Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: Immanuel Can, evil does help to generate evolution by natural selection. Creatures have to struggle to survive in an unfriendly environment and this struggle for survival helps to ensure that only the stronger individuals breed.

The only problem with this is that good and evil do not apply to nature, only to human activities and then only under certain definitions. So Evil doesn't apply to evolution in nature but it could apply to human evolution but I would think that you would need to be very careful about that.

Dubious wrote:...the probability of that being less than minuscule...

Immanuel Can wrote:Calculated by you, by what method? I'm just interested to know how you've arrived at this certainty...and it must be considerable, by your own account, if you regard the probabilities as "miniscule."

Sorry! didn't mean to substitute minuscule for impossible! What do you think I meant when I mentioned ahistorical and anti-historical Note how it implies history being one of the methods on how I calculate the veracity of past events including all those in the bible and how the bible itself came to be. Could this have conveniently escaped you... again?

Dubious wrote:...which is another way of stating that what you believe to be the truth becomes the TRUTH!

...I would never say that.

...since when haven’t you said that? You affirm it directly or by implication constantly! Is there anyone here not aware of that including your loyal sidekick!

Dubious wrote: Belief becomes the criteria for truth...which makes sense since that is the modus operandi of all theism. There exists no other means to make its "truth" assertions.

Immanuel Can wrote:Now, you seem offended by what you attribute to me as some kind of dogmatism.

Why would I be “offended” by the obvious fact that you are and always have been intensely dogmatic in your defense of theism. Dogmatism and belief do overlap but too much of the former weakens the latter into mere ritual and custom unmooring it from the very fabric of belief.

Immanuel Can wrote:But look at how dogmatic your statement above is...to say nothing of prejudicial. "All Theists operate dishonestly,"…

These are your words not mine and you even put them in quotes as if “I” said it. Always the contortionist, aren’t you!

Read word for word what I said ...“Belief becomes the criteria for truth...which makes sense since that is the modus operandi of all theism”… meaning it only becomes dishonest, by your terms, if belief itself is a lie which is a ludicrous assumption. As a theist you should be aware of this distinction more than me but clearly you’re not!

Belinda wrote: Which is is the default, evil or good?

If evil is the default, which you seem to be claiming, is it better to do what the Buddha said and learn to avoid suffering, or is it better to strive to make the world less evil, as Nietzsche said we should.

If good is the default does it make any difference to whether you choose the Buddhist passive way, or the Nietzsche -recommended active way?

Thinking that good or evil is a default setting is a False dilemma, assuming that all good or all evil are the only possibilities, when there are many possibilities, but most humans are somewhere in the middle. As stated elsewhere, good and evil do not apply to nature only to human activity.

Buddha taught to have no suffering by eliminating the desire to have things, with no desire there is no disappointment when a person doesn't have those things. The Buddhist ideology is not passive it is to realize something other than physical things. Buddhists do not desire nor strive for enlightenment, that is not the way, but to allow the Buddhist to realize enlightenment.

Belinda wrote:Immanuel Can wrote:

Well, isn't that a nice story? The weak deserve to die, the strong to survive and breed. The race matters more than any individual, and evil is good for that.

Is this really where you want to go with that? Historically, that's never worked out well for women, the handicapped or minorities, but if you want a society run that way, I guess you can opt for it.

It's called "Social Darwinism," or perhaps "The Third Reich."

Still want it?

Immanuel, you confuse how the universe is by how you think it should be. Don't you see that?

No, he does not. He will argue against it, probably countering with the same claim.

I've just being trying to think of how to respond to the mangled science he presented earlier to argue his point. I think one key to his and other theist misapprehensions is time. Like the rest of humanity, he cannot wrap his head around "deep time" and how much can happen during such spans.

However, like many others who don't much care for science, he is an asseverationist rather than a realist. That which he cannot understand, like "deep time" he cannot accept, aside from the overarching God concept, which can always default to "mysterious ways".

He cannot imagine that humans, and even other intelligent mammals and birds, display moral behaviours not present in primitive life forms billions of years ago. he cannot imagine how moral behaviours may have evolved, perhaps initially through the evolutionary innovation of motherly/parental care. Humans' addition of new levels of moral subtlety does not detract from the fact that morality per se did not start with human beings.

There seems to be an insecurity with theists with relativity as well, as though they are afraid of being adrift without ground on which to rest. It strikes me as a tad Freudian, the need for a strong parental authority figure to provide absolutes in a confusingly relativistic existence. So each religion preaches its own unimpeachable, absolute truth - unlike the "falsehoods" of other religions [sic]. Each religion fills the role of the authoritarian father, and those "authoritarian fathers" have been competing and fighting for millennia to impose their own "absolute truth" on societies.

Belinda wrote: Immanuel, you confuse how the universe is by how you think it should be. Don't you see that?

I'm merely disagreeing that it is observably or factually the way you imagine it is. But you're free to imagine otherwise, of course.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Belinda wrote: Immanuel, you confuse how the universe is by how you think it should be. Don't you see that?

I'm merely disagreeing that it is observably or factually the way you imagine it is. But you're free to imagine otherwise, of course.

As predicted above

Dubious wrote: These are your words not mine and you even put them in quotes as if “I” said it. Always the contortionist, aren’t you!

You don't read. Go back, and note that I said, "You seem to be saying..." In other words, I claimed to be paraphrasing your import. Then, in the second quotation, I quoted you verbatim, preceded by the words "Your words this time."

Ridiculous and ad hominem. But I'm not here to fight with you Dube. If you want to go postal, you'll do it on your own time, and not with any help from me.

Belinda wrote:Greta wrote:

The question I was wondering about earlier is whether there is any the significance for us in reality being "one big absolute thing". IC focused on prosaic misapplied examples of everyday "absolutes". It is a question I wonder about because that "one big absolute thing" seems more remote from us than any of its internal relative aspects, in which case I wonder what the fuss is about.

The view from eternity may be deceptive, but then so may be the view from this relative world. As a practical proposition I'd keep the view from eternity to oscillate with the view from the relative world. I infer that one point made by Dubious by his posting "Starry Night" is that some art is a lot more wholesome than many churches and their carryings -on.

Belinda. I'm not understanding your point. Can you help please? Ta.

Greta wrote: As predicted above

You misunderstand.

I fully concede Belinda's right to believe in Social Darwinism. In fact, I would even argue that if you're a Darwinian, you can find no rational grounds for living as anything else. However, that has historically proved to be an option that is, in my estimation and in that of most of the civilized world today, morally repugnant. First, there was the eugenics movement in the US, sterilizing people by force and deception, and then Hitler and his "master race" in Germany. But it all made sense, in that if Darwinism is taken for granted, Social Darwinism follows.

But as a Theist, I'm no Social Darwinist. So I neither share, nor am obliged to agree with, Belinda's ideological preferences. I don't think "survival of the fittest" is an adequate explanation for how things are, and I note that Darwinism is amoral, whereas as a Theist I'm bound to be a moral objectivist...that is, to believe that "morality" described more than a contingent and local social preference.

So you see, she's just not talking about anything I have any reason to believe there. But she...absolutely. If she's putting forward "survival of the fittest" as the principle of human advancement, then Social Darwinism is her horse to ride.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dubious wrote: These are your words not mine and you even put them in quotes as if “I” said it. Always the contortionist, aren’t you!

You don't read. Go back, and note that I said, "You seem to be saying..." In other words, I claimed to be paraphrasing your import. Then, in the second quotation, I quoted you verbatim, preceded by the words "Your words this time."

Ridiculous and ad hominem. But I'm not here to fight with you Dube. If you want to go postal, you'll do it on your own time, and not with any help from me.

Should I feel guilty since you're feeling all outraged again? Do you have any recall as to how many times you claimed "Ridiculous and ad hominem" whenever reality intrudes too much into your biblical fantasy world? And where have I gone postal! I merely countered your views with mine. Your the one who's overreacting!

...and btw, paraphrasing is legitimate when it clarifies but as everyone knows by now, you employ it exclusively to lie and distort what others actually said or meant. It's all so pathetic because whenever it's used against you, you get all huffy and incensed as in "I don't want to play with you anymore"!

Your motto is "don't do to me what I do to everyone else"; not very moral, honest or upright of you according to your so-called theistic principals ...or even the far more inferior ones inscribed by secular morality!

Dubious wrote:...outraged again...

Heh. Not "again," and not now, and not ever. You perturb me not in the least, actually.

But, all that being said, you also seem to have very little to say, except to rant. So be well, have a nice life, and carry on as you see fit. Me, I'm going to go and do something more useful than exchanging abuse with you...like maybe shampoo my cat.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dubious wrote:...outraged again...

Me, I'm going to go and do something more useful than exchanging abuse with you...like maybe shampoo my cat.

I figure your cat would appreciate that as much as we appreciate your posts.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote: As predicted above

You misunderstand.

I fully concede Belinda's right to believe in Social Darwinism. In fact, I would even argue that if you're a Darwinian, you can find no rational grounds for living as anything else. However, that has historically proved to be an option that is, in my estimation and in that of most of the civilized world today, morally repugnant. First, there was the eugenics movement in the US, sterilizing people by force and deception, and then Hitler and his "master race" in Germany. But it all made sense, in that if Darwinism is taken for granted, Social Darwinism follows.

But as a Theist, I'm no Social Darwinist. So I neither share, nor am obliged to agree with, Belinda's ideological preferences. I don't think "survival of the fittest" is an adequate explanation for how things are, and I note that Darwinism is amoral, whereas as a Theist I'm bound to be a moral objectivist...that is, to believe that "morality" described more than a contingent and local social preference.

So you see, she's just not talking about anything I have any reason to believe there. But she...absolutely. If she's putting forward "survival of the fittest" as the principle of human advancement, then Social Darwinism is her horse to ride.

The topic here is less interesting than the psychology and sociology. Why does Immanuel consider other people's observations to be their wishes?

Theists tend to claim to be true what they wish to be true. They judge secularists for seemingly embracing survival of the fittest as a life strategy. It's a misinterpretation, of course. Many secularists are appalled by the dangers of the wild - which is why we humans have worked so hard to isolate ourselves from its main threats.

On the other hand secularists judge theists for apparently believing in obvious baloney. In truth, most theists don't believe their fantastical claims. They just joined with some people they like and go along with the myths for the social stability and perks. Thus they play the game as expected.

It's just the story of the Earth that human technologies and moralities emerged from what had come before - things like hydrothermal vents, microbes, worms, insects, reptiles, dinosaurs, mammals. No belief or wishes needed.

Greta wrote:In truth, most theists don't believe their fantastical claims. They just joined with some people they like and go along with the myths for the social stability and perks. Thus they play the game as expected.

Sounds made up.

Sounds like ... I am so large and wise because they are so small and shallow.

Walker wrote:

Greta wrote:In truth, most theists don't believe their fantastical claims. They just joined with some people they like and go along with the myths for the social stability and perks. Thus they play the game as expected.

Sounds made up.

Sounds like ... I am so large and wise because they are so small and shallow.

I guess it might sound that way to one who felt insecure. All I'm doing is observing people's strategies and interpretations.

On the other hand, I don't get to enjoy the social stability and perks that theists get. That's the problem with my position. Swings and roundabouts.