitivity or wrong perception on my part. But I need to figure that out.

To illustrate, the fire alarm in my house goes off, from time to time. Usually, it's because I burned the toast...no big deal. But whenever it does, I need to look around the house to see if something more serious is involved, because alarms go off sometime for no good reason, but sometimes for a very good one.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:29 pm But if he's logical, if he's clear-thinking and courageous as an Atheist, he won't. He'll quicky realize that there's no morally "better" or "worse" to be. There's only what you can get away with, or what you want to do, or what you think will get you where you want to go -- and anything beyond that is craven twaddle. There's no feature of reality to back those conceptions, so if you have them, you just lack the courage not to.

Just as Nietzsche said.

I do not accept...[much blather follows, no substance].

Nietzsche did.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 6:18 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:29 pm But if he's logical, if he's clear-thinking and courageous as an Atheist, he won't. He'll quicky realize that there's no morally "better" or "worse" to be. There's only what you can get away with, or what you want to do, or what you think will get you where you want to go -- and anything beyond that is craven twaddle. There's no feature of reality to back those conceptions, so if you have them, you just lack the courage not to.

Just as Nietzsche said.

I do not accept...[much wonderfulness follows].

Nietzsche did.

Nietzsche’s dead.

We are here still.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 6:16 pm When I have a moral feeling, I need to check immediately, to see if there's something substantial to it.

So when you say you have a moral feeling, what would be the nature of such a feeling? Is your positition analogous to that of a policeman who, on being called on to attend an incident, has to assess the situation, and act upon it, solely on the basis of his understanding of the law, and has no personal opinion about the matter himself?

I may be afoul of objective moral truth

But you don't have subjective moral feelings to put you in danger of that, do you? I don't quite know how it could be possible, but you have lead me to understand that you only allow yourself to have objective moral feelings.

I'll have to see what precept or associated principle applies to the situation I'm in. If I can identify one, it's time to do something about it.

So you refer to your morality rule book, so to speak, before you are able to ascertain whether an emotion in relation to the situation might be called for?

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:07 pm

Let's try to recapitulate what has gone on here and what goes on in order to achieve some clarity. My assertion is that the core issue, the real issue here, has to do with the 'capacity to think freely' and the fact that here, on this forum, and certainly on this thread, those who opine here show themselves, time and again, constrained under imposed systems that render them incapable of free thought.

Do you claim to be thinking freely?

Aren't you constrained by a different set of assumptions, experiences and reasoning?

Now this is basically my own point, of course. Intellectually, theoretically, philosophically, etc., someone here will accumulate a collection of premises regarding the human condition.

It might pertain to God and religion or to race and ethnicity or to moral and immoral behaviors.

Then I come along and, assuming human autonomy, ask that these collections of basically academic assumptions be brought down to Earth.

To connect the dots between what someone believes "in their head" about God and race and morality, and what they are able to actually demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Given a particular set of circumstances in which words become intertwined in actual worlds.

Though that of course is when some will insist that I know very little about "serious philosophy". Only when we go on and on and on and on and on in an attempt to pin down technically the proper definitions of the words we use in establishing our theoretically foundations is there any hope at all of bringing the discussion out into the world that we actually live in.

If ever.

And for some here, when they do come down out of the theoretical clouds, the assumption then becomes that the human condition can only be truly understood by embracing the Word of God in one or another Bible. Or in assuming that their own assumptions take precedence over all others because they are a member of a particular race that, scientifically, has clearly been established to be of superior intellect.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:29 pm I'm immensely thankful that most Atheists do not live according to what their creed rationalizes

There is an atheist creed?

The humorous thing about this thread is seeing the limitless bounds of absurdity and distortion that you will go to in support of the nonsensical narrative you have tied yourself to. You have created an imagined religion -- "Atheism" -- through which its members have a creed they follow (more of your imagination), and they are devoid of any reason (such as you have) for being moral.

The truth, rather, is that morality exists and has existed throughout humankind because it is not limited to nor based on the God of the Bible. In spite of this, you claim that Christians have a better compass, while also ignoring that Christians fall short of moral behavior as much as non-Christians/non-theists. The innate awareness and practice of morality throughout humankind is greater than, and independent of, Christianity.

Your rationalizations and projections do not fit reality -- which means you're offering little more than a bizarre curiosity of 'how much will a human ego do to justify itself'? The unfortunate thing, perhaps, is that you do it while claiming to represent Christianity.

This is a really good video exploring how evolution and theology could be reconciled. No agenda, no bias. And if you watch to the end, you will be rewarded with the spectacle of a philosopher who bears a suspiciously close resemblance to Count Dracula.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q62GJdhQwZ8

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:04 pm
Now this is basically my own point, of course. Intellectually, theoretically, philosophically, etc., someone here will accumulate a collection of premises regarding the human condition.

It might pertain to God and religion or to race and ethnicity or to moral and immoral behaviors.

Then I come along and, assuming human autonomy, ask that these collections of basically academic assumptions be brought down to Earth.

And you did it without resorting to massive fonts!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:25 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:04 pm
Now this is basically my own point, of course. Intellectually, theoretically, philosophically, etc., someone here will accumulate a collection of premises regarding the human condition.

It might pertain to God and religion or to race and ethnicity or to moral and immoral behaviors.

Then I come along and, assuming human autonomy, ask that these collections of basically academic assumptions be brought down to Earth.

To connect the dots between what someone believes "in their head" about God and race and morality, and what they are able to actually demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Given a particular set of circumstances in which words become intertwined in actual worlds.

Though that of course is when some will insist that I know very little about "serious philosophy". Only when we go on and on and on and on and on in an attempt to pin down technically the proper definitions of the words we use in establishing our theoretically foundations is there any hope at all of bringing the discussion out into the world that we actually live in.

If ever.

And for some here, when they do come down out of the theoretical clouds, the assumption then becomes that the human condition can only be truly understood by embracing the Word of God in one or another Bible. Or in assuming that their own assumptions take precedence over all others because they are a member of a particular race that, scientifically, has clearly been established to be of superior intellect.

And you did it without resorting to massive fonts!

Note to phyllo:

Okay, I'll leave it entirely up to you...

1] I continue to make a fool out of him myself
2] I allow him to continue doing that entirely by himself

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 7:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 6:16 pm When I have a moral feeling, I need to check immediately, to see if there's something substantial to it.

So when you say you have a moral feeling, what would be the nature of such a feeling? Is your positition analogous to that of a policeman who, on being called on to attend an incident, has to assess the situation, and act upon it, solely on the basis of his understanding of the law, and has no personal opinion about the matter himself?

Everybody's got opinions, of course...and I'm no different. But opinions are only that. What matters is what the truth is, the objective truth. So my opinions need to be evaluated. Some will be right, some will be only partially right, and some perhaps not right at all...but the decider will not be whether or not I have an opinion, but whatever is really the case.

I may be afoul of objective moral truth

But you don't have subjective moral feelings to put you in danger of that, do you?

Sure I have subjective feelings. Everybody does. But like opinions, feelings are only feelings.

I'll have to see what precept or associated principle applies to the situation I'm in. If I can identify one, it's time to do something about it.

So you refer to your morality rule book, so to speak, before you are able to ascertain whether an emotion in relation to the situation might be called for?

Not a "morality rule book," but rather the principles and applications that go along with being a Christian...not merely individual commandments or precepts, but rather the entire spirit communicated by the letter of the law.

This sounds more difficult than it is. But if you were to look at the Sermon on the Mount, you'd see that exact thing being taught. Jesus says to the followers of commandments..."You have heard it said that..." and then He recites a particular commandment from the OT. Then He says, "But I say to you..." and He fills out that commandment with the larger application that the mere followers of commandments had never understood...one both more demanding and more broad in application than they had ever imagined.

What He points to, then, is not a list of demands from God, but rather a total lifestyle that is different from the way things normally operate. He points away from the kingdom of this world, and points to the Kingdom of God, and the values that are consonant with it.

The upshot is that it's not a list of commands that makes a person a fit citizen of that Kingdom, but rather a whole transformation of life, one governed by different moral values, one effected through reference to Him. That's what the Christian aims at, not a mere set of commands.

Were commands and rules enough, the OT had plenty...613, by Rabbinical estimations.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:33 pm 1] I continue to make a fool out of him myself
2] I allow him to continue doing that entirely by himself

I think I should have some say in the matter ...

Iambiguous: you can get what you want from me not by telling me how I must respond to you, or that I must agree to participate in your peculiar project, but through genuine engagement with the ideas I have.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:07 pm There is an atheist creed?

Yes. It has but one essential precept: no god(s).

It's not very brilliant, I'll admit...and not anywhere near enough to inform anything, like a law system, a social institution, or even a personal moral conscience. It doesn't really do much at all, except negation of the positives of others.

That doesn't seem to inhibit its popularity with those whose only bent is on removing God from all consideration. They're not into thinking, but into dismissing. And that, it allows them to do.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:45 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:07 pm There is an atheist creed?

Yes. It has but one essential precept: no god(s).

It's not very brilliant, I'll admit...and not anywhere near enough to inform anything, like a law system, a social institution, or even a personal moral conscience. It doesn't really do much at all, except negation of the positives of others.

That doesn't seem to inhibit its popularity with those whose only bent is on removing God from all consideration. They're not into thinking, but into dismissing. And that, it allows them to do.

That "creed" says nothing about morality.

The only implication is that morality isn't going to come from a god.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:40 pm
Everybody's got opinions, of course...and I'm no different. But opinions are only that. What matters is what the truth is, the objective truth. So my opinions need to be evaluated. Some will be right, some will be only partially right, and some perhaps not right at all...but the decider will not be whether or not I have an opinion, but whatever is really the case.

Okay, sure, get into a "serious discussion" with him about this in a philosophy forum.

Don't point out as I do that he "establishes" what is "really the case" -- the truth -- by going to the Christian Bible. By linking us to videos where he himself is unwilling to note the segment that most convinced him that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven.

That all of this is not just his own "personal opinion" as well.

And, indeed, by all means, if he ever does make a point that you believe might astonish me in being truly insightful, please bring it to my attention.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 4:42 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 11:03 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 4:12 pmIf there were no God, there'd be no Atheism, too.

Could you explain the logic by which you arrive at this conclusion?

If we knew for certain what the origins of life and species were, then there would only be one such explanation. It would not even need a name, except "origins."

Perhaps you don't understand the question. Try this: How does no Atheism follow from no God?
Do fairies have to exist in order for people not to believe in them?