Why not? If it really does benefit character development, then isn’t it equally rational for you and for an atheist to pursue that goal? (And if it’s rational for you to honestly believe it’s the right thing to do, then why isn’t it rational for this or that atheist to honestly believe it’s the right thing to do?)
That’s irrelevant; the point is, such an atheist can sensibly propound the same moral message as a decent theist: it’s the right thing to do, he’d say; “follow the rules, give back the money.” And, in the same way, he could reasonably stake out the exact same positions against theft and murder and perjury while talking up the praiseworthiness of do-unto-others good works.
The point is, secular philosophy can unsurprisingly come up with the same ethical rules as this or that religion – and can, AFAICT, surpass any known religion by leaving out the awful stuff: persecuting homosexuals or torturing blasphemers while endorsing slavery, and everything else from human sacrifice on down, can all just fall by the wayside; secularists in general and existentialists in particular can just propound the good stuff while dropping the bad.
Which brings me to this:
Well, no. The problem with religion is that it can allegedly be good for you to be “evil” in the here and now, since what harms innocents in this existence can be allegedly commanded by a god who promises treasures in heaven, or something. I mean, yeah, like you said, we both condemn a secular jerk who hurts people in hopes of turning a personal profit; I likewise condemn a religious zealot who plays suicide bomber not for any earthly reward but solely because it’s supposedly the will of the Almighty.
Someone who passes off all responsibility for his decisions onto a god – man, who knows? He’ll be following the propounded code wherever it leads. But someone who keeps trying his hardest to get it right, always ready to revise the code he propounds while doing his best to see the results verified here in the real world – that’s, like, the least bad approach I can think of.
Still, you’d have a point with regard to secularists not doing what’s right simply because it’s right – if, that is, that were the case. We have a secularist in this very thread who’s telling you otherwise; he strikes me as being as credible as you were (if not more so) when you said that explaining why you believe in a benevolent god “would simply be a make work project on a colossal scale that would hijack the thread and be of no use. It would convince no one, except me”. Why not grant him the same benefit of the doubt?
Character development isn’t the same thing in the two instances. Secular character development for a neolithic cave dweller was on the lines of, “how do I better cooperate with my tribe to get more meat for us and out compete the tribe down the ridge? How do I get more meat for myself and have better mating opportunities in my tribe?”
Secular character development is: what benefits me. If it benefits me to cooperate, then I should. (And most of the time it does, within your own community, tribe, circle of friends. You get benefits from them also being willing to cooperate with you.) If it doesn’t benefit me, then I shouldn’t. It’s along the lines of what a pyschopath does to fit into society. He teaches himself how to react to people to get them to cooperate with him and cooperates when it’s in his interest. You don’t have to believe any of it.
Really? Ha. It’s one of the most relevent questions of the thread.
Why is it “good” for me to do that which isn’t good for me?
The answer is simple: it isn’t.
Yup, doesn’t have to mean a word of it. I expect an atheist to propound these “virtues” to everyone. It’s in his interest that everyone else follow them. It’s still the best result for an individual if everyone else follows the rules and they are free to do what they will.
I’m not claiming that every single religion is wonderful. But my religion doesn’t tell me to persecute, torture, or enslave anyone. I’m not condoned for mistreating anyone; it is not a tenet of my religion to mistreat people; you can not find that instruction. And my God, and yours, never condoned human sacrifice. You seem to be falling into the same trap as other secularists have while debating this issue: Just because people do evil for their own benefit, (and justify it with religion,) doesn’t mean they are properly representing the religion in question.
But, the other point… You’re still starting with a definition of “good” that isn’t arrived at. It’s pre-selected.
True, but then that wouldn’t be “evil” would it. If the god in question decreed it was good, it would be good, wouldn’t it? (I generally agree with the statement, except in the instance this argument was used against me: namely, if a god tells you something is evil, then tells you seriously to do it anyway.)
I don’t think anyone is really trying to follow their religion who isn’t, (generally,) doing this. I whole-heartedly suggest this. Except, I’ve never found it necessary to revise the code. I’m always finding that the code is right in the first place but I was misinterpreting it or applying it wrong. And that is a pretty good verification to me right there. After a while of trying to follow something, I see the purpose of it, and finally “get” it. I’m revising my code, the code I was personally following, when I see it’s “wrong.”
But, once again, you can verify any number of messages here in the real world. That’s not enough. You have to start with the right message. A message that we’re looking for the best result for everybody.
A message that you can’t verify from a secular perspective because it falls prey to the question I’ve been asking that won’t be answered: Why is it “good” for me to do that which isn’t good for me?
And it isn’t enough to say, “well, it’s good for the rest of us.” Because that leads directly to the types of abuses you’ve been misapplying to religion. “Your slavery is good for the rest of us, let’s do it.” The only time you can objectively say that something is “good” is when it is the best result for everyone, when everyone agrees it’s in their best interest. (I don’t know how far back I first said that.)
I don’t know that I follow this. benefit of the doubt for what? That he believes he’s doing it because it’s right? I don’t doubt that. But there is no basis to say it’s “right.” And you don’t get a “benefit of the doubt” that it is. The only equal “benefit of the doubt” that makes sense in context, (to go with my benefit of the doubt that I’ve seen evidence for God,) is a “benefit of the doubt” as to why he doesn’t believe in god. He can have that if he wants it. It makes no difference.
The point that I can get to presupposing a god, that secularists can never get to answers the previous question: Why is it “good” for me to do that which isn’t good for me?
One religious answer can be, "you choose to do what isn’t best for you in this life but what benefits others because it builds you into a person that will succeed in the next life. "
The only secular answers are brainwashing or lies. “You should do it because it’s good for everybody else.” That still doesn’t make it good for me, and doesn’t answer the question; it’s a misdirection. “Well, it is good for you.” No it isn’t; we established that from the question. “Well, we’ll try to build a society where it is good for you.” Fine, I applaud that, but it’s not an answer to the question, it’s just a response to get people who ask it to cooperate; and building that society involves, (wait for it,) remodelling the people to more cooperation in the first place, (possibly by making them think it is in their interest, i.e. brainwashing or lies.)
What is good for society isn’t necessarily good for the individual, (and vice-versa.) And just because there are more of you than that individual doesn’t make you take precedence. And it doesn’t make what is good for you good for him, except in the case where you say, “you’ll do it if you know what’s good for you.” And that’s not a moral justification, it’s just might makes right. That’s what your secular ethics boils down to.
Buddhism is finding your ‘god self’, God living in human flesh in us, that is the enlightenment, God is everything and we are part of that - and more importantly, the Buddha’s final battle with Minervia <sp> (some demon) was that he is entitled to his godself. They use differing words, but the concept is the same. Christianity has us all conformed to the likeness of the son of God, in other words our god self. Emanuel means God with us, the scriptures state the dwelling of God is with man.
This is the spiritual faiths, which is quite different then the religions.
Normally these are not called religions, perhaps moral codes, I would personally place faith in science in this category as well.
This is a belief system. Science has the same thing, the big bang does not tell people what to do, but it goes with a certain moral code as the origin theory.
This is where Existentialism comes in, and it does tie in with many faiths, the basic belief that everything is connected, and are you doing things for your self, or are you trying to put good into everything.
I believe that some of the greatest figures, the most loved are the ones who have put away their concern for self to love the rest of the world.
And how, in your view, does that differ from the religious alternative? You seem to claim it’s likewise merely character development in pursuit of a “what benefits me” goal. In fact,
That’s what your religion boils down to!
You don’t follow. Let me try again.
THK wrote that he does good entirely for its own sake – not in hope of getting some benefit from a higher power or because he feared external consequences, but simply because it was the right thing to do. You denied that a rational atheist should come to that conclusion – adding that possibly he’d been brainwashed.
Let’s imagine for a moment that both you and THK do what’s right even when no one hereabouts would find out. You both condemn theft, and neither of you steals even when you’d get away with it here on earth. You’re both against murder, and neither of you would kill merely to turn a profit no matter how cleverly you could fool the cops. And so on.
Now imagine too that a cynic stops by this thread to post the following: both ch4rl3s and THK have been brainwashed! Why, they’d both act like dicks whenever they thought they could get away with it – except that one has been conned into believing he can never get away with it, and the other has been conned into believing that integrity and compassion and good deeds and so on matter for their own sake.
How would you prove the cynic is wrong about you? Shucks, you wouldn’t even try; when asked for evidence that a benevolent god exists, you replied that explaining why you were convinced would involve a make-work project on a colossal scale – and added that it wouldn’t convince anyone else.
Now, I’d normally disregard someone who not only refused to offer up their evidence but added that no one else would find it convincing even if they did – but, for the sake of argument, let’s assume I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt against the cynic; let’s figure you weren’t brainwashed.
So, how do we prove the cynic is wrong about THK? Again, let’s assume for the sake of argument that his case is as weak as yours; it may well be stronger, but let’s figure the best he can say is that (a) it’d take him an extremely long time to spell out his reasons, and (b) no matter how detailed an explanation he gave, nobody else would be convinced.
Why shouldn’t I give him the same benefit of the doubt I’m giving you? If we for some reason assume he’s as reluctant as you are to offer up an explanation, and for some reason assume he’s just as quick to admit that his explanation wouldn’t convince anyone else, then why the heck should I figure he’s been suckered but you haven’t?
No. And this is, perhaps, finally the point worth discussing.
If an alleged god allegedly decrees that such an “evil” is good, then it tells us nothing useful about the “evil”; it tells us something about the god. You’ve already granted that a rational atheist could propound roughly the same virtues as a “good” religion; you go on to argue that he’d hypocritically go back on that whenever he felt he could get away with it, but never mind that now. The point is that he’d rail against someone else – man or god – who talks up slavery and torture and persecution, sure as he’d agree with someone to the extent that they rail against murder and theft and perjury (and, for that matter, slavery and torture and persecution).
But what if it did? Your argument seems to be that what makes your religion commendable is that it doesn’t tell you to persecute or torture or enslave anyone; what’s commendable is refraining from persecution and torture and slavery, such that we can evaluate how wonderful a religion is by looking at what it says about such things.
And how do you know your god is “good”? Here, consider:
Okay, then; how do you know your god really is working for the best result for everyone? Are we again merely up against your claim that it would take an absurdly long time to relay what you consider convincing evidence of his benevolence – evidence which you readily admit no one else would find convincing?
THK’s answer seems as good a bit of “verification” as yours, from my point of view: you offer no evidence, and figure what evidence you could offer would strike me as unconvincing. Okay, then: figure THK (a) refuses to explain why believes he reaps some internal benefit from integrity and compassion and authentically living by the same code he applies to others – and (b) would readily admit that I wouldn’t find it convincing anyway. Again, this is the worst-case scenario; maybe he’d do better. But assuming he gives me as little to work with as you did, then why shouldn’t I figure his secular answer can be verified just as well as yours?
Yes, if you for some reason presuppose a god, or for some reason presuppose benefits that kick in after this life ends, or whatever. Why not presuppose that living a lie takes a psychological toll? Why not presuppose that sympathy and compassion can be exquisitely satisfying? Why not presuppose a subconscious conscience that runs with whatever you profess in public and subtly gnaws away at you to the extent that you do otherwise in private, making integrity and authenticity pay off in the long run? Why not presuppose, as THK says, that one can do what’s good because it’s good?
There’s a difference between a parent giving an instruction to a child “for your own good,” and society telling an adult not to do something that would benefit them, “or we’ll punish you.” In the first case the action requested is for the individuals benefit. In the second, they are being prohibited from performing an action to their benefit.
You’re still pushing a false analogy.
I’m readily explaining my ethical rationale, I’m just not going to try to explain why I believe in God. And I’m not expecting anyone to explain why they don’t believe in a god, (I’m quite willing to give them the same benefit of the doubt I’m expecting,) I’m asking them to explain their ethical rationale… how do you get to, “this is the right thing to do.” I’m quite readily expressing why I believe something is the right thing to do.
I’m going to ignore a fair bit of what you wrote because it still assumes a false analogy for what we are giving “the benefit of the doubt.”
So, he feel better about himself for doing something that doesn’t benefit him? He fashions himself as better than someone who doesn’t do what he does? Is that his internal benefit for doing what isn’t in his own best interest? Sounds a little brainwashed… But, there is a point to be made there that then it would be the right thing for him. But there is a second part to this equation… that he fashions this as the “right thing to do.” That means that it isn’t just him who needs to feel a benefit for it. It’s everyone. If there is anyone who doesn’t agree with him, (and specifically we were talking about situations where it isn’t in an individuals best interest, i.e. we were starting with the situation where someone doesn’t agree with him,) then this rationale that there is some other benefit doesn’t apply.
And if you recall previously, I said that if you are claiming something is inherently “the right thing to do,” then you are professing that there is a god, because you can’t get there secularly. You always run into people for whom it isn’t a benefit to do that. Therefore, it isn’t the right thing for them.
One: you started with the suposition that certain things were bad.
Two: that accuses every religion of those bad things.
My statements were to the effect of 1. Not every religion lives up to it’s own standards. and 2. (separate statement,) Not every religion requires those “bad” things. Mine doesn’t and specifically doesn’t condone mistreating anyone. You don’t have to conclude from that that a religion is wonderful if it refrains from those things… (you can, but you don’t have to. I apologize for the misunderstanding.) You specifically accused all religions of those things. I was just providing a counter example.
And secularism doesn’t come up with any “bad” things of it’s own? (Or the same “bad” things?) Give me a break. You can only leave out the “bad” things by presupposing they are “bad.” Many of the “bad” things attributed to religion are more based on secular reasoning. Eugenics, slavery, the Crusades, the Inquisition. (the first based on bad science, and the others based on economics and power.)
As far as I can tell (and, by all means, correct me if I have this wrong) your position isn’t merely “I have an ethical rationale, which I’ll gladly explain – oh, and while I also happen to believe in a god, I won’t explain why; it would take prohibitively long, and nobody else would find it convincing anyway.”
Instead, your ethical rationale pretty much is your belief in a god. You believe not merely that a god exists, but that a good god exists; from that, everything follows. Glossing over that part sidesteps the key part of your explanation.
Imagine a secular atheist were to post the following: I believe, he writes, not merely that a person happens to exist, but that he’s good. I pointedly refuse to explain why I believe he’s good; it would take me an excruciatingly long time, and even if I laid out my reasons you wouldn’t find them convincing – and, I admit, neither would anyone else. But if we presuppose that he is good, then everything follows: simply look at what that guy has endorsed and condemned. Would you say he’s supplied a satisfactory explanation of his ethical rationale?
So what? As far as I can tell, your position is that what makes that stuff bad is the disapproval of a god; if your religion did condone the stuff in question, you say, we could offer no ethical counterargument. What actually gets condoned or condemned is irrelevant; what’s doing all the work is the claim that such pronouncements stem from a good god. (Or, as you put it in this latest post: “if you are claiming something is inherently ‘the right thing to do,’ then you are professing that there is a god”. If the god in question is what’s necessary and sufficient, then who cares what the pronouncements are?)
That said, let’s make sure we’re on the same page. What, exactly, does your religion condone and require and prohibit? I’m not aware of any religions that get it as right as secular philosophy does; convince me not by generally saying yours does, but by specifically showing the details in question.
Again: only in form, not in substance. Actually provide the counterexample, instead of merely talking about it; spell out the ethical pronouncements under discussion.
Again, you get vague right at the point when specifics are required. “There’s a difference,” you say – and then, uh, nod sagely, or something. But as far as I can tell, there’s no difference; either is, ultimately, just a “you’ll do it if you know what’s good for you” appeal to self-interest (backed up, each time, by a might-makes-right enforcer). What’s the difference? Don’t just tell me there is one, tell me what it is.
But there are oodles of folks who likewise don’t agree that your god exists – and little wonder, if your best argument is that it would take entirely too long to relay the evidence you know we’d all find convincing anyway. If you get to cite the god that folks cheerfully dispute, why can’t a secularist talk up assorted disputable goodies with vigor that matches your own? All while the occasional cynic brands both of you as brainwashed?
It isn’t a problem that, “from that, everything else follows.” Physicists are trying to find the smallest set of rules from which “everything else follows.” It’s where you want your arguments to go.
No, but, I’m not trying to gloss over the idea that God is good, either. I don’t think you’ve been following and putting together what I am saying.
Let’s see what I have already said and see if you can take any conclusions from it.
I said that good was not arbitrary or capricious.
I said that good is relative to the intended purpose.
I even said that building people as automatons would be the correct and good thing if the purpose was only to build a mastabatory praise machine. (This being an example of “good relative to the intended purpose.”)
I said that God intended this universe for the benefit of humanity. (All of us, if I didn’t actually say that before.)
That the rules are set up for our benefit.
That doing things for the benefit of others is also for our benefit later, even if it doesn’t benefit us now. It’s part of our growth to be successful people in eternity.
There’s more, (that’s just off the top of my head, without even looking back.)… But that’s enough for now. I have said an awful lot about what constitutes good.
It’s not sufficient… good must suit the purpose. And not every pronouncement of a god would be good. You can propose evil gods.
If God wanted a mastabatory praise machine, it would be good to create automatons.
If God wanted to care for infants for eternity, it would be good for him to tend to our every whim without making growth hard, (or even necessary.)
Both things that have been suggested as necessary for there to be a good god. And things that I have denied suit the intended purpose of this universe.
As to who cares what the pronouncements are… The people who see a benefit are most likely to care and follow them. In a possible universe where the “good” thing was for Islamics to slaughter Christians, (I’m not even going to speculate on the possible purpose that would make that good, I don’t think the universe was created for any such purpose, so I think that action would be evil,) the Christians aren’t going to care much for the pronouncement.
Some people are really fans of make work projects, aren’t they.
I could detail every instruction, and it wouldn’t prove anything, because someone could always claim I’m “hiding” the “bad” ones. So, I can’t exactly prove it. Just like atheists say, “there is no god,” and theists say, “prove it,” you can’t… But a single example could disprove it. So, anyone could disprove my claim by showing a single example where I’m instructed to mistreat someone.
I’m a Christian. I follow the teachings of the one known as Jesus Christ. (I realize that’s the Greek form… Just like many other figures from history, that isn’t the name the people at the time would have used.)
I could write out the whole New Testament here and you could, um… read it?
Or, we could skip the make work project, and you could pick up a New Testament, and um… read it.
That is what I refered to when I said, you will not find those instructions to mistreat anyone.
I didn’t say the action was backed up by force. I did specifically say it was a request.
This whole conversation is based on certain people being upset that my god doesn’t force them to do what is right. If you had been following the conversation that you’ve been taking part in, you would see that large parts of it revolve around my god not forcing people to do what is good for them.
So, part of the difference is that:
a.) The request of a parent or god is for you to perform an action that is for your benefit… where society prohibits and prevents an action that would be for your benefit.
b.) the request is just that, not forced, but a request… where society actually uses force to prevent you from taking an action if they catch you, or restrains you if they catch you after the action has been completed.
And these were already evident differences. I don’t think you’re paying attention.
It’s a different topic, with people here who aren’t even willing to entertain the idea. Don’t throw pearls before swine. They don’t appear to be anywhere near a state to hear it. Even if I could convince them now, (which I doubt,) they would go on believing that that god was evil. First they have to accept that a good god is possible. You believe in a god. Do you think your evidence would persuade them? If not, why are you bothering me about it. And if you think it would, why aren’t you providing it yourself. I’m not providing it because it isn’t necessary for the topic, and would actually be counterproductive for the situation. I think it’s more productive to show that a god planning for the benefit of mankind is possible, and that their beliefs actually pre-suppose it.
I think you’re doing a very neat bit of equivocation there, and it might be the key to this whole dispute.
It’s accurate, in one sense, to refer to something as “good” in regard to an intended purpose. If, for example, I describe a knife I’ve just crafted as “good” – well, look, possibly you’d disagree because you were looking to buy one that’s sharp enough to easily cut through steak, and possibly I’d reply that I wanted to make one that’s dull enough for even a child looking to safely spread butter, and possibly everyone who walks into my shop asks for a sharp knife, and I keep disappointing each of them by explaining that I make 'em dull on purpose.
And if we’re talking in that sense, then, yes, it’s trivially true that proposing a god who created the universe for a given purpose means we can speak of his intended purpose as good by definition.
But so what? In worldly contexts, the creator’s intended purpose often strikes me as a splendid irrelevance. If someone breaks into my house, I don’t much care what my baseball bat was designed for; I’m willing to grant that it may or may not be good according to the requirements of regulation play, and will even grant that perhaps it was hand-carved by a pacifist who never intended it to be used as a weapon – but I’m of course quite ready to disregard all of that.
I can be perfectly aware of what a legislature intended while voting to do away with the law in question. I can know exactly what a pamphlet was meant to accomplish while cheerfully shoving it under an uneven table leg. I can buy a genuine set of handcuffs and only ever use them as a mere movie prop. I can of course ponder whether any of 'em were “good” with regard to the intended purpose – but so what? Why should we care about that intended purpose?
In another sense, of course, we can ask whether something is “good” quite apart from what one individual happens to intend. It’s merely an interesting quirk of language that a story’s hero often confronts the villain of the piece by saying “It was a good plan” – by which he means it was quite well-designed by an evildoer looking to get away with murder, which is of course utterly compatible with still disapproving of the intended purpose and wanting to bring the killer to justice.
You’re blurring the distinction a bit by postulating a deity who intends the benefit of mankind – but it’s really two separate, and unrelated, questions. Are you saying that something is good because it’s the intent of a deity, regardless of whether the benefit of mankind is a factor? Or are you saying that something is good by dint of that benefit-of-mankind factor, regardless of a deity’s intent?
If it’s the former, then I need to hear why you think the intent of a deity isn’t merely an irrelevance; we can often describe something as “good” in relative-to-an-intended-purpose terms, and we can often discard that to move on to a discussion that actually matters to people. (And if it’s the latter, then I of course need to hear why you think a deity is relevant to discussions of what’s “good”.)
I want to make sure I understand exactly what you’re saying, here. You seem to go back and forth on which meaning of “good” you’re using at breakneck pace: it seems like you’re tell me we can propose an evil god who makes pronouncements that aren’t good (which makes sense from a benefit-of-mankind standpoint) and then for some reason follow up by adding that it would be good (in the trivially true sense of whether it suits the intended purpose) for a god to do stuff that doesn’t fit the plan of the god you claim is good (in the benefit-of-mankind sense). Have I got that right?
It’s certainly where I want your argument to go; my problem is that your argument doesn’t actually get there. You’re glossing over the all-important part that everything else follows from, instead spending your time on the stuff that merely follows.
So, again: in your latest post, you write that “not every pronouncement of a god would be good. You can propose evil gods.” You’re proposing a good god, whose every pronouncement is good; that’s what’s doing all the work. But you’re coy on the key point: how do we know there’s a good god out there making good pronouncements rather than an evil god (or an indifferent god or a nonexistent god, or whatever)?
I’m not providing it because I don’t derive my morals from a god; for me, it’s not a “from that, everything else follows” situation. You do derive your morals from a god; for you, it is a “from that, everything else follows” situation. I don’t need to provide a “from that” because it’s not doing any work in my explanation; you need to provide a “from that”, because it’s doing all the work in yours.
It’s entirely necessary if the properties of the god you propose are the justification for your position. I’d hold the same things moral whether or not a god endorsed them; apparently you wouldn’t; the god you propose therefore occupies a rather different position in your moral framework.
But their beliefs don’t presuppose it; I’d asked whether they could just as easily look at the world as we know it and propose a god who isn’t planning for the benefit of mankind, or propose an utter absence of gods – and you of course promptly agreed that, minus the right kind of revelation from beyond, the world sure would look exactly the same whether there was no god or an evil one or whatever.
It’s not that you’re glossing over the idea that God is good. It’s that you’re glossing over how you know that God is good. Indeed, you seem to merely be stating that God is good, and full stop. (Er, in the benefit-of-mankind sense, that is; not the whatever-he-intends-is-good-in-the-sense-that-it’s-intended sense.)
You’re simply defining “God” as “What He Wants Is Good”. Why? You admit that we can propose an evil god; why not put that “evil god” label on the god who wants masturbatory praise-machines? Why insist that such a god would be doing what’s good? (Again, unless you’re merely speaking in terms of whatever-one-intends-is-good-in-that-limited-sense, in which case I don’t see why we should care.)
But imagine it’s a man, rather than a god, who likewise intends the benefit of humanity; is not “good” relative to his intended purpose – namely, the benefit of humanity – such that he’d endorse rules strikingly similar to those put forth by your proposed god?
Why? Imagine that, say, THK stakes out a position rather like the one above: evaluating things as “good” according to how they square with a benefit-of-humanity intent. And now imagine a god shows up who starts abducting a big fine portion of the locals for to enslave some of 'em as praise machines while permanently keeping various infants in a helpless state – for no reason other than, as you say, that said god wants it that way. Why can’t THK rebuke that god? Why can’t anyone who likewise evaluates stuff in light of a benefit-of-humanity intent do likewise? Why should a god’s endorsement count more than a man’s, given that you readily grant the possibility of evil gods?
Well, again, let’s start by making sure we’re on the same page: you don’t really care, right? If the New Testament actually did endorse raping children and torturing innocents and so on as part of God’s plan, and God’s plan didn’t happen to involve any benefit of mankind, your position is that such instructions would be “good” because they’re relative to his intended purpose, right?
Having said that, (a) the instructions in the New Testament are for you to turn the other cheek if I smack you upside the head; they’re for you to resist not evil, forgiving all trespasses and judging not lest something something. You’re supposed to put up no defense if I sue you – and, indeed, give me more than I ask for – sure as you shouldn’t fight back if big guys ever show up to nail you to a piece of wood, even. That’s exactly the code I’d propound if I were evil and wanted to get away with mistreating folks: resist not evil, I’d say as I smacked unresisting folks upside the head, each of 'em forgiving my every trespass while refraining from judgment.
(I’d also tempt folks into transgressing the commandment about having no other gods by slandering the God of the Old Testament with some story about Him impregnating a woman without her consent, thereby giving people someone else to pray to. But, y’know, that’s just me.)
Having said that, (b) there’s ample room for evil instructions: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation … Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing unto the Lord … Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor … Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates … Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him”. Should a Christian obey when told to perform this or that act by a government official, or a parent, or a slaveowner? It’s entirely too loose a text, too compatible with actively going along with evil rather than just passively living out a resist-not-evil code, sure as backing up proselytization with a threat of force comes too trippingly on the tongue given various and sundry verses.
No, it’d be much better to replace the whole muddle with clear admonitions against evil, complete with a flat ban on crusades and inquisitions and thus and such – and leave out the repeated calls for deferential obedience to possible evildoers.
I just don’t see a meaningful difference: do this, says the parent or the god or the society; or refrain from that, says the parent or the god or the society; and, as far as I can tell, you don’t have the parent or the god or the society offering anything but an appeal to self-interest in any case.
Re: Is Existentialism an obsolete philosophy? … Similarity to religion?
Answer: Yes.
Existentialists were unaware of the scientific discoveries we know about. It was a good effort, but wrong, just the same.
Most Physics, Biology and Astronomy knowledge we have acquired in the 19th and 20th centuries that have repeatedly shown us that human beings are not at the center of anything, and our subjective bias in explaining the world around us has to be filtered out when we try to discover the laws of the universe.
Existentialism is self-centered, ego driven and too focused on emotional gratification and other trivial psychological drives. It can’t really explain anything of importance.
Ummm, no. In fact, Existentialism is all about what you do when you realise that you’re not the centre of the Universe, and make meaning for yourself. That’s not ego-driven in the slightest. It is, in fact, the completely opposite.
And there’s nothing “trivial” about emotional gratification, unless you’re a Vulcan :dubious: How we, as social animals, manage to find ways to live, both with ourselves and together, is very much “of importance”
Terms like “meaning” are self-centered and ego-driven, and they are also well within a theistic point of view, therefore false and invalid by definition.
Emotional gratification, otherwise known as an attempt to regulate the level of certain brain neurotransmitters, are biological byproducts. They can be enjoyed or avoided on a personal level, but they have nothing to do with the discovery of the laws of Nature.
What the fuck does this even mean? You want to play “athier than thou” with me, is that it?
What “definition” would that be? Cite!
And…?
Not that I’m agreeing that that is all that emotions or their gratification are, BTW. There’s a cognitive aspect to emotions that goes way beyond just the chemical, into the computational.
But still, the question remains: And…?
“Discovery of the laws of Nature” is a purely human activity. The Laws don’t care if they get discovered or not.
Human beings are biological and social organisms.
Our state of mind matters to the success of our activities (by “our” I mean myself and other humans, of course. Not any Vulcans in this thread :dubious:), so any attempts to address social/emotional issues matter to the success of finding out these Laws.
Conclusion - “emotional gratification,” in the sense of individual humans wanting to establish a meaningful inner life for themselves, is not “trivial” but is deeply necessary to the success of all forms of human endeavour.
If you deny that terms like meaning are ego dependent there’s nowhere else to go with the discussion.
What is the meaning of a hydrogen atom becoming a helium atom somewhere inside the Sun?
If you assert a meaning, it should be universal, and we know that the way you mean it, or the way that Existentialism meant it, it was centered around the human experience, which makes it self-centered and anthropocentric.
Meanings are heavily associated with various religions and their version of the purpose of human existence. That’s what it means - it’s a mostly theistic term.
The definition of falseness when impossible to show validity. That one. All religious claims are false and human intelligence established that fact a very long time ago.
As a biological byproduct, emotions are more similar to sweat rather than to logic or reason. They probably have a functional purpose, or more likely they are discarded neuro-chemical excretions, or both.
A philosophy attempting to comprehend the universe has to be independent of such incidental factors as the waste of a biological being at some far away corner of the cosmos.
That’s why Existentialism is obsolete.
We don’t know that yet. It’s possible that intelligence and awareness are intrinsic qualities of matter and energy.
Not at all. We don’t care how frustrated Newton was about his failure to prove his occult beliefs. Newton has to be separated from the truth he discovered because truth is independent of humans.
That’s borderline religious talk and truth is incompatible with religion. A positive psychological state is always preferable, of course, but the factor of human existence should not bias philosophical questions. Otherwise the endeavor becomes something like an Oprah talk show.
Depends. One meaning is that our theories of physics are right, because it didn’t become a lithium atom instead.
Why? This is just assertion again.
“Centred around the human experience” and “self-centred” are *not *synonymous. Nor is anthropocentric (not that it is - Existentialism is concerned with all sentience) equivalent to “ego-driven”.
Rubbish. *Utter *rubbish. It’s a philosophical term, and has been part of the field since the Greeks if not before.Semantics is a wide-ranging and legitimate field of philosophy that has no need of any theistic angle.
No. I’ll try again - what definition of the word “meaning” entails a necessary association with theism?
No. Argument by assertion again. Any neurologist would laugh in your face at such naiveté.
Wait - you’re having me on now, aren’t you? Emotions “more likely” have no functional purpose, now? Really? Pair-bonding, child rearing and group cohesion not “functional purpose” enough for you?
Why? Really, why?
Yes, we do.
Wait - you go on a bizarre sidetrack about the word “meaning” being a theistic shibboleth, and then you come with this total woo-woo bullshit? You have got to be joking, right?
Speak for yourself. I care about it.
No, it’s not. There is not any abstract realm where things are true or not. Truth is very much a human perception.
Bwahahaha!
:rolleyes:
They very much become relevant when the questions have to do with human existence. You’re confusing physics with philosophy. And even in physics, bias comes in. But in philosophy, awareness of the state of your subjects is very much necessary. Because humans are not simple deterministic machines. Or Vulcans:dubious:
Because true things are true everywhere and at any time. Whatever is true here and now should be true at any random point and time in the Andromeda galaxy and everywhere else in the universe, and that’s the purpose of Philosophy, to discover truth.
Otherwise everything ends up as meaningless and irrelevant fantasies, ranging from initially legitimate but currently obsolete ideas like Existentialism, to mental onanism like religion.
The same way the Earth is not at the center of anything, human awareness, consciousness and intelligence is not at the center of anything either, so truth has to be independent of the being that acquires it.
Really? Where is this definition of “truth” written, pray tell?
As an example of my stance - you mentioned the “truth” that Newton discovered. What “truth” would that be? Because Newton’s [del]Laws[/del]approximations were superceded not too long after. So *where *is the “truth” that Newton discovered - or, as Kierkegaard said: “Truth is subjectivity”
Again - where does it say this is the only purpose of philosophy? Because in *my *understanding of philosophy, such fields as semiotics, aesthetics, ethics, epistemology and critical theory all form a part of it.
You seem stuck in a Structuralist/analytic view of philosophy, but the art has moved on past you in the last 40 years. Consider “Truth”, for instance - how do you then address the Gettier problem, or Münchhausen’s Trilemma?
It was true even in the period of 13.1 and 13.2 billion years ago when our galaxy was forming, and when Existentialism (and all other anthropocentric philosophies, religions, etc) did not exist, therefore not universally true, therefore false, therefore obsolete.
Superseded, yes, invalidated, no.
If you want to examine how F=ma relates to subatomic particles or to super clusters of galaxies, go ahead. Any further improvement on F=ma will be welcome. However, no human bias can change the truth that the Earth is affected by this law, probably among many other laws that we have yet to discover.
As I said earlier, many philosophers with legitimate viewpoints were not aware of what we know now about the world. Not to mention that Kierkegaard, being a theologian and therefore wrong, was more interested in human ethics rather than universal laws.
I didn’t say Existentialism should not be called a philosophy. I said it was obsolete.
People can examine human existence, interaction, behavior, intelligence, language etc, and call it whatever they like, no problem there.
My point is that a philosophical theory has to be independent of the human existence if it is to address universal laws, otherwise known as truth, or reality. All the rest belong to the general field of social science, psychology, etc.