2017-04-22 18:47:01 (edited by zakc93 2017-04-22 18:53:53)

I'm curious to know how many people have changed their minds based on what they read or heard in such discussions (I suspect it's a rare occurrence). It is still interesting to read because it gives me insight into other people's perspectives, but I doubt by the end of this discussion anyone will have significantly altered their opinions. But I'm going to participate regardless because arguing is fun even if it leads nowhere, lol.

1. Problem of induction:

I'm not too familiar with philosophy so correct me if I misunderstand the issue, but is the problem of induction not simply that we should not assume a principle based on limited observations? For example having only ever encountered land mammals and based on that experience assuming that all animals must give live birth, walk around on four legs, etc. I fail to understand how this is a significant problem for science. I can think of very few examples of claims to absolute scientific principles based on this (the only one that comes to mind at the moment is the universality and consistency of the laws of physics). But generally scientists will develop theories and models which makes certain predictions, which if found to be false would falsify the theory. For example, Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted the existence of gravitational waves a century before their discovery. In cases where a sample must be used because of the impossibility of examining every single data point, principles of statistics are used to increase the likelihood of obtaining an accurate result. For example, if you have a bag containing a thousand balls, and you draw 10 red balls, it would not be a sound basis for concluding that all the balls in the bag are red. If you draw a hundred however, and all the balls are still red, the probability that all the balls are red increases significantly. It also leaves the possibility that all the top balls are red though, But if you draw 10 at a time and shuffle the bag before each sample was taken, and still all hundred balls are red, it further increases the probability that all the balls are red. The third important principle is repetition: other people will take the bag and perform the same procedure to see if they get the same results. If everyone else who tries it also get a hundred red balls, it again increases the probability. In these cases scientists wouldn't say that all the balls are definitely red though, but rather that it is a likely possibility. In statistics you never accept the null hypothesis (in this case that all balls are red), your conclusion is always to either reject or not to reject it.
It thus doesn't necessarily lead to the truth but it's the most effective way of trying to get to it where more accuracy is impossible.

2. Morality:

For people who think we should all be subject to their absolute morality, how do you propose we decide which among all the various systems of absolute morality out there we should choose? Even among christians or muslims there are various different ideas about what is right and wrong, each group having it's own interpretation of their respective holy texts. I have encountered christians and muslims who see nothing wrong with or themselves partake in for example smoking cannabis, sex before marriage, homosexuality etc, where others see those things as evil and worthy of whatever model of divine punishment they subscribe to. Then there are all the other religions, such as the indian religions (buddhism, hinduism, etc) with different moral values. On which basis do you claim your specific ideas about morality to be that which everyone should preferably subscribe to, given that it is only one of a subset of ideas about morality within your religion, itself one of several religious traditions with their own sets of moral systems? If it is only based on personal experience, you cannot realistically expect to convince others of it's validity if they do not share that experience. That is the equivalent of me telling you that cannabis is good because I like it and it has done (insert wonderful things here) for me and my uncle had cancer but then he smoked a joint and was miraculously healed etc. Those are personal experiences, but you might experience it much differently (becoming paranoid, developing an addiction, having your cancer spread regardless how much THC you put in your body, etc.). That is why I agree with daigonite on the need for an objective morality. My personal opinion is that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it does not negatively impact on anyone else. I personally think the golden rule has a few loopholes, and should be changed to treat others as they want to be treated. A sadist is basically a masochist following the golden rule, but I'm sure we can all agree that inflicting pain on others is not a good thing.

3. Miscellaneous (not relevant to discussion, feel free to skip):

3.1 Gravity:
Someone mentioned that gravity only effects us differently in as far as our weights differ. This is actually not the case. Your acceleration due to gravity is independent of mass, and in the absence of other constraining factors such as air friction, objects with different masses which experience the same gravitational force will fall at the same rate.
3.2 Socialism:
I feel like equating socialism with Stalin and the gulags is unfair. There are many variants of socialism, and most socialists regard the soviet system under Stalin as "state capitalism". What about democratic socialism (the "nordic model" as practiced in scandinavia)? I would describe my political leaning as socialist, but I definitely do not support the idea of an authoritarian dictatorship.
3.3 Homosexuality:
Homosexual individuals acting as population control and contributing to other aspects of social stability is an interesting idea that I haven't heard before. Another potential explanation is that homosexual individuals carry genes which result in a mating advantage for their opposite sex siblings. I recall hearing about a study which suggested this might be the case, but don't remember the details.

Lol now if only I would invest this much time into working on my assignments it would benefit my academic performance.

2017-04-22 18:48:04 (edited by Joseph Westhouse 2017-04-22 18:48:50)

EDIT: Full post didn't go through before. Thank goodness my browser remembered what I'd typed...

Wow, lots to respond to. I've categorized by name and post for ease of reference...

Slender (#276): I don't mean this in a mean way at all, but you are probably at risk of giving incredible offense to both Muslims and Christians by suggesting that Muhammad is basically the Muslim version of Jesus. That said, the points of convergence (and divergence) between the two faiths are interesting—but way beyond the scope of this discussion.#

Draco (#269): Agreed. More harm has been done to the witness of the Christian church by "Christians" than by any other group. THere's a reason Jesus' harshest words were reserved for the religious leaders of His day...

Quanin (#270): To your two points:

1. To be honest, I can think of a lot worse things that so-called Christians have done, and was expecting one of those to be why you're turned off. What was it about this encounter that bothered you so much? Consider from the Christian's perspective: suppose I had been diagnosed with a fatal disease, and then I found a doctor who could cure it. Now I have the prospect of a long, healthy life. Then I'm walking along the street, and I encounter someone else with that same disease. Wouldn't it be appropriate of me to refer that person to the doctor who treated me? Wouldn't it be easier to find fault with someone who keeps this doctor's information to him or herself?

2. Your premise assumes that because we cannot know truth, there is no truth. But if the Christian conviction (or insert whatever other religious conviction you choose) is correct, then there is an absolute urgency to sharing that truth, and it does in fact matter. Your claim that it doesn't matter is only true if, in fact, none of these claims are true—in which case you're making a truth-claim as exclusive as any religion's. Moreover, you say that God isn't speaking. But for the Christian, God has spoken, and continues to speak through His written Word (the Bible) and His incarnate Word (Jesus). My wife described a meme to me this week, which featured the text: "Complaining that God doesn't speak, while your Bible closed, be like complaining you getting no texts when your phone off."

Nocturnus (#272): You speak of being convinced; this is the essence of faith. The Christian believes because they believe, and to the one who doesn't believe, there's no way of explaining that total confidence. Which is why we hold to the conviction that faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit and not something we can come to by human reason. I wish there was a way to transmit or convey the reality of that confidence, but for whatever reason, that's not the plan. Appreciate what you're saying here.

Trajectory (#274): You didn't address me specifically but I wanted to chime in on your question, as the topic of suffering is one of the most challenging questions for Christians, and is one that I have done a lot of thinking and reading about. The frustrating (but also in a strange way comforting) fact is that the Bible gives no easy answers. It doesn't try to put a pretty bow on this issue. The book of Job is the best example. But one important point is that those who receive mercy are no more or less deserving to receive it than those who don't. Paul makes this point in either Romans or Hebrews (I can look up the reference if anyone's interested), basically saying God shows mercy to whomever He chooses, with no constraints upon that choice. He uses the example of a potter and says it's a potter's right to make some vessels for honorable purposes, while others are made to be used and thrown away. So the answer Paul gives (and really the answer the book of Job gives too) isn't actually an answer, but rather a perspective shift as we remember we are creatures, and not the Creator. But I'm grateful that Scripture gives us a picture of a God who accepts our questioning, and desires for us to dialogue with Him about these things, and even complain to Him when He doesn't seem to be honoring His side of the bargain. Because as a sovereign being, He certainly doesn't owe us any explanation, or even an audience, so the fact He grants us the freedom to voice our complaints is pretty incredible.

(Aside: Great answer in #280, Nocturnus. I love your point about objective morality.)

Andy (#275): I actually want to disagree with your theology ever so slightly. You say "No living thing is created homosexual." But I would contend that, even if you posit that the Bible depicts homosexual activity as sinful, this doesn't mean no being is created homosexual, any more than it means no living being is created prideful, or lustful, or with a tendency toward greed, or with a propensity for anger, and so on. Is it a choice to act on any of these impulses? Of course it is. But are the impulses, which manifest themselves differently for different people, part of our fallen human nature? Absolutely. I love the quote from Rosaria Butterfield (who everyone should track down on Youtube if you have the chance) in return to the question: "How do you address the claim that homosexuals are born that way?" She answers, "What Christians have lost is the ability to say confidently that we are all born 'that way'—but everyone's 'that way' looks different." So I think the whole question of whether or not people are born gay is, from a theological perspective, actually a bit of a red herring.

CAE_Jones (#279): You're driving at a really interesting point here. In Semitic thinking especially, everything was ultimately God's responsibility. To be clear, God would never do evil—but the ancient Jewish people didn't have as much trouble locating the fact that evil happens within the plan of an all-good, all-sovereign God. Whenever the satan acts, His activity is ultimately incorporated into God's sovereign purpose. Regarding the question of free will versus divine sovereignty, this is definitely a mystery and a paradox, but one sister in Christ said something that I find fascinating: the Bible always talks about people outside of Christ as being slaves to sin, and Christ sets them free. If we take this metaphor seriously, we could conclude that only the person who is in Christ actually has "free" will. Freedom from (sin) but also freedom to (choose to act in ways that honor God). If that's the case, then the question of free will is moot because humanity's will is not free, but rather is enslaved to sin—which I think jives with the texts you're quoting. Obviously this is a very complex issue that books and dissertations have been written on, and I'm just scratching the surface. Thoughts?

Nocturnus (#281): Carrying this on...an interesting question, that gets us to the heart of what we mean by "free will": does God have free will? Can God choose to act contrary to His holy nature? The answer, I assume, is no. In which case, when we say "free will" we mean freedom to choose between different possible actions, but only wherein those actions are consistent with one's nature. Could there be a connection here to what I'm saying above, about the nature of humanity outside Christ, versus the nature of humanity regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Just thinking out loud at this point. Really loving the back-and-forth between you two, by the way.

Mirage (#291): Major thumbs up. Dialogue for the win!

Mayana (#293): I think we talked about this earlier, but I think we can safely say that either proving or disproving God's existence is a doomed venture from the start. If we set out to prove or disprove with natural science, we cannot hope to prove or disprove the supernatural. If we set out to prove or disprove with human reason, we cannot hope to prove or disprove the superhuman.

Daigonite (#295 and 299): I still respectfully contend that humanism is ultimately without a satisfactory foundation. Tell me why I should care about the human race, without appealing to anything outside of humanism? Given your naturalistic perspective on free will, why would you contend that any particular actions should be prohibited? Just because they are not advantageous toward the continued wellbeing and survival of the human race? What makes that a goal worth pursuing?

Quick chime in on the overall topic of "Why should we care about people's sexuality?" I think for the most part the Christian church has gotten their order of priorities backwards and has fallen into a habit of trying to shape the world according to Christian principles, while rejecting the underlying Christian principle that, outside of Christ, no one can live a life pleasing to God. So yeah—the church has every right to ask questions about the morality of what its members engage in. It makes no sense, however, for the church to spend time trying to tell people outside of Christ that anything they're doing is right or wrong, if we acknowledge that outside of Christ, people are slaves to sin in the first place, and therefore will continue to be enslaved to sin in general until Christ liberates them. So basicall, yeah, we've kind of got our priorities mixed up, a lot of the time.

2017-04-22 18:48:33 (edited by zakc93 2017-04-22 18:55:25)

Interesting, the last bit of my post didn't come through. Is there a limit to post length?
Edit: apparently not, I was able to edit it and add in the missing last part. Is this a forum bug?

2017-04-22 18:55:39

Zakc: On morality—your question assumes that there's an alternative. But here's the thing. As I see it, I have two choices:

1. The system of morality to which I ascribe, based on my personal convictions, experience, reasoning, or whatever else, is the objectively binding system, and I will treat it as such.

2. There is no way of knowing what system is objectively true, therefore, no absolute morals can or should be enforced.

The thing is, even if I acknowledge that I might be wrong, I still have to operate as if I am right, because the only logical alternative is to throw morality out the window entirely, isn't it? If I accept that nobody can know anything about morality, then I have no grounds to label any action whatsoever immoral. So the way we decide which one to follow is simply by deciding which one to follow. We acknowledge that other people will have decided to follow other standards of morality the ourselves, and we engage with them in an attempt to understand their perspective and perhaps reframe our own, but we don't automatically assume that their claim is equally valid to ours, otherwise all claims would be equally valid. Is there a middle ground somewhere that I'm missing?

2017-04-22 19:43:13

Nice one, Joseph.  I admit 281 was a bit beyond me and I couldn't do it justice, anymore than I could the concept of suffering.  when dealing with God in his entirety, I'm much like Spurgeon who was quoted as saying, "I am but of yesterday and know nothing."  That doesn't stop me from trying to understand his magnificence and share it with anyone else who cares.  I apppreciate your take on the question of God having free will.  My notion was that he does and can generally exercise it because he alone is perfect and would never exercise it outside of his holy nature, so I suppose that's more or less the same thing?  lol I just broke myself philosophically!  Um, yeah!  Is a turtle without a shell considered naked, or homeless?  How do fat birds stay up?  Can Chuck Noris create snowmen out of rain?  And finally, how does a rabbit burrow a whole deep into the ground without getting any mud on the outside, assuming he is not digging the whole from the inside?  We could probably come up with more logical answers for all of these and many other questions like it before we ever understand, with our finite limitations, such an awesome god.

When life gives you oranges, demand lemons since everyone else is obviously getting them.

2017-04-22 20:24:35

There is actually something going onn here, cuzz I typed in a very good answer to Trajectory but then, figured out   it didn't  came up completely. Hmm, that's quite frustrating, and I am not sure if I am able to add the rest

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. he gives to the human being complete joy and happyness. Why don't you receive him today?

2017-04-22 23:48:04 (edited by daigonite 2017-04-22 23:51:01)

Hi Joseph,

We should appeal to humans for the mere fact that we are humans, and we do not know of any alternative existance that is as practically objective as the mere fact that we exist. There are two reasons why the mere fact that we exist is important - first, it means that it is the most "likely" reality, since it is confirmed from all human perspectives. Zakc's analogy with the balls would be replacing the individual experiences of many people knowing that they exist. Second, the fact that we exist allows us to continue to make decisions and changes to our lifestyles. If we perish, we can no longer make any decisions, and thus we cannot expand. Even the decision to bow to a god cannot continue if we cease to exist.

Since we can only confirm that we exist, it only makes sense that the best perspective would be to focus on it. It's important to note that this does not mean humanity is somehow arrogant, it really means that we are humble creatures struggling to survive and because we only know of our own existence it only makes sense that we should preserve it, since it's our only means of continuing to make decisions and expand. We have no way of knowing that god will be able to "save" us from self destruction, even if we follow the Bible or any other religious text, so it makes more sense to engineer around survival.

It's quite simple actually why we should prohibit certain behaviours - some behaviours are counter productive towards the development of a community's continued success. If we were to continue behaviours that were counter productive towards our community, our community will fall apart and will not be able to "succeed". This process is called selection and is similar to the idea that you "select" against ideas that don't make sense or can't explain the situation. For example you would select against the idea that it is raining if no rain is observed.

If that goal is persisted survival of the human species, which is at least in my opinion the most important goal for us (since we cannot even appeal to god if we are unable to survive), then we must make choices that preserves what allows us to survive. Currently, that survival is based on our ability to function as a community organism.

you like those kinds of gays because they're gays made for straights

2017-04-23 01:03:18

But to what end?  What is the point?  If I get ritch or die trying, who truly benefits?  if I leave behind a legacy, who will gain anything from it?  If I make a name for myself so that I become as immortal as I can in history books and on the pages of the internet of things, so what?  If I fulfill even the craziest of my desires, did I truly accomplish or establish anything other than the spark of triumph that was short lived and only meant to be remembered?  I get married, get money, have kids, go to a bank and a guy decides to kill me for all of it... I'm dead, now what?  Why am I struggling?  What am I struggling for?  Is it worth struggling anymore?  How long will the struggle for myself and only for myself go on?
And even if someone else were to benefit, so what?  If their life is the same as mine and my own seems to have little of value, why should their life be any greater?  How should we measure value anyway?  Should we measure it by the number of years one lives?  Friendships?  Drinks?  Shots?  Muscles?  Fat?  Height?  Attractiveness?  Intelligence?  Achievements?  If someone does slightly more of any of these than the last person or the next one, is their life automatically worth more?  Is the life of someone who's considered a burden on society but who is beloved by his family not of importance because most of the world views him or her as pointless?  Most importantly, if our lives are of equal value, why is any one of us able to suggest that any other life is pointless, and if we're not all equal, why not and where does that leave us all?
No, I reiterate what i've held to for the past three years; there has to be an ontic referent, because life is otherwise meaningless, regardless how much meaning you're willing to try to give to it.  If we came to be by random chance, our lives are just that, random chance, and no amount of lying to ourselves is going to give them any meaning or make them any more valuable or worth living than anything else that has ever lived before or will ever live after, because the end is as the beginning was, absolute nothing, all for nothing.

When life gives you oranges, demand lemons since everyone else is obviously getting them.

2017-04-23 01:35:34 (edited by daigonite 2017-04-23 01:49:57)

As I stated previously, the end result is really to survive, because survival allows us to continue to make decisions.

Who benefits? All those who participate in society. Think, thousands of years ago, blind people would have been chosen against by nature and other tribes, who would prey on their ability to not detect an attack.

It is undeniable that the human race will not exist forever. Not even the universe will likely exist forever. And I am perfectly fine with that. I am humble to acknowledge that my time is finite - and that's what makes it precious to me, and why I feel the desire to make decisions that continue the perpetuation of my own survival, as well as society's survival. By maximizing my ability to make decisions and maximizing the ability for others to make decisions through my contributions, for that period of time that we do exist, we are able to expand to huge lengths. Who knows what we could do, if we continue to focus on this survival? Perhaps things that the people who first scribed the Bible could never fathom. But we cannot reach these heights if we do not try to survive, and focus on an existance we cannot even prove among all observers.

Our legacy will surely be erased some day, but is not the fact that we are experiencing it now incentive enough to try to make it the best that it possibly can? And does it not make sense that by securing our survival as a species is far more contributory towards this experience?

Even if you die in the bank, are the accomplishments that you have achieved enough to be proud of? You lived for living. You are a human being, nothing greater, but the sheer fact that you were able to accomplish something that many do not is a feat of itself. If you are doing these things and aren't proud of what you have contributed towards yourself as a person and towards society, perhaps you made choices that were not what were best in your situation. Now that you've made many choices by this point, you must navigate the consequences of them. If you aren't happy with a family, you have to face the consequences of breaking up the family, or face the consequences of never being able to achieve your full happiness.

I find it shocking that you do not find your very existence so precious that you find your struggle worthless. Why are you living if you aren't living to live? How can the very fact that your atoms continue to function every day for decades not be purely magnificent, the fact that you are even able to ponder these amazingly abstract concepts incredible? Simply because there's an end? Simply because it's come together by natural processes?

To me, the value of an individual comes from what they can contribute. However, the value of people should not be seen as a means to look down at less "valuable" individuals, but rather to try to find ways to utilize them, to find their "Value" so to speak. Diversifying our value as a species gives us more means to survive, like how biodiversity gives life as a whole more means to survive. Even though their contribution is limited, that contribution allows us to continue to grow as a species, to continue to survive. It's possible that we could reach for the stars, or even further. And that contribution helped. How is that not valuable?

Does a story have no meaning because it has an end? Did the legends of days past not have value because they are no longer told? Perhaps not to me, but to the people of the time, they held great value and helped contribute towards the survival of humanity. Indeed I also value Christianity for what it did to allow my very existence, but do I think that it should be continued to be valued if it threatens our ability to even make the choice?

Life is meaningless. Meaning itself is a human construct. We assign meaning to things to satisfy our emotions. But perhaps because life is meaningless, we can fill it with what brings us joy and peace. Perhaps that void exists because it is ours to choose what lies there. After all, for all practical purposes, our minds are so abstracted from the chemical reactions that make us up that assuming free will is acceptable. Shouldn't free will dictate that it is our will to assign life a meaning?

Here's an interesting thing to think about in regards to legacy - why should Ronald Reagan care that Donald Trump could get elected? He shouldn't, because he died in 2005, far before there was enough evidence to suggest that it was plausible to believe he would run and win for president in 2016. However, Donald Trump should care that Ronald Reagan was elected, because the fact that he was elected indicates that he performed actions in office that may have residual effects that persist today.

you like those kinds of gays because they're gays made for straights

2017-04-23 02:16:46

Thanks for humoring us, Daigonite. Obviously we're coming at this from a particular viewpoint, and it's good of you to be patient with us. So, it's not that I don't understand your point—it's that I think you're making an unsupported leap from the fact that humanity exists, to the fact that humanity should exist. I get that you're saying, "We know what benefits human survival, so let's focus on those things." My question is: why is human survival preferable to human extinction? If I was some comic book villain, intent on the eradication of all human life, where can you point to tell me that my goals are somehow wrong, or inferior? Survival may allow us to continue to make decisions—but why do I care if some hypothetical person in the future is able to make decisions? Why shouldn't my decisions be the last decisions ever made?

(Obviously I'm not advocating this position—nor do I think you are. I'm trying to find the missing piece in your worldview that would say such reasoning is wrong, since we both agree it is, and should both be able to articulate why it is.)

2017-04-23 03:02:03

Forgive me, and I hope I don't come across as sarcastic, but I do want to clarify that in essence, what you are telling me is that I should not ask why?  I should simply live to benefit you, me and the rest of society because because?  Because there may or may not be a reason outside of everything we do and everything we've done?  Throw off the shackles as it were, eat, drink and be merry?  I should find it exhilarating, and exciting that I am a chemical accident, that my existence is finite and serves no true purpose other than to join the countless others that will vanish and perish into oblivion?  It should make me happy that a plastic spoon has more significance than I by the shere fact that it explicitly has a purpose for which it is created and reproduced and doesn't even have the emotional capacity to appreciate it?  Meanwhile, whatever death I may or may not face, whatever suffering I may or may not come to, whatever calamity and losss in life I should endure because of life itself which you have already stated has no meaning?  I await my inevitable excecution in an absurd existence of epic proportion that may or may not matter to someone else or no one else at all?  Maybe there are events in my life that make differences in others, touch others immensely, but the significance of those events is what, precisely?  What is the reason for influencing any of them?  What difference does it make, if there really is no meaning?
Please, with all do respect I ask you, do you sincerely not see your claims even slightly as absurd?  by ascribing no meaning to life, period, you in fact suggest that mankind is nothing more or less than a doomed race in a dying universe.  Because the human race will eventually cease to exist, it makes no ultimate difference whether it ever did exist. Mankind is thus no more significant than a swarm of mosquitos or a barnyard of pigs, for their end is all the same. The same blind cosmic process that coughed them up in the first place will eventually swallow us all again.
The same holds true of each and every individual person. The contributions of every scientist to the advance of human knowledge, the researches of those in medical practices across the world to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the sacrifices of good men everywhere to better the lot of the inevitably dying human race, all these come to nothing. This is the horror of our futile human existence, if the above is true; because we end in nothing, we are nothing!  We kill time waiting for an inevitable end where we are told we should pursue life liberty and happiness, and yet if happiness is an act of human will, i'm certain that as I sit here today writing out this post, without the shadow of a doubt, that we are no closer to finding it now than we were two thousand years ago.
I humbly conclude with this: if you sincerely wish to live consistently with the idea that life is in fact, meaningless, then why does it shock you that I don't see any personal worth in my own existence, given that every part of life is subjective anyway?  You can claim that something is shocking if you have some standard to claim it by, but there has to be something to build that standard around, so what's it gonna be?

When life gives you oranges, demand lemons since everyone else is obviously getting them.

2017-04-23 09:07:53 (edited by zakc93 2017-04-23 09:10:13)

At nocturnus, that's exactly how I see the world. There is no ultimate difference to the universe whether humans existed or not, not yet anyway (it is conceivable that at some future point we might possess the technological capability to spread throughout and have an effect on the universe). We only have our finite time here, and for most of us when we die it will ultimately be as if we had never lived at all, as we won't leave any significant legacy and any memory of us will eventually fade. It is an unpleasant idea, but I just don't see any reason to believe otherwise. The idea of continued existence, whether it be going to a heaven, reincarnation, joining your ancestors etc sounds nice, but in the absence of any reason to believe that any of this is true I can't simply bring myself to believe it just because I find the alternative unappealing. Naturally I wouldn't want to deny people that comfort, but as for me personally I prefer to believe in reality, or our best attempts to discern it anyway. But while there is no ultimate purpose to our lives, it doesn't mean we can't give our own lives meaning. It is in a sense more liberating to know that you were not created for a specific purpose, but rather free to choose your own.
You're probably thinking then what's the point of altruism? Why should we care about anyone else and not simply maximise everything for our own benefit even to the detriment of others? I suppose there is no real good answer to this. But the overwhelming majority of humans, regardless of culture or religion, have some sense of concern for others. Empathy is a natural emotion, which  is most likely something essential for our survival as a social species, and it's found in several other social species as well. Creating and maintaining the environment in which we are able to live and enjoy our lives requires cooperation, which isn't very likely without compassion for others. Ultimately though I suppose our moral inclinations are less based on a reasoned framework and more of an innate sense of fairness. Where objectivity comes in is enabling us to determine what maximises happiness and minimises suffering, and how this can benefit society etc, but it doesn't give us a reason why this is necessarily preferable to the extinction of humanity. But again, in the absence of evidence for accepting any religious tradition in its entirety, this is in my opinion the best we have. If everyone should be allowed to follow their absolute moral principles even where it effects others, then on what basis would you condemn Boko Haram massacring and enslaving entire villages, given that it is probably consistent with what they view as their moral obligation?
I'm fully aware that our natural emotions in this regard evolved in a different environment and are not necessarily very suitable to the world we now find ourselves in (although Dunbar's number is probably inaccurate I think the principle behind it is still valid). But we are smart enough to realise this and adapt our moral system accordingly, which is one of the advantages of a non-absolute moral system. So basically what I'm trying to say is I'm sure we can agree minimising suffering and maximising happiness are laudable goals as the foundation of a morality system, and objectivity can be used to figure out how to accomplish this.

2017-04-23 12:15:09

@311:
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=12989
A bit sad that it seems to be unfinished though.

To see a world in a grain of sand, and a heaven in a wild flower.
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, and eternity in an hour.
William Blake - Auguries of Innocence, line 1 to 4

2017-04-23 13:02:33

My question is: why is human survival preferable to human extinction? If I was some comic book villain, intent on the eradication of all human life, where can you point to tell me that my goals are somehow wrong, or inferior?

Ah, you see, I can't. Most people have at least enough goals in common that society can function, but their are misanthrops and antinatalists out there, and I imagine a fair few who would become omnicidal maniacs if given sufficient power.
The thing is, the people who don't value human life tend not to last very long, since most humans do value, if not human life in general, then the lives of themselves and their loved ones.
I believe that omnicidality is bad. Bad enough that I'd call it wrong, yea, absurdly evil. That is because I value human life.
But can I point to a law of the universe that says that it should exist? No. Does the universe need a "should"?
I can't remember the Bible ever banning omnicidality directly; just murder. That whole "murder" distinction leaves way too much wiggle-room and I much prefer the "Thou shalt not kill" interpretation. But if the omnicidal maniac claims that the plagues and destruction in Revelation are descriptive of their method of destroying the world, and they are carrying out God's orders the same as if he had commanded the obliteration of the Amalekites, the best I can do is look for evidence that the claims are wrong. Then warn them that if they continue, they will receive a nuke to the face. ... Then try to take them alive, because that's always preferable to nuking someone in the face, when possible. ... Then nuke them in the face, because if they're actually capable of making good on the thread of human extinction, taking them alive is probably going to be unlikely to succeed.
A psychiatrist might insert some attempted therapy or medication sessions between the debate-and-threaten phases. Assuming that time pressure is low enough, I do not object.
Do we need this to be about God for it to be worthwhile? I don't understand why that should be.

But this comes down more to a hard-to-fathom inferential gap, as elaborated on below.


At #311: I can't come up with a response to that. I suppose there must be some reason that everyone doesn't agree on everything (See: Aumann's Agreement Theorem). I think we found our seemingly uncrossable inferential gap... I just can't come up with a way to summarize it that doesn't sound insulting sad
I am special because I am me. Caring about others is a terminal value and I don't care what caused it. I don't feel the need to have a deep sense of meaning or purpose and am offput when people try to tell me what my purpose is. (Seriously, Eighth Grade Abstanence presentation. You open with the line "Your body's only purpose is to reproduce" and expect me to associate anything you have to say with good or right?)

There's this idea in Theist Vs Atheist discussions, popularized by C. S. Louis, that Atheists must have a God-shaped hole in their hearts. As it turns out, ... some Atheists do have God-shaped holes in their hearts, and sometimes admit it.
But, umm, not everyone does. Like I said in my first post, and ... ur... like was pretty much confirmed immediately afterward, not everyone has the same internal experiences.
And my problem with lots and lots of arguments in these sorts of discussions is that they are based entirely on people having the same internal experiences.
Often times, it takes digging--people will argue object-level points about whether or not assertions made in the Bible have held up to investigation, will throw around ad hominim at the Spanish Inquisition and the USSR and the other shining examples of their side's failures, and get into incoherent "arguments" about morality, where no one is hearing anything the other is saying--but the more I look, the more it seems like the fundamental disagreements are two: the Typical Mind Fallacy, and familiarity bias.
And I am skeptical of any argument that relies on either of these, which religious debates inevitably do.

看過來!
"If you want utopia but reality gives you Lovecraft, you don't give up, you carve your utopia out of the corpses of dead gods."
MaxAngor wrote:
    George... Don't do that.

2017-04-23 20:31:57

CAE_Jones - eloquently stated, though I admit some of your terminology and references are over my head. And I actually agree and disagree with Lewis about the God-shaped hole...it depends on what you mean by it, I guess. Though that's a separate topic. I think you and I agree that personal experience varies, and plays a major role in how a person interprets the world. My argument is that if a naturalistic worldview, such as secular humanism, cannot justify itself without appeals to such experiences, it lacks a basic level of internal consistency, because such experiences fall outside the realm of natural inquiry. Or at least, such a worldview cannot extend claims based on experience to those who do not share the experience. There is nothing naturally observable that can bring us from, "I experience human flourishing as a good end" to "Human flourishing is a good end." So to answer the question that started this whole train: "Why can't we just focus on human wellbeing and survival, without appealing to something that can't be proven?" My simple answer, and what I've been trying to drive at is: we must appeal to something that can't be proven, and every one of us who argues that human wellbeing and flourishing is a worthwhile pursuit does exactly that. The Christian, the humanist, and everyone in between—all of us, at one point or another, must appeal to something that cannot be proven if we are ever going to make the statement "X is good", "Y is bad", "X is right", or "Y is wrong." This led, then, to the point that I don't find, "Human flourishing is something we may as well pursue" to be a compelling worldview, nor do I think this is how most secular humanists would frame it. Rather, they would say, "Human flourishing is something we should pursue." But in order to make that claim, we have now entered the realm of making claims that cannot be proven—just like any other belief system.

Zakc, if I understand from your response to Nocturnus, you're saying you actually agree with nihilist philosophy? If so, I'm curious to understand your perspective: would you say any action is 'wrong'? If so, how do you justify that in a way consistent with nihilism?

2017-04-24 08:58:20

Joseph Westhouse wrote:

1. To be honest, I can think of a lot worse things that so-called Christians have done, and was expecting one of those to be why you're turned off. What was it about this encounter that bothered you so much? Consider from the Christian's perspective: suppose I had been diagnosed with a fatal disease, and then I found a doctor who could cure it. Now I have the prospect of a long, healthy life. Then I'm walking along the street, and I encounter someone else with that same disease. Wouldn't it be appropriate of me to refer that person to the doctor who treated me? Wouldn't it be easier to find fault with someone who keeps this doctor's information to him or herself?

This is true. And if ever I am diagnosed with a fatal disease, I should hope that same person would voluntarily share the name of the doctor with the miracle cure - assuming, of course, I told her I had that fatal disease in the first place. My problem is this. Based on absolutely no information whatsoever, she assumed that my ex and I would be up to attending a church service in general, and her church service in particular. She wasn't asking for directions, or trying to make conversation. We were two random people she's never seen before, has never seen since, and she decided hey, let's plant the idea in their heads. If either my ex or I were, we'll say, devout muslims, she's just managed to offend us - an effort that took all of 15 seconds, and could have been avoided altogether if she'd thought before she spoke. It's the religious equivalent of shoot first, ask questions later.

Joseph Westhouse wrote:

2. Your premise assumes that because we cannot know truth, there is no truth. But if the Christian conviction (or insert whatever other religious conviction you choose) is correct, then there is an absolute urgency to sharing that truth, and it does in fact matter. Your claim that it doesn't matter is only true if, in fact, none of these claims are true—in which case you're making a truth-claim as exclusive as any religion's. Moreover, you say that God isn't speaking. But for the Christian, God has spoken, and continues to speak through His written Word (the Bible) and His incarnate Word (Jesus). My wife described a meme to me this week, which featured the text: "Complaining that God doesn't speak, while your Bible closed, be like complaining you getting no texts when your phone off."

You misread my premise, my friend, and as such, your argument misses the mark. I'll address that argument in a moment. Firstly, this is one of those areas wherein truth is entirely relative. Let's exclude, for the moment, the folks who are of the view that there is no God, no divine presence, no notta. What we're left with are the people who believe in a god, but not necessarily *your* god. And herein lies the flaw in your interpretation of what I'm saying. You believe your god is the true god. Islam has its own true god. Paganism has at least one, probably more, depending on the exact branch you're following and which interpretation of that branch you've subscribed to. Jewish folks have yet another truth in which they believe - and that truth, if we're being entirely honest, comes into conflict with the Christian truth insofar as they don't believe Jesus to be the son of God. So it needs to be asked. Which of these is the actual truth? If I asked that question in a room with 6 different representatives, from 6 different religions, guaranteed I'll get 6 different answers - and that's ignoring on principle the more than one interpretation of each of those religions depending entirely on cultural elements neither you nor I are qualified to measure.

Now, to your argument. I don't care if you believe God makes you breakfast in the morning. If that's what keeps you sane while the rest of the world goes straight to hell, then you enjoy yourself. I'm not going to stop you - even in the US there's such a thing as freedom of religion. However, your freedom of religion stops where my right not to hear about it starts. I neither want nor need to hear that if I don't change my wicked ways right this instant I have an eternity of damnation to look forward to, or whatever the magical catch phrase of the moment is. And if I'm a member of the LGBT community, assuming I was open to the possibility of embracing religion in general and Christianity in particular, this thread has made me reconsider. After all, why would I join a social group who's primary intent would be to highlight all the ways in which they're expected to see my lifestyle as wrong/unnatural/immoral/whatever?

On a related note, this thread is now 316 posts of why I subscribe to the opinion of doesn't matter, don't care. The entire reason this thread was started, and the entire reason we've now circled back to at least once but probably more than that, is because a particularly vocal subset of the Christian faith has decided to take issue with the fact that LGBTQ people exist and occupy the same space they do. They believe this is wrong, unnatural, immoral, sinful, whatever, and that's as far as they want the conversation to go. You either agree with them or you're wrong. They believe LGBT is wrong, therefore, LGBT is wrong. That this is far from the actual reality does not matter. While this is true only for this particularly vocal subset of the faith, the broader group has adopted the same mentality in as far as deciding, again like the Muslims, the Pagans, etc, that their way is the only way. You live as God wants you to live, or you're not doing your part. Of all the religions I've listed, Christianity is the most pushy when it comes to, as they'll naively put it, speaking God's truth. Much as some folks in this thread have made it perfectly clear they are neither interested in nor curious about hearing whether or not you fall into some subsection of the LGBTQ community. In that same regard, those of us who don't follow a particular religion couldn't care less if you do. That's your lifestyle, and if that works for you, awesome. But if you'd object to someone trying to convert you to being gay, don't try and convert them to being Christian. If they're interested, they'll come around. And if there are a few less Andy93's in your particular congregation, they might even stay.

For the record, I have several friends who fall somewhere on the LGBTQ spectrum. I told them flat out. I don't care if you're gay. Do what you do. Just don't take it the wrong way that you won't be doing it with me. I have several friends who are Christian. That works for them, and it shows. I fully support that. And in return, they're not expecting me to show up to church next Sunday. It's worked so far and I've been doing it for nearly 15 years, so why change now?

2017-04-24 15:16:24

If we have not presented our points humbly enough, we are to fault.  If there is a point we've presented unlovingly, we are to fault.  For my part, I simply wish to agree with Joseph and give yet another analogy which I hope will at least showcase the reason for the urgency we feel.  Supposing you had a friend you were convinced was about to do something exceptionally crazy such as drinking and driving; I'd hardly believe you would advocate it.  to us, hell is a very real, very scary place.  If my guess is correct, Joseph and many others beside on this forum who may have kept quiet or may have voiced their opinions, along with myself, would never want you or anyone else to go there.  You might hate us for bringing it up, but I sincerely doubt you'd respect us any more for not giving you the chance to hear about it, much as your friend wouldn't respect you any more for letting them drive drunk and possibly hurt himself or someone else.  The bottom line is this: if what you say is true, you've lost nothing other than time you would have otherwise lost doing something else, and if you feel we've in fact wasted your time, then we're to blame and I, for my part, am truly, truly sorry and will continue to hope I can make it up to you somehow.  If, however, what you say is wrong, we've given you another way.  If you're not interested in it now, that's perfectly fine; you may be in future.  I've shared many experiences with this community, from the first game I played, to a podcast/show thing I was a minor part of but which I enjoyed immensely, to walkthroughs and guides on various games, to life stories about notetakers that told me I had no future.  It pains me to think this is the one I cannot fully share, because to me this is the most important of them all, but it is so.  In the past I found no significance in anything I did; it was all part of what I was absolutely sure was nothing.  Today, I'm driven by a purpose, and every life means something far beyond my understanding.  Yours, whoever you are and wherever you're from and whatever you're doing apart from reading this post, is greater than words can say, and if I'm ever given the chance to prove it to you, I'll readily take it.
Methinks I said I'd take my leave from this topic a long, long time ago, but was addressed directly to clear a few things up which I hope I've done well enough to this point and continue to do outside of this forum, meaning anywhere else else else I might be.  That being the case, I shall, attempt to take my leave yet again.  Eh!  You!  Stop blocking the door!  I want out!  Out out out!  No!  Seriously!  Get out of the way!  I'm outta here!  Oh yeah, have some virtual fries with that, and a wave goodbye to everyone!  I would have left the sandwitches behind but they were tasty!  Nomg nomg nomg!

When life gives you oranges, demand lemons since everyone else is obviously getting them.

2017-04-24 18:31:44 (edited by daigonite 2017-04-24 18:44:09)

Joseph - The only reason why we should support human survival is because we are humans, and our own ability to continue making decisions hinges on the fact that we have continued existence.

Why should a comic book villain want to destroy all humanity (outside of being purely crazy and chaotic)? Such a villain would no longer be able to exist if he destroyed all of humanity (even if we do not include himself in this destruction). Because humanity provides the infrastructure that allows that invidual to even have power in the first place. Sure, he can choose to destroy all of humanity, but it also limits his ability to make future decisions. It makes far more sense for such a villain to try to control certain aspects of humanity instead.

Indeed, a bigger threat is that a villain may unintentionally destroy potential decisions in the future through his actions in an attempt to meet a goal that allows him to make more decisions.

Essentially, I am arguing that since certain decisions promote human social stability, arguing that a morality (especially a specific morality) is required for a fulfilling life is fallacious, because people try to preserve their own living so they can continue to make decisions.

You don't need to worry about the future decisions that someone else is making. You need to worry about the decisions that YOU are able to make. If you make a decision that destroys the infrastructure that protects you from the outside world, it doesn't matter what other decisions are being made, or even future decisions that you'll never experience, because you will not be able to make future decisions.

Nobody is telling you not to ask why - a naturalist or humanist answer is still an answer obtained by "asking why" - it's merely an answer that is supported by what we can observe.

Nocturnus

You should live to support society because society is the very reason why you're able to exist.

Again, there is no "reason" for any of this other than it has naturally occured this way. If you're looking for a "deeper meaning" you won't find any unless you apply that yourself, because "meaning" is something that is man created. It's literally a construct use to help human beings understand the world. Therefore, to suggest that the universe should have a "meaning" inherently is founded on nothing but your expectation that a meaning should exist.

Why do you feel that because life has no meaning that it is valueless? Life has value because it's limited and you don't have everything - your experience is based on how you live it and what you can gather for yourself. The sheer fact that nature has been able to come together to permit you to even think about these things is a privilege in of itself - the fact that you were born without certain abilities is simply a consequence?

Just because life has no insintric meaning does not mean that you cannot apply a meaning to it and make it worthwhile. You are literally given dozens of years to do whatever you want. Why wallow in the fact that life has no insintric meaning when you can easily fill that hole with anything you desire? Why hold the arrogant opinion that life should hold meaning because it appeals to you emotionally when life gives you a void to fill yourself?

A plastic spoon has no value inherently. It's what you do with it that gives it value. You are equal to the plastic spoon inherently, however, you have far more capabilities than the plastic spoon, and by performing those capabilities you automatically become more valuable than the spoon, as you can serve more functions. If you don't want to be outclassed by a plastic spoon, then do something that a plastic spoon cannot.

Your claims that my claims are absurd are only caused by a naive attempt to misrepresent them, to validate your emotionally held beliefs. Why should I believe the universe has a meaning if a meaning only exists in the minds of men? How can a meaning be applied to the entire universe, which has existed for literally billions of years, when the concept of "meaning" has only existed for a few thousand at most?

Again, with your "if life has no meaning then we're doing nothing". You sound like a fake nihilist on facebook... which demonstrates that many people don't think about these problems. Just because we will die one day doesn't mean that our existences are void. We experienced them! How is that not enough for you? Isn't it arrogant to believe that we are so important that we should exist for all eternity and never decay, despite the very fact that all evidence suggests that even the Universe itself will decay?

Why should humanity be more significant than pigs or mosquitos? I would argue that our significance comes from the fact that we are able to be successful in our enviorment, that's it. On a cosmological scale, we truly are nothing, and if you don't like that, quite frankly, tough shit. All it would take to eliminate us all is one wayward comet or one rouge star that passes too close to our solar system. And yet we are so blessed by luck that we are able to survive - and you want to be upset that we cannot ascend to an eternal existence. How arrogant.

I'm sure that all of the contributions of science mean absolutely nothing to the fact that we are able to communicate now, or the fact that you're able to use a computer at all, or the fact that you're even alive. It's all meaningless because after all, we all die, right? You truly believe that your existence doesn't matter because it doesn't live forever? So, by consequence, do you believe that it is justifiable to torture you because your existence doesn't matter?

Perhaps the very fact that we are living in this frame of time, right here, right now, is justification enough to realize that even though our existences may not have meaning, nor do they have permanence, that they are still valuable, because they are valuable to our own experience.

In all honesty, it sounds like you simply do not want to accept the fact that life has no meaning and that our existences will inevitably come to an end because it's emotionally unsatisfying. If this is the case, please demonstrate how life can have a meaning outside of human existence. How does this "meaning" exist outside of our own heads?

Your argument lies on the strawman that in order to believe in nihilism that you cannot accept that things have value. However, I argue that because we exist in this very frame of time, that it has value, because we exist in a measurable state of the system, and therefore our value towards any aspect of that system, including our own happiness, can be theoretically measured to some extent, and because of that, humans can live both a nihilistic and a meaningful existence.

P.S. I reached out to Peter Singer and I think it's pretty clear from his response and reviewing his work that his beliefs are misrepresented, I thought I'd just throw that out there. Essentially what I described earlier was what he agreed with. Like him, I feel that in this thread my philosophy is being misrepresented. I suppose this is caused by the limitation of communicating with an imperfect language system among emotional beings.

you like those kinds of gays because they're gays made for straights

2017-04-24 22:36:57

I'll chime in here, although I will be nowhere near as eloquent as some of you fine people.
I agree with Daigonite and others who have expressed similar opinions on this topic. While a respect the beliefs of everyone, organized religion has never really made sense to me. I am uncomfortable with the fact that unless I accept Christ, or some other god into my heart, there is a large subset of the population that believes I will be punished for something I perceive to be no fault of my own. Of course everyone has different opinions on this subject, as clearly demonstrated by this topic big_smile. I try to live my life and do my best to be the best to help others and be a good person. If instead of just not existing anymore after death as I suspect, I am condemned to punishment; so be it.
As for homosexuality? Again, my opinion mirrors many others on this thread. Not me, but not my problem if it's someone else.
That's really all I've got to say on the subject, I again apologize for my bad writing skills smile

Prier practice and preparation prevents piss poor performance!