Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:53 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 11:21 pm Well, despite your contrary opinion, many intersubjective entities are considered to be "real" and to exist in reality by standard folk, that is they aren't relegated to "delusions" as you defined them.

It's not about opinion, Lucky: it's about definitions.

Unfortunately for us, English has one word for "exists," where the situation really requires two concepts. There are things which exist in reality, and things that exist as fictions. Those are different uses of the word exists; and I suggest that we fix the confusion by distinguishing them this way:

• ExistsR = "exists in reality," and "exists factually," and "exists regardless of belief." (Things that fit into this category would be Germany, at present, rocks, hydrodynamics, the Eiffel Tower, flawed circles, and you.)

• ExistsM = "exists as myth," or "exists as a fiction," or "exists as a concept in the minds of people." (Things that fit into this category would be Cinderella, corporate entities, Socialism, Enron, the perfect circle, and the integrity of politicians.)

The question then becomes, which of the two is intended by Atheism?

You say it might be existsM, or "intersubjectively" rather than "objectively." But if you ask an Atheist, what he or she means by "God does not exist," is he or she going to be happy with that?

I'm going to suggest no, for two obvious reasons. One is that it's flatly and obviously untrue: anybody can simply observe that religious figures and gods of various kinds existM "intersubjectively" or "as fictions believed by some." But secondly, I don't think that's at all the claim Atheism wants to make. (Let the Atheists correct me, if I'm wrong; but I think this is one point on which they're bound to agree with me.) It wants to say, "God does not existR." Atheism aims to convey that no God or gods existR, and that we are better off to believe they do not persist beyond our belief systems, and that they are not ultimately real.

As to the beliefs of theists, you're right they all believe their god is the ONE, TRUE god.

Right. They mean existR.

That's the thing with gods, they have a time of rising, then declining popularity. When the last believer stops believing in a god, that god no longer exists. Identical to when the last quorum of people believes the USSR or Enron exist, they cease to exist.

That's an existM claim, and has two problems. One is that it's verifiably untrue that belief in God is declining at all. People today are more likely to believe in a God or gods than ever...everywhere outside of the affluent West, particularly Europe. So we must not mistakenly take our own observations about our own society as indicative of the whole world; it just isn't.

But more importantly, the belief of people is irrelevant to an existR claim, which, as we have seen, is what both Atheists and the religious want to make. Nobody's very interested in existM claims about God, since it's apparent that He always existsM in that sense. It's not even worth debating. What is worth debating, as everybody knows, is whether or not God existsR, exists in reality.

I don't have a problem with using your terms of ExistR as an equivalent to objective and ExistM as equal to inter-subjective. However, there are a few things in your posting that need correction. First Germany ExistMs (not R) because corporations and nations are agreements among humans, not objective entities. It's the same with money, we all agree a dollar is worth a dollar, but objectively a dollar is just a piece of paper and some ink. The paper and ink ExistRs, the value of the dollar ExistMs. Second, using terms like delusion, myth and fiction are needlessly perjorative when what is being described are concepts of agreement within groups of humans.

As to theism, true it's always been popular as a general concept (and likely will continue to for the foreseeable future), but individual gods rise and fall in popularity. Here's a perfect example: in ancient Egypt, Pharoah was believed to be the earthly physical manifestation of god. Obviously Pharoah ExistRed, but he ExistRed as a man, whereas he ExistMed as a god. Currently since no one believes in the ancient Egyptian religion, he no longer ExistMs as a god.

As to what an atheist might say, the average atheist has probably never considered the difference between different types of existence. But if you asked a typical atheist, "do you believe there is broad consensus that gods exist?", most would agree if they're being honest. On this we agree.

However asking if gods ExistR, is asking the wrong question. Why would a metaphysical entity be physical? But getting the question wrong doesn't have to be a big deal. I fully admit, for example that I act as if a dollar's value ExistRs, while in reality I know it "only" ExistMs. Am I illogical or in error? Kinda yeah. But it works for me. It works for theists too. Good for them. But this is a Philosophy Forum, accuracy matters more here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:01 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 9:08 amIf all cultures "report an event they all knew about", they clearly weren't wiped out.

Actually, what we should expect is that all human beings would be genetically from the same origin...the family that survived. And we do, in fact, find that all human beings are of the same genetic stock...just a considerable time ago...which is exactly what we should expect to be the case.

Is it your understanding that everyone on Earth is descended from members of Noah's family; that many descendants told stories about the flood, but only one lineage remembered that there was a huge boat with every species of animal on it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 3:20 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 1:13 pmIC is not here to get at the truth, or give any consideration to alternative opinions; he is here solely as God's advocate.

Thank you. How kind of you. Would that I could be "God's advocate". But you'll find that "truth" and "what God advocates" are always identical.

Truth is always very singular: it has this annoying tendency to render one kind of opinion reasonable, and another one foolish, whenever the truth itself becomes evident. And one thing for sure: between the "There is no God" of Atheism, and the "There is God" of Theism, there is no possibility of one being true without the other being dead false. So some "alternative opinion" is going to end up being dead wrong, there.

So "alternative opinions" are only good if they are true ones. Other than that, "alternative opinions" is just a synonym for "errors." And while it may be our society's habit to put inclusiveness before truth, there's no wisdom in so doing.

I know that things are not always what they seem to be, but unless there is a reason to think otherwise, that is probably the best place to start from. I think the way I have tried to describe what morality is, and how it works, is pretty much in line with how it seems to be; albeit with references to stuff like psychology and natural selection, which are subjects I have only a layman's understanding of. Your account of morality is based on something that is not apparent in any respect whatsoever. Anyone who does not happen to hold the same religious beliefs as you, has absolutely no reason to see any sense at all in what you have to say about morality. You can't demonstrate how any of it could even be possible, let alone the likelihood of it. All the so called logic and rationality you keep pouring out are based on premises that are unbelievable unless those two principles are abandoned from the outset.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 3:20 pm ...you'll find that "truth" and "what God advocates" are always identical.

IC's nasty team's nasty desert god - one of the thousands invented by our ancestors - supposedly advocated slavery and the murder of witches and homosexuals.

Good job IC's nasty team isn't in charge of what counts as truth and moral goodness.

Oh...wait...

LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 6:19 am I don't have a problem with using your terms of ExistR as an equivalent to objective and ExistM as equal to inter-subjective. However, there are a few things in your posting that need correction. First Germany ExistMs (not R) because corporations and nations are agreements among humans, not objective entities.

This actually illustrates the problem. The term "Germany" is understandable as referring to an objective piece of land, or to the concept used to refer to it as a national entity. The former is existingR, and the latter, existingM. So in a very real sense, Germany "exists" both R and M, depending on which usage is being invoked.

But some things only existM. And when they do, then it means the are merely "in minds," or "in myths," not "in reality." If we imagine that the debate can be resolved, in the case of either God or morality, by simply saying, "We can all agree that they existM," that's a trivial concession, and does not at all address the controversy -- not for the objectivists, and certainly not for the subjectivists, because the main point they want to debate is the existenceR of those things.

It's the same with money, we all agree a dollar is worth a dollar, but objectively a dollar is just a piece of paper and some ink. The paper and ink ExistRs, the value of the dollar ExistMs.

Exactly right. That's what I'm saying above. Okay, we agree.

Second, using terms like delusion, myth and fiction are needlessly perjorative when what is being described are concepts of agreement within groups of humans.

I simply find it honest. It seems to me that the deception of confusing existM claims for existR claims needs to be called out with appropriate synonyms. And in the case of saying, "God existMs, but does not existR, it's not possible to avoid what one is really saying -- that God (or gods) is a delusion, a fiction, an imaginary thing, and not real.

It's important to make people who are falling for a deceptive ambiguity specify exactly what they mean, and not ampibolize a term without it being pointed out what the deception involved is. That's logic, honesty, and good practice.

As to theism, true it's always been popular as a general concept (and likely will continue to for the foreseeable future), but individual gods rise and fall in popularity.

As I pointed out, though, that's irrelevant. ExistenceR has nothing to do with popularity contests. Gravity existedR when nobody knew the theory. A shark in the water will still eat you, because it existsR when you don't even know it's there. And God -- let us say this only hypothetically -- if, as I believe, He existsR is not one jot dependent on our existM belief for his existenceR.

So I have no idea why you would think you can fend off the existenceR of God with an existenceM argument...except, perhaps, that it seems to offer a delusory sense of closure where the problem has not actually been resolved at all -- not for the Theist, and certainly not to the satisfaction of Atheism itself.

But if you asked a typical atheist, "do you believe there is broad consensus that gods exist?", most would agree if they're being honest.

Yes, of course...and they're going to wonder why you even bothered to ask; for it is this fact that they are at pains to protest. Essentially, everything Atheism is about is to say, "You religious people believeM in God, but you oughtR not to."

However asking if gods ExistR, is asking the wrong question.

Au contraire: it's the only question Theists and Atheists agree is the important one. The existM question is useless to both sides. Nobody even debates it. It's accepted as a premise by both; but its existR implications are the whole point of the debate.

Why would a metaphysical entity be physical?

It depends on what you're trying to signify by your use of the terms "physical" and "metaphysical." Those are also potentially ambiguous terms, and they need further clarification. If you mean, for instance, that saying "God is not physical," in the sense that He's "transcendent," fine; but if you mean, "God is only a belief-entity," then no Theist, by definition, will accept that definition. And no Atheist will want it to mean "transcendent."

But you, yourself have already answered that question: there are things like Germany (the land mass) and Germany (the country concept), or money (the physical paper and ink) and money (the mode of exchange) that both existM and existR. And thus, to say that they exist in one form is not at all to cast doubt on the claim that they exist in the other. To say that God existsR and at the same time, is believed in (M)are not incompatible at all. It's what every Theist says, in fact, and what every Atheist denies.

But this is a Philosophy Forum, accuracy matters more here.

That's why it's so important not to amphibolize existR claims with existM claims. It makes one speak illogic. It's a basic rule in logic that the implied meaning of a middle term of a syllogism must not change between premise 1 and premise 2. But your claim that existM belief makes the existR argument moot participates in this exact error.

And both sides think that's so.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 9:26 am Your account of morality is based on something that is not apparent in any respect whatsoever.

To you.

I accept that. I believe you have no access to that data. Why should I not believe you? You say it so forcefully, so definitely and with such conviction.

Anyone who does not happen to hold the same religious beliefs as you, has absolutely no reason to see any sense at all in what you have to say about morality.

I totally agree. That's the difference: a person who believes in God has every reason to believe in objective morality; an Atheist has none whatsoever. He doesn't even have reason to believe in subjective moral values -- even if he does have reason to think it's an objective fact that idiots, fools and madmen believe in such things as moral values.

That's the Nietzschean argument, anyway. Nietzsche saw that, absent God, there was no reason at all to suppose that moral values are anything more than a delusion used by the weak to suppress the strong.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 7:44 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:01 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 9:08 amIf all cultures "report an event they all knew about", they clearly weren't wiped out.

Actually, what we should expect is that all human beings would be genetically from the same origin...the family that survived. And we do, in fact, find that all human beings are of the same genetic stock...just a considerable time ago...which is exactly what we should expect to be the case.

Is it your understanding that everyone on Earth is descended from members of Noah's family; that many descendants told stories about the flood, but only one lineage remembered that there was a huge boat with every species of animal on it?

I don't propose to have or offer an exhaustive explanation of the precise means for that which the Bible presents as a miraculous action by the Supreme Being. What I can point to is the evidence that the flood happened. And that physical evidence is present in things such as the extraordinarily wide proliferation of Deluge narratives and in the fossil record, as well as in the Word of God itself. So we ignore that physical evidence at our peril, I suggest.

But here's what we can agree on. Very early in the Bible, we are seriously warned that God is capable of thorough judgment. God is not indifferent to the moral state of the world, and is perfectly capable of acting to deal with it. Evil can be swept aside in the most absolute sort of way, and despite the belief of the vast majority of the world that no such cataclysm can ever come on them.

It's presented in Scripture as a warning to the self-confident and the morally indifferent: do your business with God before He calls us to account, because account we will, is the big message there.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:33 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 9:26 am Anyone who does not happen to hold the same religious beliefs as you, has absolutely no reason to see any sense at all in what you have to say about morality.

I totally agree. That's the difference: a person who believes in God has every reason to believe in objective morality;

I don't see why. Just believing in God comes with no other compulsory beliefs. One could believe in God and then believe whatever suited him about God, just like you do.

an Atheist has none whatsoever.

Not just an atheist, but anyone who is capable of rational thought.

He doesn't even have reason to believe in subjective moral values

Well I have a reason to believe in them, because I have them, and I would hazard a guess that so do most atheists.

even if he does have reason to think it's an objective fact that idiots, fools and madmen believe in such things as moral values.

I never said such a thing, so I will let whoever did say it respond to it.

That's the Nietzschean argument, anyway. Nietzsche saw that, absent God, there was no reason at all to suppose that moral values are anything more than a delusion used by the weak to suppress the strong.

Why do you keep bringing up Nietzsche? I haven't the slightest interest in him, and I doubt that you are a fan, so why?

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 4:19 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:33 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 9:26 am Anyone who does not happen to hold the same religious beliefs as you, has absolutely no reason to see any sense at all in what you have to say about morality.

I totally agree. That's the difference: a person who believes in God has every reason to believe in objective morality;

I don't see why.

Easy. If there's a God, then this world was created purposefully -- both by intention, and with a purpose. That which corresponds to that purpose is objectively moral; that which does not is objectively immoral, or wrong, or evil. Pick your word.

He [i.e. an Atheist] doesn't even have reason to believe in subjective moral values

Well I have a reason to believe in them, because I have them, and I would hazard a guess that so do most atheists.

If you also have a fear of circus clowns, do you have "reason" to fear them? Or if you're terrified by ghosts, does that mean you are operating by "reason"? Clearly not. So without objective basis, you have no more reason to obey morality than you do to fear clowns or ghosts. None of them is real.

That's the Nietzschean argument, anyway. Nietzsche saw that, absent God, there was no reason at all to suppose that moral values are anything more than a delusion used by the weak to suppress the strong.

Why do you keep bringing up Nietzsche? I haven't the slightest interest in him, and I doubt that you are a fan, so why?

Because he was the most thoroughgoing Atheist around. (Well, maybe somebody like Aleister Crowley was even more consistent, but that could be debated) You may not celebrate Nietzsche, but I can tell you he's generally hailed as one of the great 'saints' of the Atheist faith.

However, most Atheists do not actually have the courage of their convictions. They chicken out. So they say things like, "Well, I'm an Atheist, but can still be moral," all the while denying that "moral" means any objective thing at all. They may as well be calling themselves a "purtblu" rationally speaking: on their own terms, they're speaking gibberish. They just refuse to know it.

But I get it. They're afraid to live like thoroughgoing Atheists, because as Nietzsche pointed out so well, it's amoral and awful, and leads to brutality, viciousness, callousness, egocentricity and general rottenness of life. Atheists are terrified to really be what they say they are. Or else they're too conscientious, and too moral to live their Atheism out in a consistent way.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 4:32 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 4:19 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:33 pm I totally agree. That's the difference: a person who believes in God has every reason to believe in objective morality;

I don't see why.

Easy. If there's a God, then this world was created purposefully -- both by intention, and with a purpose. That which corresponds to that purpose is objectively moral; that which does not is objectively immoral, or wrong, or evil. Pick your word.

So every time I watch a wildlife documentary on Netflix, I am committing an act of evil? I can't believe that Netflix was part of either God's intention or purpose.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:Well I have a reason to believe in them, because I have them, and I would hazard a guess that so do most atheists.

If you also have a fear of circus clowns, do you have "reason" to fear them?

Possibly.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:Why do you keep bringing up Nietzsche? I haven't the slightest interest in him, and I doubt that you are a fan, so why?

Because he was the most thoroughgoing Atheist around. (Well, maybe somebody like Aleister Crowley was even more consistent, but that could be debated) You may not celebrate Nietzsche, but I can tell you he's generally hailed as one of the great 'saints' of the Atheist faith.

And there's me thinking he was just a nut case and winner of a ridiculous moustache competition.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 5:12 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 4:32 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 4:19 pm
I don't see why.

Easy. If there's a God, then this world was created purposefully -- both by intention, and with a purpose. That which corresponds to that purpose is objectively moral; that which does not is objectively immoral, or wrong, or evil. Pick your word.

So every time I watch a wildlife documentary on Netflix, I am committing an act of evil?

I don't know...what are you watching?

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:Why do you keep bringing up Nietzsche? I haven't the slightest interest in him, and I doubt that you are a fan, so why?

Because he was the most thoroughgoing Atheist around. (Well, maybe somebody like Aleister Crowley was even more consistent, but that could be debated) You may not celebrate Nietzsche, but I can tell you he's generally hailed as one of the great 'saints' of the Atheist faith.

And there's me thinking he was just a nut case and winner of a ridiculous moustache competition.

Why can't a man be both a nutcase and a mustache king? Marx looked like a demented Santa Clause...why shouldn't Neitzsche look like he was eating half a Muffet (tm)?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 5:20 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 5:12 pm
So every time I watch a wildlife documentary on Netflix, I am committing an act of evil?

I don't know...what are you watching?

Anything to do with octopuses, at the moment.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 5:40 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 5:20 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 5:12 pm
So every time I watch a wildlife documentary on Netflix, I am committing an act of evil?

I don't know...what are you watching?

Anything to do with octopuses, at the moment.

Pretty sinful. Those guys are "all hands."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:33 pm ...a person who believes in God has every reason to believe in objective morality...

False - how ever often you repeat this falsehood. 'Agent A says X is morally wrong; therefore (it's a fact that) X is morally wrong' is a non sequitur, for any agent - even a creator god.

Now, you can keep ignoring this to the crack of doom - and that will make no difference. If your team's god says slavery is not morally wrong - as it supposedly did - that does not make it a fact that slavery is not morally wrong - even if your team's god existed and exists.

Meanwhile - Nietzsche was a philosophical dick. 'God is dead; therefore morality is dead.' No wonder he's your anti-hero.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 6:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:33 pm ...a person who believes in God has every reason to believe in objective morality...

False - how ever often you repeat this falsehood. 'Agent A says X is morally wrong; therefore (it's a fact that) X is morally wrong' is a non sequitur, for any agent - even a creator god.

Actually, no.

For God, as the Creator, has both the perfect right to say what His creation is for, and to say what is permissible and forbidden within those purposes.

You have an idea, it seems, that "right" has to exist as some free floating abstraction. But it doesn't. It's not an independent property, but, like everything else that exists, is at the designing and defining of God himself. The reason you and I, like all contingent beings, find ourselves incapable of defining it is simply because we are not the Creator.

So refusing to accept your false postulate is not "ignoring." It's what's called "refuting." I'm saying that you've got the wrong concept, and so it's small wonder that you think it has to be an independent abstraction of some sort -- and also makes sense why you can't bring yourself to believe in its objective existence at all. But "right" means nothing other than "conformable to the character, nature and purposes of God in having created entity X." It actually has no other meaning, even if some people refuse to see that. And those who refuse it, not surprisingly, lose all contact with objective morality. There's no other entry point.

Meanwhile - Nietzsche was a philosophical dick.

Well, I don't care for everything he said, either. And I see profound problems in his characterization of things. But this I'll give him: he saw very clearly where Atheism leads, and was more courageous in most in chasing it down.