Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:43 pm No. You've got a category error in that supposition.

The reason that "is" comes with no "ought" entailed is the lack of teleological purpose in the universe, the necessary supposition of Materialism.

No, it's not a category error. The problem, as discussed earlier, is one of logic -- i.e. there does not appear to be any clear logical justification for deriving a prescriptive conclusion from premises that are entirely descriptive. That this is the nub of the guillotine, and if that's right, it affects theism as much as it does atheism.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:59 pm Immanuel, that is Aristotelian.

No, it's Greek. So was Aristotle, as you will recall.

It's not even remarkable among theistic peoples (the Greeks were polytheists, of course) to speak of a telos or purpose for life. The Hebrews certainly thought that, and so did every other theistic group that believes in a personal God of any description. In fact, it's the inescapable corollary of the idea of a deliberate Creation: the Creator must have a purpose (telos) in what He does.

The Greek New Testament repeatedly uses the word.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:43 pm Actually, 148 million died in the last century in wholly secular wars. The vast majority were by self-declared leftist-Atheist regimes. If you want to quote statistics, the homicidal actions of Atheists are absurdly greater than the worst Muslim atrocities, indeed, far greater than all the deaths of that sort in history before the 20th Century.

Look at the old USSR, China, or North Korea, and you'll see the fine work of those who have banished God from their universe.

I see you didn’t invoke Hitler in your list, as many theists are inclined to do. Perhaps because you realize that Hitler and his henchmen were Christians — or at least professed to be so. How does the death toll of the Holocaust balance against Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc?

But all of this rather misses the point. If Hitler was a Christian, I would no more blame the Holocaust on Christianity than I would blame Stalin’s atrocities on atheism. I blame those atrocities on Hitler and Stalin and those that supported and enabled them.

Totalitarian regimes are essentially secular religions. Stalin and Mao and the current dictator of North Korea banish gods because they themselves want to be thought of as Gods. This is quite literally true in North Korea. So if you want to be thought of as God you’ve got to drive out the competition.

While many atheists are assholes (just like many theists) I would venture that the vast majority of them don’t want to be thought of as God. I know I sure don’t.

In any case, I’d venture that if the Crusaders of hundreds of years ago had access to modern technology, the death toll they would have wrought wold have been substantially higher that what they in fact achieved.

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:09 pm No, it's not a category error.

Yes, it is.

The is-ought problem only appears if there's such a thing as a "bare" is. That is, it posits, as Materialism does, that things take place either necessarily and Deterministically (so whatever is, simply is) or without any causal explanation we can presently detect (as in the case of the naive interpretations of Quantum Theory, for example), and so "just happen."

The distinctive of the Materialist view in both cases is that there is no possible "telos" toward which the universe must move except the Determined necessity, whatever that is. And since there is no outcome or telos to the universe, there can be no "wrong" way to proceed. There is only what is.

Those are not the suppositions of Theism. If Theism is correct, the is-ought problem does not apply, since there is no "bare" is (i.e. nothing that happens outside of a relationship, good or bad, to the relevant telos). Everything that happens in a Theistic universe is either "as it should be," or "not what it should have been."

What Hume was taking issue with in regard to the Theists was the idea that they could know what the telos was. After all, he did not believe such things were possible to know from Divine revelation. And he rightly saw that they cannot logically be deduced merely from "bare" observation of facts.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:27 pm

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:09 pm No, it's not a category error.

Yes, it is.

The is-ought problem only appears if there's such a thing as a "bare" is. That is, it posits, as Materialism does, that things take place either necessarily and Deterministically (so whatever is, simply is) ...

Determinism doe not entail necessity. This is a modal fallacy.

... or without any causal explanation we can presently detect (as in the case of the naive interpretations of Quantum Theory, for example), and so "just happen."

Unless you go for the Many Worlds interpretation of QM, then the alternative interpretations are not naive. The experimental tests of Bell's Theorem demonstrate that the universe is indeterministic. There are no hidden variables that restore determinism to QM. Telos and QM are incompatible.

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:24 pm I see you didn’t invoke Hitler in your list, as many theists are inclined to do.

Only because so many people make the mistake of imagining that the National Socialists were right-wingers. They were actually as far left as one can get. Moreover, it's funny how revisionists sometimes look at the Nazi propaganda targeting Christians, and blithely assume they meant what they said. Well, Donald Trump said he's a Methodist, apparently. And Clinton claimed to be a Christian. But I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that a person's right to be called a Christian depends not just on words, but on actions. In fact, Christ said exactly the same: "not everybody who says 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven," He said.

To any fair-minded observer, it's pretty clear Hitler was lying. His real ideology was egocentric, nationalistic, anti-semitic and Norse-occultic, if anything. He certainly practiced no regard for basic Christian theology or moral precepts: that we can all safely see. But Atheists are so quick to attribute Hitler to Christians, as you do, that I don't bother listing him. I should, but I don't bother opening that silly can of worms.

If Hitler was a Christian, I would no more blame the Holocaust on Christianity than I would blame Stalin’s atrocities on atheism. I blame those atrocities on Hitler and Stalin and those that supported and enabled them.

Except that there was no warrant for what Hitler did in Christianity. Moreover, in doing what he did, he went directly against the teaching and commandments of Christ Himself. On the other hand, nobody's been able to tell me from an Atheistic premise why Stalin was wrong. So if Atheism cannot be blamed for MAKING Stalin evil, it can certainly be charged with having cleared away all morality for him, so he could act without moral compunction on his personal ambitions. And that's the general pattern.

There is a more-than-even chance that any Atheist leader of an Atheist state will kill at least 200,000 of his own people.

In any case, I’d venture that if the Crusaders of hundreds of years ago had access to modern technology, the death toll they would have wrought wold have been substantially higher that what they in fact achieved.

Actually, that was a Catholic issue, none of mine.

And as egregious as the Catholic Crusades might have been, I marvel that everybody jumps to those without noting that they were really counter-crusades, a reversal of the much larger and bloodier Islamic Crusade that had swept across North Africa and Europe since AD 632.

I don't deny that the much smaller and later Catholic Crusades were bloody and misguided. But then, I don't have to: I'm no Catholic. The largest Catholic massacre in history was against my ancestors, actually. I don't hold that against them now, but it's pretty clear that whenever these bloody-minded types were, they were not acting in accordance with the specific teaching of Christ. So I think we can safely say they too were not real Christians...at least, if we judge by their actions.

1. God exists
2. God is morally perfect (except when he is tossing people who don't believe in him into a lake of fire for eternity)
3. God wants you to do x.
C: You should do x.

Why?

That's trying to derive an "ought" conclusion from "it" premises no matter how you slice it. To say that there is some imagined telos just kicks the can down the road. If there IS this telos, why OUGHT I conform to it?

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:44 pm Determinism doe not entail necessity. This is a modal fallacy.

It does not impact the is-ought problem either way. There is a "bare" is, for any kind of Materialist, by definition.

... or without any causal explanation we can presently detect (as in the case of the naive interpretations of Quantum Theory, for example), and so "just happen."

Unless you go for the Many Worlds interpretation of QM, then the alternative interpretations are not naive.

I didn't say there were no non-naive interpretations of QM. I did say that the naive version posits no causal chain. I just don't think any sensible person can believe that version of QM.

No, it's Greek. So was Aristotle, as you will recall.

(Immanuel Can)

That sarcasm is unpleasant , and I suppose you do it as a sort of self defence .I suppose you must feel that your ideas are minority ones.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:45 pm. But Atheists are so quick to attribute Hitler to Christians, as you do ...

But I didn't -- you seemed to have missed my point. Perhaps deliberately? I merely pointed out the fact that Hitler and his henchmen claimed to be Christians,

To "attribute" Hitler to Christians is to imply that Christianity via Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust. But I explicitly disavowed the legitimacy of such a connection.

My larger point, of course, is that, for the exact same reason it's wrong to tie Christianity to the Holocaust, it's also wrong to tie atheism to the crimes of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. It's all one big non sequitur.

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:48 pm 1. God exists
2. God is morally perfect (except when he is tossing people who don't believe in him into a lake of fire for eternity)
3. God wants you to do x.
C: You should do x.

Why?

That's trying to derive an "ought" conclusion from "it" premises no matter how you slice it. To say that there is some imagined telos just kicks the can down the road. If there IS this telos, why OUGHT I conform to it?

The idea of a telos is that you were not created as blank. You cannot simply actualize your purpose in any way you happen to choose. Some things will be better for you, given what you were created to be, and some things will be worse. Some will let you fulfill more of your telos, and some will impede you.

You were created to be a certain kind of creature, in a certain location and situation, to have certain features and to achieve certain ends. Your happiness and fulfillment as a created being, therefore, consist in being able to actualize the purpose for which you were created and exist. To fall short of that is always to be something less than you could have been, and along with it, less happy, less blessed, less meaningful, less successful and less fulfilled.

To say that you "ought" to do something, therefore, is to say that it's in your best interests to do it, so as to be a fully actualized and happy individual. Of course one can choose to do what one "ought not," but will experience just that much less of the things for which you were created. You can, of course, do what you "ought not": the "ought" and the "is" are thus distinct.

The ultimate "ought" of human existence is to establish a free and loving relationship with God. All that contributes to that telos is good; all that impedes it is stuff you ought not to do...for your own good, and for the good of others, and for the intentions of God in having created you.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:53 pm

No, it's Greek. So was Aristotle, as you will recall.

(Immanuel Can)

That sarcasm is unpleasant , and I suppose you do it as a sort of self defence .I suppose you must feel that your ideas are minority ones.

I wasn't being sarcastic. Aristotle was Greek. The NT was written in Greek. It's true.

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:57 pm I merely pointed out the fact that Hitler and his henchmen claimed to be Christians,

What was the utility of that fact to you?

My larger point, of course, is that, for the exact same reason it's wrong to tie Christianity to the Holocaust, it's also wrong to tie atheism to the crimes of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. It's all one big non sequitur.

Except that Hitler wasn't acting like a Christian, as we both are noting, apparently.

What part of Stalin's Atheism was contrary to his killing of 14 million of his own people? I can tell why Hitler's henchmen were not Christians. I can't tell why Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Kim Jong Il were or are not genuine Atheists.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:45 pm I don't deny that the much smaller and later Catholic Crusades were bloody and misguided. But then, I don't have to: I'm no Catholic. The largest Catholic massacre in history was against my ancestors, actually. I don't hold that against them now, but it's pretty clear that whenever these bloody-minded types were, they were not acting in accordance with the specific teaching of Christ. So I think we can safely say they too were not real Christians...at least, if we judge by their actions.

Well, you know, this pretty much amounts to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, doesn't it?

You know, Hitler was not a true Christian, the Crusaders were not true Christians ... even Catholics are not true Christians? Why not? Why are there sects of Christianity to begin with? Couldn't the all-knowing and all-powerful creator of the universe have crafted a message clear enough so that at least all his ostensible adherents would be on the same page with respect to doctrine and behavior?

As to the teachings of Christ as depicted in the NT (though there is some dispute on what he really meant in a number of instances), I pretty much in my own life adhere to them. What does that make me? A Christian atheist? Is that OK? Or am I going into the lake of fire regardless?

Immanuel Can wrote:What part of Stalin's Atheism was contrary to his killing of 14 million of his own people? ...

Well given he was raised as a devout Christian and spent 5 years in a seminary I think your question should be how can a Christian go so wrong.

I can tell why Hitler's henchmen were not Christians. ...

And yet they wouldn't believe you and would claim to be devout Christians?

I can't tell why Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Kim Jong Il were or are not genuine Atheists.

Then why do you keep saying atheism is responsible for their actions when they clearly acted from a mistaken conception of Marx's Historical Materialism?