Philosophy Now Forum

If you can tear yourself away from the weighty conversation on the compatibilism thread...

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 30, 2025 12:03 am

All I can do here is to note once again what I construe to be an enormous gap between religious denominations regarding the One True Path on this side of the grave, and the parts revolving around immortality and salvation given one or another rendition of "or else" on the other side.

Yeah, it's almost like we all believe stuff but none of us actually know anything so we're all left to our own devices to figure sumthin' out.

Though, who knows, if IC's Christian God is the real deal, someday you and I may be up at the Pearly Gates explaining to Him why we are not "here and now" Christians ourselves. 

We may indeed.

*Okay, we can just agree to disagree regarding our assessment of God. **But with all that is at stake on both sides of the grave, you would think that a God, the God would be considerably more adept at putting the breadcrumbs down to guide mere mortals to the part where they are either saved or left behind.

*Doesn't seem to me to be about we can so much as we often do, disagree, I mean, and not always agreeing to.

**Well, it depends on which God you're talkin' about, doesn't it.

Not really, in my view. IC is able to sustain a belief "in his head" that in accepting Jesus Christ as his personal savior, he is bound for Glory on the other side. And for all of eternity. And I personally know just how comforting and consoling that can be because I once believed it myself. On the other hand, IC is also convinced that WLC/RF have provided us with substantive and substantial scientific and historical proof that He does exist.

All that means is Mannie believes (and has, in his view, good reason to). So do I (in Someone different, with, in my view, good reason). But neither of us knows. We may think we do, or feel like we do, but, really, we don't.

No one does.

Well, with IC the problem revolves around the fact that [for me] he insists there is but one Divine solution. And he's got actual demonstrable evidence that it is his own Christian God [and only Him] who can save our souls. But he won't go here  --  viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- in order to explore it further.

Yeah, I know your beef with the guy. Who doesn't? You've plaster'd it all over the forum. Again: I can't help you with any of that.

Yes, that frame of mind works for some. But "maybe it's this God or that God or some God worshipped and adored by those on another planet or another universe or No God at all...?"

Yep, it's a conundrum.

"Maybe" just doesn't cut it here for others though. The only way they are able to make sense of themselves out in the world is to believe just the opposite. It really is their God [and only their God] that saves souls.

And, of course, that's what they do.

No, what I want is an argument able to convince me that No God moral nihilism is actually unreasonable...something that I can distance myself from.

I can't help you with that either. I can tell you what I believe and why (I already have). Can't do more than that.

However others interpret that, of course.

Of course.

Moral nihilism is impossible because nobody ever is or has been tabula rasa.

Henry Quirk wrote:

Yeah, it's almost like we all believe stuff but none of us actually know anything so we're all left to our own devices to figure sumthin' out.

Unless you want to hand over your free mind to someone else's dogma, Henry, that exactly describes the position of the truth seeker.

There are methods of enquiry the truth seeker can arm himself with. One of those methods is scepticism. For instance if someone tells a piece of news, or an interpretation of historical evidence, it's best to be sceptical until one is sure the source is trustworthy. There are a lot of bad people who thrive on misinformation. And there are also people who mean well but who don't reflect very much before they start believing stuff.

Martin's experience at the Muslim discussion group sounds to me an example of the latter.

Last call...

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 30, 2025 12:03 am

All I can do here is to note once again what I construe to be an enormous gap between religious denominations regarding the One True Path on this side of the grave, and the parts revolving around immortality and salvation given one or another rendition of "or else" on the other side.

Yeah, it's almost like we all believe stuff but none of us actually know anything so we're all left to our own devices to figure sumthin' out.

Though, who knows, if IC's Christian God is the real deal, someday you and I may be up at the Pearly Gates explaining to Him why we are not "here and now" Christians ourselves. 

We may indeed.

*Okay, we can just agree to disagree regarding our assessment of God. **But with all that is at stake on both sides of the grave, you would think that a God, the God would be considerably more adept at putting the breadcrumbs down to guide mere mortals to the part where they are either saved or left behind.

*Doesn't seem to me to be about we can so much as we often do, disagree, I mean, and not always agreeing to.

**Well, it depends on which God you're talkin' about, doesn't it.

Not really, in my view. IC is able to sustain a belief "in his head" that in accepting Jesus Christ as his personal savior, he is bound for Glory on the other side. And for all of eternity. And I personally know just how comforting and consoling that can be because I once believed it myself. On the other hand, IC is also convinced that WLC/RF have provided us with substantive and substantial scientific and historical proof that He does exist.

All that means is Mannie believes (and has, in his view, good reason to). So do I (in Someone different, with, in my view, good reason). But neither of us knows. We may think we do, or feel like we do, but, really, we don't.

No one does.

Well, with IC the problem revolves around the fact that [for me] he insists there is but one Divine solution. And he's got actual demonstrable evidence that it is his own Christian God [and only Him] who can save our souls. But he won't go here  --  viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- in order to explore it further.

Yeah, I know your beef with the guy. Who doesn't? You've plaster'd it all over the forum. Again: I can't help you with any of that.

Yes, that frame of mind works for some. But "maybe it's this God or that God or some God worshipped and adored by those on another planet or another universe or No God at all...?"

Yep, it's a conundrum.

"Maybe" just doesn't cut it here for others though. The only way they are able to make sense of themselves out in the world is to believe just the opposite. It really is their God [and only their God] that saves souls.

And, of course, that's what they do.

No, what I want is an argument able to convince me that No God moral nihilism is actually unreasonable...something that I can distance myself from.

I can't help you with that either. I can tell you what I believe and why (I already have). Can't do more than that.

However others interpret that, of course.

Of course.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 9:28 pm

Okay.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Jun 30, 2025 6:45 pm "There's no political solution
to our troubled evolution
have no faith in constitution
there's no bloody revolution..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHOevX4DlGk

-Imp

A do do do!

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 9:28 pm (a) Moral nihilism is impossible because nobody ever is or has been tabula rasa.

(2) Henry Quirk wrote:

Yeah, it's almost like we all believe stuff but none of us actually know anything so we're all left to our own devices to figure sumthin' out.

(iii) Unless you want to hand over your free mind to someone else's dogma, Henry, that exactly describes the position of the truth seeker.

(iii.a) There are methods of enquiry the truth seeker can arm himself with. One of those methods is scepticism. For instance if someone tells a piece of news, or an interpretation of historical evidence, it's best to be sceptical until one is sure the source is trustworthy. There are a lot of bad people who thrive on misinformation. And there are also people who mean well but who don't reflect very much before they start believing stuff.

(iii.a.1) Martin's experience at the Muslim discussion group sounds to me an example of the latter.

As you've invoked my unholy name.

(a) Exactly, we're mired (fortuitous typo!), pre-wired to be 'moral' over 4gy. Or 4ga. Four billion years in the making.

(2) It's part of (a). We're biased to believe down to the neuron. Or rather (a) is part of the more general (2).

(iii) Free thinking really goes against the grain of (2), especially soused in enculturation.

(iii.a) Couldn't agree more. It's the enculturation that does it. Family, school.

(iii.a.1) Wossat? I've never been in a Muslim discussion group. I've left all Christian discussion groups for the same reason. There is nothing that can be discussed. However, any good Muslim here will find me a perfectly respectful interlocutor.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 9:36 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 9:28 pm (a) Moral nihilism is impossible because nobody ever is or has been tabula rasa.

(2) Henry Quirk wrote:

Yeah, it's almost like we all believe stuff but none of us actually know anything so we're all left to our own devices to figure sumthin' out.

(iii) Unless you want to hand over your free mind to someone else's dogma, Henry, that exactly describes the position of the truth seeker.

(iii.a) There are methods of enquiry the truth seeker can arm himself with. One of those methods is scepticism. For instance if someone tells a piece of news, or an interpretation of historical evidence, it's best to be sceptical until one is sure the source is trustworthy. There are a lot of bad people who thrive on misinformation. And there are also people who mean well but who don't reflect very much before they start believing stuff.

(iii.a.1) Martin's experience at the Muslim discussion group sounds to me an example of the latter.

As you've invoked my unholy name.

(a) Exactly, we're mired (fortuitous typo!), pre-wired to be 'moral' over 4gy. Or 4ga. Four billion years in the making.

(2) It's part of (a). We're biased to believe down to the neuron. Or rather (a) is part of the more general (2).

(iii) Free thinking really goes against the grain of (2), especially soused in enculturation.

(iii.a) Couldn't agree more. It's the enculturation that does it. Family, school.

(iii.a.1) Wossat? I've never been in a Muslim discussion group. I've left all Christian discussion groups for the same reason. There is nothing that can be discussed. However, any good Muslim here will find me a perfectly respectful interlocutor.

Sorry to misrepresent you Martin! I am sure you posted something of the sort, or so it seemed to me. Anyway, all's well that ends well.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 10:27 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 9:36 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 9:28 pm (a) Moral nihilism is impossible because nobody ever is or has been tabula rasa.

(2) Henry Quirk wrote:


(iii) Unless you want to hand over your free mind to someone else's dogma, Henry, that exactly describes the position of the truth seeker.

(iii.a) There are methods of enquiry the truth seeker can arm himself with. One of those methods is scepticism. For instance if someone tells a piece of news, or an interpretation of historical evidence, it's best to be sceptical until one is sure the source is trustworthy. There are a lot of bad people who thrive on misinformation. And there are also people who mean well but who don't reflect very much before they start believing stuff.

(iii.a.1) Martin's experience at the Muslim discussion group sounds to me an example of the latter.

As you've invoked my unholy name.

(a) Exactly, we're mired (fortuitous typo!), pre-wired to be 'moral' over 4gy. Or 4ga. Four billion years in the making.

(2) It's part of (a). We're biased to believe down to the neuron. Or rather (a) is part of the more general (2).

(iii) Free thinking really goes against the grain of (2), especially soused in enculturation.

(iii.a) Couldn't agree more. It's the enculturation that does it. Family, school.

(iii.a.1) Wossat? I've never been in a Muslim discussion group. I've left all Christian discussion groups for the same reason. There is nothing that can be discussed. However, any good Muslim here will find me a perfectly respectful interlocutor.

Sorry to misrepresent you Martin! I am sure you posted something of the sort, or so it seemed to me. Anyway, all's well that ends well.

Most gracious and not a problem Belinda. We start believing early. Well within the sixth trimester I imagine. Thank Darwin for the rare head space that enables free thinking. I've been in a theology group and rapidly realised that one had to be a believer first. The chair, i.e. dominant personality, picked up immediately on my line of questioning with, 'Do you mean that all theology is metaphor?'

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 10:55 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 10:27 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 9:36 am
As you've invoked my unholy name.

(a) Exactly, we're mired (fortuitous typo!), pre-wired to be 'moral' over 4gy. Or 4ga. Four billion years in the making.

(2) It's part of (a). We're biased to believe down to the neuron. Or rather (a) is part of the more general (2).

(iii) Free thinking really goes against the grain of (2), especially soused in enculturation.

(iii.a) Couldn't agree more. It's the enculturation that does it. Family, school.

(iii.a.1) Wossat? I've never been in a Muslim discussion group. I've left all Christian discussion groups for the same reason. There is nothing that can be discussed. However, any good Muslim here will find me a perfectly respectful interlocutor.

Sorry to misrepresent you Martin! I am sure you posted something of the sort, or so it seemed to me. Anyway, all's well that ends well.

Most gracious and not a problem Belinda. We start believing early. Well within the sixth trimester I imagine. Thank Darwin for the rare head space that enables free thinking. I've been in a theology group and rapidly realised that one had to be a believer first. The chair, i.e. dominant personality, picked up immediately on my line of questioning with, 'Do you mean that all theology is metaphor?'

I guess I must have been thinking of that theology group; What fun! I would not have guessed Leicester would host such a group,you would be very lucky to find such in Derby. The best have been offered is the Alpha Course
Do let's discuss 'Do you mean that all theology is metaphor?'

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:06 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 10:55 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 10:27 am
Sorry to misrepresent you Martin! I am sure you posted something of the sort, or so it seemed to me. Anyway, all's well that ends well.

Most gracious and not a problem Belinda. We start believing early. Well within the sixth trimester I imagine. Thank Darwin for the rare head space that enables free thinking. I've been in a theology group and rapidly realised that one had to be a believer first. The chair, i.e. dominant personality, picked up immediately on my line of questioning with, 'Do you mean that all theology is metaphor?'

I guess I must have been thinking of that theology group; What fun! I would not have guessed Leicester would host such a group,you would be very lucky to find such in Derby. The best have been offered is the Alpha Course
Do let's discuss 'Do you mean that all theology is metaphor?'

Yes, I was very fortunate, but it all came too little, too late. I'd already deconstructed to the point of no return. And they weren't capable, at all, of going, even positing, upstream of belief. The chair had already revealed his fallacious bias, and that was that.

I was being polite when I said metaphor, which means carrier of meaning. That, in itself, is way down stream of the assumption of meaning, i.e. the assumption of unexaminable, axiomatic, Thomist, Platonic belief in meaning, most recently reiterated by Platinga ('Plantinga has also developed a more comprehensive epistemological account of the nature of warrant which allows for the existence of God as a basic belief.' wiki - Copan, P. (2001). "Warranted Christian Belief". The Review of Metaphysics. 54 (4): 939–941. JSTOR 20131647). Theology is stuff we vastly made up from the fundamentalist claims of ancient texts, most copiously in the West from Christiano-Jewish ones. Trying to do it by-passing sacred revealed text dates back to Plato in the West, which naturally fed in to the Abrahamic religions over the next 1400 years. William Lane Craig and Platinga are still at it.