Is the idea of God enough?

[AHunter3]

My sense is that you are positing some sort of Platonic ideal morality which we are slowly moving towards. I’d argue that all human morality comes from the particularities of our humanity, and practically any moral “law” might not hold for another species with very different characteristics.

I dunno about “Platonic ideals”. I think there are particularities which would apply to any species that has individually sentient intelligent members and is also highly social. A hypothetical species in which the individual members are highly intelligent but the social aspect is a much looser affiliation (e.g., no language, most members tend to the acquisition of food on their own, minimal “herd” or “tribal” defense needs, very little in the way of endeavors that can be described as the outcome of intricate interplay of many individuals doing separate interwoven tasks the way that building a Mercedes-Benz is), would presumably be subject to different particularities. A hypothetical species that was social and perhaps intelligent in the collective sense (imagine an insectile hive with its own recorded history and myths of origin) but in which the individual members do not possess intelligence would, again, probably be subject to different axioms.

Meanwhile, there may be particularities that come from our evolutionary history as primates, things that would not be true of us had we developed from yeesh I dunno rodents or something. But the possibility of primates is itself the outcome of natural laws. That is not the same as saying there exists a natural law that will ensure that primates will develop anywhere that life develops, any more than life shall develop anywhere that a planet forms; but rather that there is a rich and intricate set of laws that govern possibilities for a planet with certain resources and in a certain temperature range and in which certain niches did appear and so forth, and structured within these is the possibility of primates. So the relevant moral particularities that pertain to the outcomes of certain behaviors as they may be specific to critters of primate ancestry are yet still the outcome of the working order of the universe as a whole.

Not all individually sentient socially interwoven species would necessarily come to embrace a set of axiomatic organizational principles that reflect certain laws about the most efficient way to be that very thing (individuall sentient socially interwoven yadda yadda)… but there are consequences for those that do and consequences for those that do not. Nowhere is it written in “Destiny stone” that our species is scheduled to persist for the next couple billion years. There are circumstances under which that is more likely and circumstances under which it is less likely.

[AHunter3]

@begbert2

]Remember, you are arguing that the entire universe is pushing the side effects of society (that is, “morals”) onto its occupants. Were that actually true, then all animal species would also run in societies - the universe doesn’t make laws that apply to humans alone.

False logic.

The DNA in my cells is responsible for the behavior of my red blood cells. I am not, however, an undifferentiated mass of red blood cells. Other cells whose behavior can with equal validity be attributed to the same DNA manifest themselves as bone cells. Quite different. The DNA does not say “you shall be a blood cell”. The DNA says “there are a range of possibilities here, and IF you are a red blood cell, well then turn to page 419 and follow along with me”, so to speak.

[begbert2]

@AHunter3

False logic.

The DNA in my cells is responsible for the behavior of my red blood cells. I am not, however, an undifferentiated mass of red blood cells. Other cells whose behavior can with equal validity be attributed to the same DNA manifest themselves as bone cells. Quite different. The DNA does not say “you shall be a blood cell”. The DNA says “there are a range of possibilities here, and IF you are a red blood cell, well then turn to page 419 and follow along with me”, so to speak.

Wait, so you are saying that the universe has natural laws (like unto gravity) that are somehow attuned to humans alone?

[AHunter3]

Sorry, I don’t understand the question. Can you elaborate?

[MichaelJohnBertrand]

Don’t ask me. You guys lost me ages ago.

Makes me wish I’d finished that Philosophy degree.

I was never fond of epistemology.

And when people say qua my eyes glaze over.

[begbert2]

@AHunter3

Sorry, I don’t understand the question. Can you elaborate?

You called “False Logic” on me and then went into a speil on how the human body has subsections of its DNA that are specifically designed to work with specific ‘suborganisms’. As far as I can tell, the only possible point to that could be to suggest that the universe has natural laws (like unto gravity) that are somehow attuned to humans alone.

Was that, or wasn’t that your point?

Personally it sounds nuts to me - the universe didn’t evolve in conjuntion with humans; it existed for billions of years with no hint of us in it. So it makes no sense that it would have rules set aside for humans alone. Really, that sounds like nutty egotistical heliocentrism-type crap.

[AHunter3]

Oh, OK, I think I am folliowing your question now!

Let’s see… OK let’s say that I make a gravity rule that is written as follows:

PEOPLE WHO DEPART FROM THE SURFACE OF THE BRIDGE WHILE CROSSING THE RIO GRANDE GORGE WILL FALL

(That is not, of course, exactly what the law of gravity or any of its actual tenets say, but it is a local application of it if you see what I mean).

Let us posit 5 individuals: Tom, Dick, Arnold, Susannah, and Jolene. Everyone but Arnold crosses the Rio Grande by walking across on the bridge. Arnold, for some unknown and inexplicable reason, hops over the guard rail and attempts to complete his walk in mid-air and instead plummets to the bottom, kinda like Wile E. Coyote.

a) There does not exist a “special rule for Arnold”. The specific application of the rule to Arnold would apply in a similar manner to any other individual who fit the relevant description in the fashion that Arnold did. As it happens, in this example, Arnold is the sole member of a set of one, but it is still not a “special rule for Arnold”. In a loosely similar fashion, there may be laws (or at least local applications thereof) that only affect human beings. If there are, it would be because in some meaningful sense vis-a-vis that particular application of natural law, we, too, are in a “set of one”. But no, there is no “special rule for humans”, if you see what I mean.

b) Although this is not a direct answer to your most recent question, I think I am coming to see a difference in perspective. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but it seems like you are conceptualizing MY description of things kind of like this:

<=== We humans are over here

Way Out Yonder or just kind of over there, let’s say, is “The Universe” and it is the “cause” of how and what we are, including whatever is “moral” for us as humans =======>
That’s not right, that’s not what I intended to convey at all.

Approximately 15 billion years ago the universe came into being in a process usually referred to as “the Big Bang”. The observable universe and any chunks thereof — let’s say for example the Andromeda Galaxy — can be said to “have originated from the Big Bang”. Even if there are a lot of intermediate steps glossed over (cooling of the proto-plasma-whatever into electrons and protons and stuff). And we do not say “the universe created the Andromeda Galaxy”, we say “the Andromeda Galaxy is a part of the universe”. It is literally, non-metaphorically, a subset of the all-inclusive set known as “the universe”.

That is true of me, also, and furthermore it is true of the thoughts inside my head, and it is true of the species human and how its component members interact as a society. It is not that “the universe created me” or “caused my thoughts” or “generated human morality”, it is that the laws of nature that govern the entire creation of the entire universe…

a) do exist; are REAL laws whether we understand them yet or not;

b) are responsible for my existence, insofar as I am a subset of the universe just as the Andromeda Galaxy is;

c) govern, as they govern everything else, the outcome of various possible ways that individual humans can interact, as surely as laws of thermodynamics govern processes of combustion and laws of cellular division govern processes of mitotic cellular reproduction and so on.

d) are manifest as me just as they are manifest as any other observable phenomenon, because I am as much an outcome of the Big Bang as the various galaxies are; indeed, I actually AM the Big Bang and so is everything else, “being me” is a behavior in which the Big Bang is engaged along with the rest of the things that the Big Bang is currently doing. (Dividing things up into separate events is a useful human analytical practice but those divisions are not intrinsically there; it’s all one interwoven behavior)

[begbert2]

Okay, we’re getting closer here. However, I still have more that needs to be conveyed. To wit, I do not think:

@AHunter3

<=== We humans are over here

Way Out Yonder or just kind of over there, let’s say, is “The Universe” and it is the “cause” of how and what we are, including whatever is “moral” for us as humans =======>

I think:

The Universe <=== We humans are in here.

===> Societies (these are an abstract definition; not in the universe per say)
Humans meet the model for the system ‘societies’, and thus are subject to its rules.
So, I guess the next pertinent question is, do you consider these to be fundamental laws of the universe:

1. The rules of mathematics, such as 1+1=2

2. The rules of chess

(Note that I’m not talking about physical chess peices here, or a physical written copies of the rules, but instead the abstract definition of the rules of chess, which abstractly will continue to persist even after The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief.)

[AHunter3]

I consider the rules of mathematics to be fundamental laws of the universe.

I consider the rules of chess to be arbitrary human-authored rules, but that process of authoring chess rules still takes place in the universe and therefore the possible rules that could be invented that would yield a game that could indeed be played by humans in this universe are a small subset of the TOTAL collection of POSSIBLE rules. And they are constrained by other things as well including the rules of mathematics.

I do not consider societies to be “not in the universe per se”. Societies are entities in the same sense that you and I are entities. They think. They form opinions. They come to conclusions. Furthermore, that which we tend to THINK of as “our selves”, i.e., ourselves as individuals, making choices and forming opinions and whatnot, is in part — in fairly LARGE part — society doing those things and playing out the action of doing so via our manifesting it locally. Society is an abstraction insofar as physically it is only located in your head and my head and so forth; but it is nonetheless very much real and very much “in the universe” and hence subject to laws that govern possibilities and outcomes.

[begbert2]

@AHunter3

I consider the rules of mathematics to be fundamental laws of the universe.

Funny, I consider them to transcend the universe, to the point that the system of math is applicable in any possible universe, at the least as a self-consistent abstract system (which is all math is anyway). In which case, they cannot be laws of the universe, especially not laws resulting from deliberate intent.

If we disagree on this, then we will have to agree to disagree, because you will never convince me that abstract systems and the rules that follow them are caused by the universe. That just ain’t how it works.

@AHunter3

I consider the rules of chess to be arbitrary human-authored rules, but that process of authoring chess rules still takes place in the universe and therefore the possible rules that could be invented that would yield a game that could indeed be played by humans in this universe are a small subset of the TOTAL collection of POSSIBLE rules. And they are constrained by other things as well including the rules of mathematics.

I do not consider societies to be “not in the universe per se”. Societies are entities in the same sense that you and I are entities. They think. They form opinions. They come to conclusions. Furthermore, that which we tend to THINK of as “our selves”, i.e., ourselves as individuals, making choices and forming opinions and whatnot, is in part — in fairly LARGE part — society doing those things and playing out the action of doing so via our manifesting it locally. Society is an abstraction insofar as physically it is only located in your head and my head and so forth; but it is nonetheless very much real and very much “in the universe” and hence subject to laws that govern possibilities and outcomes.

Societies are entities in the same way that chess games are entities - they happen as a result of humans coming together and acting according to certain rules (written or unwritten). And, similarly, morals are as much a part of the laws of the universe as a queen’s gambit is.

[AHunter3]

Also:

The Universe <=== We humans are in here.

That’s what I mean. That’s what I meant by my “we are over here and the universe is that other thing that is out there”. (You expressed it better). That is wrong. We are not “in” the universe at least not in the sense that my laundry is in the laundry basket or my vegetables are in the refrigerator. My laundry is not a component OF the laundry basket. In contrast, the letter “a” is in the alphabet yet is also a component of it. Primates are “in” the class of Mammals and are also a component of it.

We humans are a component OF the universe. We are a subset of it. When we speak of “the Universe” we speak in part about ourselves.

We are also a subset of society. It, too, is comprised of us and others.

[AHunter3]

@begbert2

…you will never convince me that abstract systems and the rules that follow them are caused by the universe. That just ain’t how it works.

Not “caused by”. That implies you have

Math <== over here and it is caused by ===> the universe

like they are separate things, once having “caused” the other.

The laws governing mathematics exist as a component of the universe, as part of the laws of the universe.

Could a “different universe” exist with totally different laws? Who the heck knows?!? Neither you nor I have any frame of reference. The very phrase “different universe” doesn’t even parse for me. Universe is universal. But the laws are intrinsic TO it.

[begbert2]

@AHunter3

Also:

That’s what I mean. That’s what I meant by my “we are over here and the universe is that other thing that is out there”. (You expressed it better). That is wrong. We are not “in” the universe at least not in the sense that my laundry is in the laundry basket or my vegetables are in the refrigerator. My laundry is not a component OF the laundry basket. In contrast, the letter “a” is in the alphabet yet is also a component of it. Primates are “in” the class of Mammals and are also a component of it.

We humans are a component OF the universe. We are a subset of it. When we speak of “the Universe” we speak in part about ourselves.

We are also a subset of society. It, too, is comprised of us and others.

How come when you say “in” it means one thing, and when I say it it means another? The set of humans is a subset of the set “Universe”. We are in that set, and any enumeration of the set would include us.

But the laws and properties of the subset are not (necessarily) laws of the superset; such inheritance is only a sure thing one-directionally. Gravity is a universal law. Human laws are not. So, when we speak of “the universe”, we do not speak of things that are only true for ourselves; by including the rest of the universe in the discussion we necessarily exclude properties that are not applicable to the entire set.

Or else, the rules of chess are universal laws. Including that rule variant that only you and your cousin Larry know, which lets you feed the other guy’s queen to the cat if you can do it without him catching you at it.

And no, the laws governing mathematics do not exist as a component of the universe, and they are not intrinsic to it. They are an abstract system that is self-consistent utterly regardless of and independent of anything else, including any universes that might or might not happen to come along. In or out of the universe, 1 + 1 = 2 (for the system of decimal arithemetic), not by the laws of the universe, but instead by definition!

[AHunter3]

Clearly we need to define our terms then. When I myself speak of “the Universe” I definitely include the immutable laws of it, and in this discussion such are rather central to what I mean when I speak of “the universe”.

That would mean that, as I am using the term, the laws of mathematics, and of physics, and those governing the interaction of individiually intelligent yet social species, each of those being immutable and universal, are part of “the universe”.

[begbert2]

@AHunter3

Clearly we need to define our terms then. When I myself speak of “the Universe” I definitely include the immutable laws of it, and in this discussion such are rather central to what I mean when I speak of “the universe”.

That would mean that, as I am using the term, the laws of mathematics, and of physics, and those governing the interaction of individiually intelligent yet social species, each of those being immutable and universal, are part of “the universe”.

Math is just a system, like chess. It has axioms, abstract an independent of the universe, and everything follows from those axioms. Yes, parts of the system of math do a good job of modeling parts of the reality known as our universe, which is a main reason that the system has been expanded and developed as much as it has, but when it comes down to it the system itself is not tied to the universe in any way, and would be unaltered if used in a different universe with different rules. (Though it might be less useful there.)

In this way it is exactly like the rules of chess. The rules of modern chess will, as an abstract notion, be as valid when all chessboards are gone, and were as valid back before they were ever thought up, and would be as valid in an alternate universe where chess was never concieved of. (Though, in cases where the rules are unknown, they tend to be less useful.)

If you try and “define” mathematics as being a subset of the set “universe”, then I will simply reject your premise that that “definition” is true. (On account of the fact I know better.)

[AHunter3]

You are assuming “universe” to refer to the physical universe only, the portion of the universe that could be described as energy and matter.

I am considering “universe” to NOT be limited to that. The rules are part of the universe. Perhaps the most important part. If you do not like me to use the term “universe” feel welcome to substitute another word or phrase, but there’s no point debating if you are going to argue against what you think my words should have meant after I have explained that such is not how I intended them.

[begbert2]

@AHunter3

You are assuming “universe” to refer to the physical universe only, the portion of the universe that could be described as energy and matter.

I am considering “universe” to NOT be limited to that. The rules are part of the universe. Perhaps the most important part. If you do not like me to use the term “universe” feel welcome to substitute another word or phrase, but there’s no point debating if you are going to argue against what you think my words should have meant after I have explained that such is not how I intended them.

I am correctly stating that the thing called “mathematics” is exactly as abstract and detached from reality as the rules of chess. If the rules of chess are not parts of the “universe”, then neither are the rules of math. Period.

I am arguing that you are wrong in your assertions of how reality is. It is not that I misunderstand you - it’s that I disagree with your basic premises. And until we can find a set of premises upon which we can agree, there can be no further debate.

Or to put it another way, that you consider the “universe” to include abstract systems is exactly as sensible to me as considering the decimal number system to include the letter “A”. It doesn’t matter if that’s what you intend; it’s simply not true. From which, your entire argument collapses.

(Though, this has stretched long enough that I’m forgetting how this even relates back to your peculiar position that the universe is God. 'Cause it surely can’t be that the universe consciously configured itself in a sentient manner to align some small subset of its evolving inhabitants with the abstract stuctures of society which would result in some of them evolving a specific set of moral codes - any more than it consciously configured itself to have gravitational constants consistent with the formation of planetary bodies. 'Cause that’s just silly. Which means, if I don’t know why we’re arguing and we can’t agree on the premises, we’re doubly wasting our time.)

[devilsknew]

@begbert2

Of course, not all species form societies, and (as a result) not all species have morals. Because morals don’t spring from the foundations of the universe. First a species has to invent societies, which not all do. Then, from the foundations of society, the morals spring.

Oh, I think many other species have moral codes, if you observe them objectively and try not to apply human morality to them (which is almost impossible for a human). Many, if not all Animals, definitely abide by moral codes. However, our dualistic terminological Babel and the willing limits of our understanding qualify them in xenic terms as “instinct” or “behavior”.

[begbert2]

@devilsknew

Oh, I think many other species have moral codes, if you observe them objectively and try not to apply human morality to them (which is almost impossible for a human). Many, if not all Animals, definitely abide by moral codes. However, our dualistic terminological Babel and the willing limits of our understanding qualify them in xenic terms as “instinct” or “behavior”.

Many other species…that do not form societies, at least to the extent of permanent family units? I kinda half-thought the extent of their civilization was “Don’t eat your own young…maybe.”

And I think the real kicker leading us to suspect instinct as a driving factor is the percieved shortages of communication and brains and memory. The only reason humans have the complex moral codes we do is because we’ve developed them over time and keep passing them on to our young, elaborating on them as we go.

[devilsknew]

@begbert2

… driving factor is the percieved shortages of communication and brains and memory. The only reason humans have the complex moral codes we do is because we’ve developed them over time and keep passing them on to our young, elaborating on them as we go.

Perceived is the key word.

Who knows what a Goose knows or feels, who knows what a Goose passes to the Gosling?

Maybe you, because you have a capacity for compassion?

Apparenntly by God’s standards he doesn’t know or care. He set us up against them in Eden.