Free Will vs Determinism

[Immanuel Can]

Yes. Some atheists don't much like being anchorless: Some other atheists do like being anchorless.

That's true.

But "liking" doesn't change their situation. They're afloat.

Whatever: at least atheists have reason for map and ordinary human kindness for compass. The rowing is hard work but what the hell!

Did you watch the short video? The professor there shows exactly why this isn't true. An Atheist cannot give "reasons" why he must practice "ordinary human kindness." He's got access to no such anchor.

That's what makes the "rowing" not just hard work, but essentially, like rowing with one oar. The Atheist isn't going anywhere, in terms of being able to know he's going in the right direction. All he can do is spin. What will determine his direction for him? Reason doesn't give him that, because reasons exist for cruelty and barbarism, just as much as for kindness.

[Belinda]

Yes. Some atheists don't much like being anchorless: Some other atheists do like being anchorless.

That's true.

But "liking" doesn't change their situation. They're afloat.

Whatever: at least atheists have reason for map and ordinary human kindness for compass. The rowing is hard work but what the hell!

Did you watch the short video? The professor there shows exactly why this isn't true. An Atheist cannot give "reasons" why he must practice "ordinary human kindness." He's got access to no such anchor.

That's what makes the "rowing" not just hard work, but essentially, like rowing with one oar. The Atheist isn't going anywhere, in terms of being able to know he's going in the right direction. All he can do is spin. What will determine his direction for him? Reason doesn't give him that, because reasons exist for cruelty and barbarism, just as much as for kindness.

We are all afloat.

Ordinary human kindness is inherent and can be nurtured. Ordinary human kindness is backed up by ethics which came to atheists via religious institutions. Religious institutions are like leaky rusty dirty old ships manned by drunken crews , which happened to carry the cargo of ethics more or less intact.

The atheist has only reason ; that is true, and human reason is not 100%. But it's better than unreason. Reason includes cooperation between people and cooperation implies caring for others. Cruelty and barbarity are not reasonable, and are death dealing not life giving.

[Immanuel Can]

We are all afloat.

Arguable, of course.

If there were to be an objective morality, and if we were to be told by the Supreme Being what that morality entailed, then we wouldn't be afloat, would we?

So we'd have to start with the assumption that there was no Supreme Being and no objective truth about morality...and then we'd be worse than "afloat." We'd be lost.

Ordinary human kindness is inherent and can be nurtured.

So is selfishness...and it's far easier to nurture. The patient is invariably highly cooperative.

Ordinary human kindness is backed up by ethics which came to atheists via religious institutions. Religious institutions are like leaky rusty dirty old ships manned by drunken crews , which happened to carry the cargo of ethics more or less intact.

Well, where did the rusty ships get their cargo? If they produced it themselves, then one would suppose they have to go down with the ship. The ship made them and sustains them...sink the ship, and it all goes down.

If they did not, then from where?

The atheist has only reason ; that is true, and human reason is not 100%.

Reason has nothing to say about ethics, I'm afraid. Reason is a method. The method depends on premises. If the premise offered is, "There is no God and no objective morality," then the conclusion that follows isn't optional...there is no objectivity to, or any need to obey any conception of morality either.

Reason includes cooperation between people and cooperation implies caring for others.

It does not, I'm afraid. Reason equally allows competition, eugenics, economic and environmental exploitation, and so on. It's just like professor Peterson says in the video: self-interest is very rational. What could be more rational than to seek what you want, completely ignore everybody else's interest, and let the Devil take the hindmost?

In fact, isn't that the very meaning of "survival of the fittest"? What makes survival of the fittest "irrational"?

Cruelty and barbarity are not reasonable, and are death dealing not life giving.

Where is the precept written, "Thou shalt give life?" Why not take it?

God has been banished, and reason stands silent.

Meanwhile, are not cruelty and barbarity written on the very face of nature? I've watched lions devour wildebeest on the Masai Mara...and the wildebeest is still very much alive as it all goes down. Nothing is so clearly sponsored by nature as suffering. Why call that "unreasonable"?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Meanwhile, are not cruelty and barbarity written on the very face of nature? I've watched lions devour wildebeest on the Masai Mara...and the wildebeest is still very much alive as it all goes down. Nothing is so clearly sponsored by nature as suffering. Why call that "unreasonable"?

But your all- powerful creator God made that nature , so you claim.

Nature is a fact, and in order to live the individual has to destroy other forms of life. Human reason can find ways to alleviate suffering, to make farming more compassionate, to nurture the natural environment, to extend welfare to the poor all over the world, to conserve the habitats of wild creatures, to use reasoning diplomacy when negotiating international affairs and quarrels, and to use reason for administering criminal justice.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Meanwhile, are not cruelty and barbarity written on the very face of nature? I've watched lions devour wildebeest on the Masai Mara...and the wildebeest is still very much alive as it all goes down. Nothing is so clearly sponsored by nature as suffering. Why call that "unreasonable"?

But your all- powerful creator God made that nature , so you claim.

Indeed I do. But I was responding to your idea that "reason" was somehow capable of arbitrating morality all by itself. It's clearly not...a fact on which every knowledgeable philosophical ethicist agrees, especially after Hume and Nietzsche.

Nature is a fact, and in order to live the individual has to destroy other forms of life. Human reason can find ways to alleviate suffering, to make farming more compassionate, to nurture the natural environment, to extend welfare to the poor all over the world, to conserve the habitats of wild creatures, to use reasoning diplomacy when negotiating international affairs and quarrels, and to use reason for administering criminal justice.

You speak like a post-Protestant.

But absent God, we have no way to know if we should alleviate suffering, precipitate it, or ignore it. And we don't know why farming should be "compassionate," since it may well suit my profits if it isn't. Why should we help the poor -- are they not the hindmost wildebeests of the human herd? As for international affairs, we normally love our homes more than foreign lands and our own friends above nameless others -- that's just natural. As for criminal justice, "reason" tells us nothing about what we ought to do...whether to imprison, execute or liberate. All can be rationalized.

At sea again.

[Vendetta]

We are all afloat.

Arguable, of course.

If there were to be an objective morality, and if we were to be told by the Supreme Being what that morality entailed, then we wouldn't be afloat, would we?

So we'd have to start with the assumption that there was no Supreme Being and no objective truth about morality...and then we'd be worse than "afloat." We'd be lost.

In that sense there would be no trustworthy and entirely accurate perspective of morality as every human perspective is biased to a certain extent by their beliefs, or their environment, or the like.
The supremacy of the the Supreme causes it to lack any bias which is why one can trust its concept of morality (alongside the fact that it's has a greater perspective than us)
With no true baseline to derive morals from, how can we trust the idea of morals at all? Does this render them questionable, even inherently flawed?

Ordinary human kindness is inherent and can be nurtured.

How is kindness inherent? The act of being kind relies heavily on the understanding of morals and what is considered kind (which comes into question under whose definition of kind are we born into if it is truly inherent) Morals are concepts imposed on us by people who we are influenced by when we are young. That's why there is difference in definition through different people.
The nature of morality doesn't allow for it to be intrinsic, unless there is a God who will inform us of the way it is truly meant to be understood.

Reason includes cooperation between people and cooperation implies caring for others.

Do people not use reason when backing their position in debate? The nature of debate is uncooperative....

Cruelty and barbarity are not reasonable, and are death dealing not life giving.

Under whose terms? If one were to kill another to save many, would you still see that as irrational?

[Arising_uk]

...The professor there shows exactly why this isn't true. ...

No he doesn't, he just says he can't think of any.

An Atheist cannot give "reasons" why he must practice "ordinary human kindness." He's got access to no such anchor. ...

The reason is simple, because she can. That and that who wishes to live in a world continuously without kindness? If you're looking for a rational reason, then computational game theory shows that the reciprocal co-operator performs better with respect to outcomes in repeated group interactions.

That's what makes the "rowing" not just hard work, but essentially, like rowing with one oar. The Atheist isn't going anywhere, in terms of being able to know he's going in the right direction. All he can do is spin. What will determine his direction for him? Reason doesn't give him that, because reasons exist for cruelty and barbarism, just as much as for kindness.

It's because it does and that we can choose that makes it a moral decision. Whereas for the theist it's effectively coercion and really it's more than that as it's already been determined by their 'God' what they will do and their 'freewill' is just an illusion, if their 'God' exists that is and this 'God' has the 3 O's they say 'it' does.

[Arising_uk]

...
How is kindness inherent? ...

Well apparently we're a social primate.

[Immanuel Can]

So we'd have to start with the assumption that there was no Supreme Being and no objective truth about morality...and then we'd be worse than "afloat." We'd be lost.

In that sense there would be no trustworthy and entirely accurate perspective of morality as every human perspective is biased to a certain extent by their beliefs, or their environment, or the like.

Yup. That's pretty much the size of things.

The supremacy of the the Supreme causes it to lack any bias

In a sense, yes. How can one be "biased," when on is the very definer of reality itself? If the Supreme Being were to "bias" Himself in one direction or another, that direction would have been constitutive of reality in the first place, so it wouldn't be "bias" anymore.

After all, "bias" implies something that is away from something else ("unbiased," or truthful).

With no true baseline to derive morals from, how can we trust the idea of morals at all? Does this render them questionable, even inherently flawed?

Certainly, yes. That is, unless the baseline is set for us by the Supreme Being or by something encoded in the nature of reality itself by Him.

Ordinary human kindness is inherent and can be nurtured.

Do people not use reason when backing their position in debate? The nature of debate is uncooperative....

Well, yes...if we mean adversarial. It can remain polite and respectful, but if two people are debating it implies that they have at least slightly divergent perspectives on that issue and are using reason to convince one another.

It's a cooperative process only in that both may benefit from a polite debate, and each may become smarter at the end; but it's adversarial in that it always involves different claims about something.

Cruelty and barbarity are not reasonable, and are death dealing not life giving.

Under whose terms? If one were to kill another to save many, would you still see that as irrational?

This is a good point too. There are certainly circumstances in which the death of one helps many. ( Consider the famous "Trolley Problem," or just the benefit of euthanizing one dying patient in order to provide organs for several. ) And for the numbers-Consequentialist, this would be okay. But not for the Deontologist or for the person who believed in the sacredness of life regardless of numbers.

So who is being more "reasonable" there? Both the Deontologist and the Consequentialist are using reasons with integrity, in accordance with their presuppositions.

So reason itself isn't helping them to know if they should kill or not kill the one. Something prior to reasons will be deciding that. Reason will be useful, but only at stage 2 -- once they have decided on the right basic value premise...the value of life intrinsically, or the value of the lives of many versus one.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can, I did not write the following:

Do people not use reason when backing their position in debate? The nature of debate is uncooperative....

I did not write this either:

Under whose terms? If one were to kill another to save many, would you still see that as irrational?

I think that you wrote those. The quoting format in philosophynow is atrocious. I try to remedy its shortcoming by use of the drama script format when there are a lot of quotes and replies.

E.g

Belinda: bla bla uyr32674

Imanuel : bla rjru7wblaedb915

Otherposter: blapo0eirn bla bla

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can, I did not write the following:

Do people not use reason when backing their position in debate? The nature of debate is uncooperative....

I did not write this either:

Under whose terms? If one were to kill another to save many, would you still see that as irrational?

I think that you wrote those.

No, actually. They were quotes from "Vendetta," to whom I was responding. Notice that there's a box within a box. I do agree that it can be a bit hard to track.

The quoting format in philosophynow is atrocious.

I have to agree. It's hard to make clear who is speaking when, since the boxes are all so similar. But I was not attributing any of those quotations to you, but to Vendetta. I'll try to keep that more clear in future, so this doesn't cause distress.

[SpheresOfBalance]

No one can "know" if there is or is not a creator. All anyone can do is believe, have faith, that either there is or is not one.

You're wrong, some people can "know", but those who don't know, or don't believe, often project their disbelief onto others.
Wrong, I'm surprised that you don't "know" what either "certainty" or "know" means! But then I guess I should expect that out of one that has only gone to high school. While "knowledge" is in fact power, "ignorance" lends to the opposite!!! Seen a leprechaun lately?


My mother was like that, she claimed that she knew my motives better than I did, I just got tired of arguing with her.

Your mother has nothing to do with the "facts" that I present!
Bet you don't know the meaning of that word either!

[SpheresOfBalance]

No one can "know" if there is or is not a creator. All anyone can do is believe, have faith, that either there is or is not one.

You're wrong, some people can "know", but those who don't know, or don't believe, often project their disbelief onto others.

My mother was like that, she claimed that she knew my motives better than I did, I just got tired of arguing with her.

Yes.

Even if, for argument's sake, we were to grant Spheres his point, he'd need to tell us how he *knows* that nobody can know God.
Easy IC, "PROVE" IT! Now I hope you're a little more learned than our High School Graduate friend and actually know what the word "PROVE" means! Though your "belief," (that you've twisted into "knowledge," due to your "fear" of "death)," in an unseen, unprovable entity, would surely seem to have already spoken for you!

For surely, there we would expect that there would be some rather straightforward ways people could know God (even if, as it so happens, none do, as we are granting him for the argument's sake).

Could not a Supreme Being speak? Could not a Supreme Being reveal Himself? Could not a Supreme Being make Himself manifest in nature, in persons or in miracles? Well, if He couldn't, then he'd be a great deal less than "supreme," wouldn't he? Those are the kinds of things ordinary people like you and I do every day...we speak, reveal our natures, manifest ourselves in our work, make gestures of self, write our names, send pictures, and so forth.

Now, IF God has not done any of those things, then surely there's no reason to believe he COULDN'T, at least in principle if not in actuality. So it seems very, very easy to show that a person could have a way to know God.

But for some reason Spheres would have to imagine God can't do any of that.

Why not?

[thedoc]

No one can "know" if there is or is not a creator. All anyone can do is believe, have faith, that either there is or is not one.

You're wrong, some people can "know", but those who don't know, or don't believe, often project their disbelief onto others.
Wrong, I'm surprised that you don't "know" what either "certainty" or "know" means! But then I guess I should expect that out of one that has only gone to high school. While "knowledge" is in fact power, "ignorance" lends to the opposite!!! Seen a leprechaun lately?


My mother was like that, she claimed that she knew my motives better than I did, I just got tired of arguing with her.

Your mother has nothing to do with the "facts" that I present!
Bet you don't know the meaning of that word either!

You might know that you don't know, but you have no knowledge of what other people might know or not know. You are projecting your own ignorance onto others.

[thedoc]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.