Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote:
FYI, members do not need your permission to stop posting.

Oh really? I wish you would learn to not be so literal.

Who da' thought, what you post is not what you mean. But then you're a woman, you never post what you really mean.

Do you mean that?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Londoner wrote:Well, some philosophy certainly would rule out metaphysics...

Interesting thoughts, and they require a thoughtful answer. Unfortunately, I expect to be out for a bit, and cannot manage the time necessary just now. I will try to see if I can pick up your thread when I return, if I may. Meanwhile, I thank you for them.

Why do you continue to post your sanctimonious hogwash? How can you respond to the following post? Are you allergic to facts? Or selectively blind?

''I see no problem here, because this is pretty much what most of the western world (at least) has done for the best part of 200 years.
And for the last 200 years our society has managed to be far more flexible and responsive to an ever changing moral playing field. Human rights, democracy for all, education for all, city planning, hygene, medicine, workers protections, and the massive sexual revolution of the 1960s has all been achieved not simply with the absence of god, but with the explicit rejection of the old out-of-date moral landscape mandated by the established churches of the so-called Christian world. Rejecting the authority of the church and the empirical god that justified enabled them to mobilise their power. It was only when Theism was challenged that all these changes and the FREEDOM they imply were made possible.''

Londoner wrote:If we are to have any laws, or even just make moral assertions, we are claiming authority.

Take a good look at authority. In essence there are two types of people who claim authority: elitists and populists. In political terms that broadly means conservatives and democrats. There are different types of elite, but they all come down to money and making sure that the people who have it, keep it. There are three basic instruments of elite authority: religion, law and military. The most efficient way to control the masses is religion; if you can get the hoi polloi to acquiesce with promises of heaven and threats of hell, you have won their hearts and minds. Job done. Any rumblings of discontent can be legislated against and trouble makers can be locked up, or executed. If all else fails, send in the army. It is these institutions that conservatives typically wish to conserve.
Populists by contrast claim authority by sheer weight of numbers and will seize it from elites, by force if necessary. Elites have been aware of this from the time of Philip of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great, to whom we owe the dictum 'divide and rule'. The trick elites have to pull off is to convince the masses that the enemy is not the ruling classes, rather, it is each other; much as we are seeing in the US particularly, but also large parts of western Europe.
It is a lovely idea that we could come up with some transcendental moral authority that would satisfy everybody, but that simply isn't how the world works.

Londoner wrote:But now you are arguing against John by pointing out the consequences of his disbelief in gravity.

Like I said, gravity is just that force that makes things fall to the ground. We do not know the mechanism that causes this force, but if John does not believe in this force, then either he has some outré metaphysics, or he is compelled to believe that every time something falls, it's just a coincidence.

uwot wrote: Take a good look at authority. In essence there are two types of people who claim authority: elitists and populists. In political terms that broadly means conservatives and democrats. There are different types of elite, but they all come down to money and making sure that the people who have it, keep it. There are three basic instruments of elite authority: religion, law and military. The most efficient way to control the masses is religion; if you can get the hoi polloi to acquiesce with promises of heaven and threats of hell, you have won their hearts and minds. Job done. Any rumblings of discontent can be legislated against and trouble makers can be locked up, or executed. If all else fails, send in the army. It is these institutions that conservatives typically wish to conserve.
Populists by contrast claim authority by sheer weight of numbers and will seize it from elites, by force if necessary. Elites have been aware of this from the time of Philip of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great, to whom we owe the dictum 'divide and rule'. The trick elites have to pull off is to convince the masses that the enemy is not the ruling classes, rather, it is each other; much as we are seeing in the US particularly, but also large parts of western Europe.
It is a lovely idea that we could come up with some transcendental moral authority that would satisfy everybody, but that simply isn't how the world works.

I think you have forgotten what we are discussing here. We are talking simply about making moral assertions, like 'eating people is wrong'. If I can pass moral judgments that apply to others, then I must be claiming that some moral authority exists i.e. that the word 'wrong' means something.

What you have written above, would you say it was 'true'? If so, then you must believe that there is some criteria by which we can judge the truth or falsity of such statements. Your authority would be that what you have written conforms to that criteria. Others might disagree that it does, or they might have different criteria, but the fact that they think there is something meaningful to disagree with would indicate that they also believed there was some method of determining truth or falsity.

So, if you are making ethical judgments, as is the theist, you might disagree on where you should find the framework for ethics, but you both have a framework. And since in both cases the framework cannot be derived from science, or maths, then both frameworks are transcendental. That being the case, why is one more real than the other?

Like I said, gravity is just that force that makes things fall to the ground. We do not know the mechanism that causes this force, but if John does not believe in this force, then either he has some outré metaphysics, or he is compelled to believe that every time something falls, it's just a coincidence.

You miss the point here. The suggestion was that atheism is simply 'disbelief', that it has no consequences. I do not think that is possible, not unless by 'belief' we mean some arbitrary thought that just pops into our head for no reason. Just as John cannot disbelieve in gravity without it raising the consequences you point out, so every belief or disbelief is the product of, and has consequences for, all our other beliefs.

So, if we are atheists (as opposed to agnostics), there must be a reason. We must be applying some test for what is or isn't 'real'. I'm saying that whatever test we apply has consequences for all our other beliefs. For example, if it was as crude as 'I only believe in material objects I can see and touch' then that would rule out God....but also gravity, x-rays, 'goodness', and so on. More subtle tests are possible, but there are none that would apply only to God and not affect other beliefs.

Londoner wrote:I think you have forgotten what we are discussing here. We are talking simply about making moral assertions, like 'eating people is wrong'. If I can pass moral judgments that apply to others, then I must be claiming that some moral authority exists i.e. that the word 'wrong' means something.

Maybe this wasn't explicit enough:

uwot wrote:It is a lovely idea that we could come up with some transcendental moral authority that would satisfy everybody, but that simply isn't how the world works.

How's this? The reason we cannot come up with some transcendental moral authority that would satisfy everybody, is because there isn't one.

Londoner wrote:What you have written above, would you say it was 'true'?

As a description of historical events, it's crude, but accurate.

Londoner wrote:If so, then you must believe that there is some criteria by which we can judge the truth or falsity of such statements.

I wasn't making any claim that what I said complies with any objective, much less transcendental moral criterion.

Londoner wrote:Your authority would be that what you have written conforms to that criteria. Others might disagree that it does, or they might have different criteria, but the fact that they think there is something meaningful to disagree with would indicate that they also believed there was some method of determining truth or falsity.

The parts of this thread which have remained on topic, have been a disagreement between people who argue that moral authority is established by the existence of god, and those who say no it isn't. I have given my opinion that morality is that which best serves the interests of the greatest number of people, but I do not claim to have any god, or even objective 'truth' to back me up.

Londoner wrote:So, if you are making ethical judgments, as is the theist, you might disagree on where you should find the framework for ethics, but you both have a framework. And since in both cases the framework cannot be derived from science, or maths, then both frameworks are transcendental. That being the case, why is one more real than the other?

It is notoriously difficult to establish the 'moral' outcome of any given action, as the utilitarians discovered when they tried to devise a moral calculus, but the consequences of our action on the well being of others is, I would suggest, more real than any post mortem judgement.

Londoner wrote:The suggestion was that atheism is simply 'disbelief', that it has no consequences. I do not think that is possible, not unless by 'belief' we mean some arbitrary thought that just pops into our head for no reason.

As I said, most people create a narrative that satisfies whatever curiosity or anxiety they have, and which they believe is coherent. Some people are prepared to change their beliefs in the light of new information, while others will accommodate troublesome facts within their narrative, or simply ignore or deny those facts. The latter tend to be conservatives or mental; it's a fine line.

Dubious wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:I just don't get hung up on the specifics of what the original cause was.

...if you know the cause you may get to known the cure as with any fucking disease. Start with one to end with the other.

You can't cure the disease. Because it's what we are and live in. I'm talking about the physical life system that is our essential existence. So you can worry about it, but I won't.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.

uwot wrote:

Londoner wrote:I think you have forgotten what we are discussing here. We are talking simply about making moral assertions, like 'eating people is wrong'. If I can pass moral judgments that apply to others, then I must be claiming that some moral authority exists i.e. that the word 'wrong' means something.

Maybe this wasn't explicit enough:

uwot wrote:It is a lovely idea that we could come up with some transcendental moral authority that would satisfy everybody, but that simply isn't how the world works.

How's this? The reason we cannot come up with some transcendental moral authority that would satisfy everybody, is because there isn't one.

Londoner wrote:What you have written above, would you say it was 'true'?

As a description of historical events, it's crude, but accurate.

Londoner wrote:If so, then you must believe that there is some criteria by which we can judge the truth or falsity of such statements.

I wasn't making any claim that what I said complies with any objective, much less transcendental moral criterion.

Londoner wrote:Your authority would be that what you have written conforms to that criteria. Others might disagree that it does, or they might have different criteria, but the fact that they think there is something meaningful to disagree with would indicate that they also believed there was some method of determining truth or falsity.

The parts of this thread which have remained on topic, have been a disagreement between people who argue that moral authority is established by the existence of god, and those who say no it isn't. I have given my opinion that morality is that which best serves the interests of the greatest number of people, but I do not claim to have any god, or even objective 'truth' to back me up.

Londoner wrote:So, if you are making ethical judgments, as is the theist, you might disagree on where you should find the framework for ethics, but you both have a framework. And since in both cases the framework cannot be derived from science, or maths, then both frameworks are transcendental. That being the case, why is one more real than the other?

It is notoriously difficult to establish the 'moral' outcome of any given action, as the utilitarians discovered when they tried to devise a moral calculus, but the consequences of our action on the well being of others is, I would suggest, more real than any post mortem judgement.

Londoner wrote:The suggestion was that atheism is simply 'disbelief', that it has no consequences. I do not think that is possible, not unless by 'belief' we mean some arbitrary thought that just pops into our head for no reason.

As I said, most people create a narrative that satisfies whatever curiosity or anxiety they have, and which they believe is coherent. Some people are prepared to change their beliefs in the light of new information, while others will accommodate troublesome facts within their narrative, or simply ignore or deny those facts. The latter tend to be conservatives or mental; it's a fine line.

Uwot, I like what you said at the end, about people creating narrative. If one takes away the story and stops living within it, one becomes free of one's own expections, and 'failure' becomes a non-issue. We are then free to live our lives without fear that our lives won't stand up to imagined measures.

uwot wrote: How's this? The reason we cannot come up with some transcendental moral authority that would satisfy everybody, is because there isn't one.

That is true, but we are nevertheless claiming it when we make moral pronouncements..

As a description of historical events, it's crude, but accurate...

I wasn't making any claim that what I said complies with any objective, much less transcendental moral criterion.

No, I wasn't saying a historical account is subject to moral criterion. However, it is subject to some criterion, presumably one you think applies to historic accounts. You say its 'accurate', so you must be using some yardstick for why you think it is accurate. Or if I asked you; 'Why do you think it is accurate?', would you answer 'I don't know'? Similarly, if I asked you; 'Why is X bad?' you would either have to refer to yardstick you think shows that is the case, or say 'No reason'.

The parts of this thread which have remained on topic, have been a disagreement between people who argue that moral authority is established by the existence of god, and those who say no it isn't. I have given my opinion that morality is that which best serves the interests of the greatest number of people, but I do not claim to have any god, or even objective 'truth' to back me up.

That begs the question of what 'best' means. 'Best' by what standard? Why is your notion of 'best' any better than anyone else's?

It is notoriously difficult to establish the 'moral' outcome of any given action, as the utilitarians discovered when they tried to devise a moral calculus, but the consequences of our action on the well being of others is, I would suggest, more real than any post mortem judgement.

You would still need to make a moral judgement. If I say 'eating people is wrong', my then pointing out the consequences of 'eating people' would be 'eating people' would not convince a cannibal that they were doing anything wrong.

As I said, most people create a narrative that satisfies whatever curiosity or anxiety they have, and which they believe is coherent. Some people are prepared to change their beliefs in the light of new information, while others will accommodate troublesome facts within their narrative, or simply ignore or deny those facts. The latter tend to be conservatives or mental; it's a fine line.

In the case of moral beliefs, what new information are we talking about? What facts? The cannibal and I both know what cannibalism is, we just disagree whether it is morally right or not. We can both taste the meat and examine the bones, but we are not going to across a chunk of 'goodness' or 'badness' such that either of us can say; 'There it is!'

Facts are facts. You can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'. Neither the moralising atheist nor the theist are dealing in facts, so I don't see why one should be preferred to the other.

seeds wrote: All that being said, again I pose the question to you...

(or anyone else who cares to address the issue)

...that if one can doubt the veracity of an “original sin” (for surely it was a mythological event that never actually occurred), then what does that say about the need for the blood sacrifice of a “savior” to erase that sin?

Does the term "smoke and mirrors" or "theatrics" mean anything to you? God had to put on a show that people could understand, the point was that God forgives us being imperfect, and how it was done is less important, but it seems that some people need that extreme act, for it to be believable.

seeds wrote:

thedoc wrote: Don't tell anyone I said this, I only say it out loud to a few people, but I view much of the OT as mythology using allegory to convey a truth.

Isn’t that basically the unspoken M.O. of all of the world’s religions?

Yes, but there are many people who believe the Bible literally and I just don't feel like arguing with them, as usually they won't listen to reason, but insist that their interpretation is the correct one in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

seeds wrote: By the way, what is the “truth” that the OT is attempting to convey?

Let me use the Noah's Ark story as an example, primarily because it is the easiest, and it's the one that I have actually analyzed.

There is a line "Noah walked with God", which could be literally interpreted as Noah having some face to face time with God, but it could also be interpreted and Noah being aware of nature and the world around him, more so than other people in the area.

"The Whole World was Flooded", some will claim that this means that the entire globe was covered with water, and some will even try to claim how deep it was. I would counter that, with the claim that, standing on the deck of his boat, everything that Noah could see was covered with water, and that isn't very far.

Every animal on Earth was carried on the Ark, certainly every domestic and wild animal that Noah knew about, could have taken refuge on a relatively small boat, and survived a local flood, and the wild animals would have gone to the top of the hill where the ark was sitting. Noah would have known nothing about the animals of Africa, Australia, the Americas, Asia, or even northern Europe, so as far as Noah knew all the animals of the Earth were on the ark.

I hope these examples are enough to illustrate my point, once I worked this out I didn't take it much farther. Later I read that a believer didn't have to have all the answers, so I slowed down on the effort to look for answers.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Dubious wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:I just don't get hung up on the specifics of what the original cause was.

...if you know the cause you may get to known the cure as with any fucking disease. Start with one to end with the other.

You can't cure the disease. Because it's what we are and live in. I'm talking about the physical life system that is our essential existence. So you can worry about it, but I won't.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.

I was talking about theism, atheism, god and all that crap which this thread supposedly is all about not "physical life systems". Whether the human race exterminated itself in 2017 with or without god means absolutely nothing to me.

Dubious wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Dubious wrote:
...if you know the cause you may get to known the cure as with any fucking disease. Start with one to end with the other.

You can't cure the disease. Because it's what we are and live in. I'm talking about the physical life system that is our essential existence. So you can worry about it, but I won't.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.

I was talking about theism, atheism, god and all that crap which this thread supposedly is all about not "physical life systems". Whether the human race exterminated itself in 2017 with or without god means absolutely nothing to me.

Okay.

You seem angry these days. Different. What's up? And I'm asking honestly, not trying to get a rise from you.

Dalek Prime wrote:Uwot, I like what you said at the end, about people creating narrative.

Thank you, it's very kind of you to say so.

Dalek Prime wrote:If one takes away the story and stops living within it, one becomes free of one's own expections, and 'failure' becomes a non-issue. We are then free to live our lives without fear that our lives won't stand up to imagined measures.

Personally, I'd rather try and fail, than not have aspirations.

Londoner wrote:

uwot wrote:How's this? The reason we cannot come up with some transcendental moral authority that would satisfy everybody, is because there isn't one.

That is true, but we are nevertheless claiming it when we make moral pronouncements..

Well, if you agree that there is no transcendent moral authority, then I would expect you to agree that anyone who appeals to a transcendental moral authority is wasting everyone's time.

Londoner wrote:Facts are facts. You can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'. Neither the moralising atheist nor the theist are dealing in facts, so I don't see why one should be preferred to the other.

The fact is that kicking someone in the goolies hurts them. There is no evidence that it hurts god.