Exalting God's Morality

[TheTrendyCynic]

Yes, you pretty much have what I'm saying down.

Okay, but that brings us to a new problem -- the fact that your God is neither good nor evil.

I allow that you may not have intended to accept the consequence that God is neither good nor evil -- it's not my intention to trap you; feel free to return to my summary of your position and edit it further if you like

Anyways, assuming that you're still okay with it:

If he is morally neutral, then for what reason should I emulate him or do what he says? If we assume that, for any given situation, I identify one 'good' choice and one 'evil' choice, then randomly choosing between those two options should boil down to moral neutrality. In other words, following God's teachings carries the same inherent moral value as randomness.

Or do you subscribe to the notion that I should behave as God says so, for no other reason that God says so? In this case, as with randomness, reason has been divorced from my choices -- your God would have me behave as a rote automaton, with the fate of my immortal soul depending solely upon his incomprehensible whim.

If I tell you I do not accept the role of an automaton, how would you answer me? What justification could you provide to suggest that I should accept such a role?

There are faiths out there with no heaven/hell concept and no 'judgement day'.
'god' in my faith is not a score keeper or a judge.

Yes, I conceded that in a follow up post:

As for the rest of you, very well -- if the characteristics of your God do not match the characteristics of the God in the story (at least, those characteristics relevant to the conclusion drawn), then consider yourself off the hook.

 

[No*s]

Okay, but that brings us to a new problem -- the fact that your God is neither good nor evil.

I allow that you may not have intended to accept the consequence that God is neither good nor evil -- it's not my intention to trap you; feel free to return to my summary of your position and edit it further if you like

Anyways, assuming that you're still okay with it:

If he is morally neutral, then for what reason should I emulate him or do what he says? If we assume that, for any given situation, I identify one 'good' choice and one 'evil' choice, then randomly choosing between those two options should boil down to moral neutrality. In other words, following God's teachings carries the same inherent moral value as randomness.

Or do you subscribe to the notion that I should behave as God says so, for no other reason that God says so? In this case, as with randomness, reason has been divorced from my choices -- your God would have me behave as a rote automaton, with the fate of my immortal soul depending solely upon his incomprehensible whim.

Do I accept that God is neither good nor evil? I believe He is above them, so yes.

Why do I think so? Well, let's look at the definition. God is not subject to anything, He is not restrained by time, space, anything. He is the creator of all that exists. Morality is a human trait, and I think it is a very important one. Still, I see no reason to ascribe to God subjection to our morality, any more than I do rattlesnakes, snails, or tsunamis.

Does "because God said so" play a factor? Yes it does, but as you can see above, since "moral" is a particularly human attribute, and since God is not human, it is also perfectly rational.

If I tell you I do not accept the role of an automaton, how would you answer me? What justification could you provide to suggest that I should accept such a role?

Since you are an atheist and a materialist, I would call it your belief irational, yes. Determinism is an inescapable conclusion of the presuppositions. If one grants these, then we are nothing more than glorified computers, and there is no means to avoid the conclusion. So, within your system, I would say that it is irrational to deny that you are an automaton. It is the logical conclusion.

 

[lilithu]

Since you are an atheist and a materialist, I would call it your belief irational, yes. Determinism is an inescapable conclusion of the presuppositions. If one grants these, then we are nothing more than glorified computers, and there is no means to avoid the conclusion. So, within your system, I would say that it is irrational to deny that you are an automaton. It is the logical conclusion.

Well this oughta be interesting! <pulls up a chair and grabs the popcorn>

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If one grants these, then we are nothing more than glorified computers, and there is no means to avoid the conclusion. So, within your system, I would say that it is irrational to deny that you are an automaton. It is the logical conclusion.

I resemble that remark.

Actually, an "automaton" is a "machine which imitates the actions, etc., of living creatures", so you're technically incorrect, but that's no more than a minor quibble. If you ever get the opportunity, I would strongly recommend that you read Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas R. Hofstadter.

 

[No*s]

I resemble that remark.

Actually, an "automaton" is a "machine which imitates the actions, etc., of living creatures", so you're technically incorrect, but that's no more than a minor quibble. If you ever get the opportunity, I would strongly recommend that you read Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas R. Hofstadter.

Thanks Deut. I'll add it to my reading list .

 

[Christopher Krajewski]

The question goes beyond any form of Deduction. To think of God is some kind of religion, I believe more so than any conclusive Reason can decide for me. God is personally related to, and also in this case of being an absolutely moral Being publicly, locally (let it be said in the business conceded sense), and internationally. Moral relativism rules but God is presently punishing MAN for that .
That one God is graspable at a stage of nature as well as history. The moral God of history is grapable at a higher stage than man in himself can dream of...:tsk: .

**** THEY demoralized us to have to dream of LIES .
The less moral God of Nature is absolutely... what is he doing; now less metaphysically?

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Do I accept that God is neither good nor evil? I believe He is above them, so yes.

Why do I think so? Well, let's look at the definition. God is not subject to anything, He is not restrained by time, space, anything.

Now we're entering that realm of anti-logic; he is not constrained by anything at all, right? This is an absolute statement?

In that sense, God has no identity. Identity is, solely and entirely, a constraint -- identity constrains some entity to what it is, and prevents it from being what it is not.

He is the creator of all that exists.

You have constrained him to this characteristic; he is a creator. He is a being that creates, as opposed to a being that does not create. What is it that is preventing God from being a being that does not create, if nothing can prevent God from being anything?

There is a fundamental logical collision that rests at the heart of the entire concept of God -- a being cannot both have identity and not have identity. If he has identity, he is constrained by that identity. If he does not have identity, then the conversation stops there -- this 'thing' cannot be understood in any way whatsoever, for any statement you make of this 'thing' necessitates some form of identity.

This is bleeding into our other thread on axiomatic concepts; does God have identity, or doesn't he? If he does, then that identity constrains him to certain characteristics, as opposed to other characteristics.

Determinism is an inescapable conclusion of the presuppositions.

I agree.

Incidentally, I should point out that Objectivism is not materialism -- in fact, Objectivism rejects materialism (and determinism). I'm not entirely sure how, yet, and this represents one of the (many) things I'm wary of on the topic of Objectivism. I'll likely end up disagreeing with the Objectivist stance on this issue if they can't describe the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the material brain (or somehow justify that inability to describe it). For now, though, I am a materialist and I subscribe to material determinism.

If one grants these, then we are nothing more than glorified computers, and there is no means to avoid the conclusion.

I agree. But the heart of my objection to the spirit of your point is in your evaluation of 'glorified.' No one would call a Cray supercomputer or cybernetic artificial intelligence a 'glorified abacus' and seek to draw a relevant conclusion from that distinction. In the same way, calling humans a glorified computer -- while true in the sense that we hold to causality and, thus, determinism -- is a fairly meaningless statement.

So, within your system, I would say that it is irrational to deny that you are an automaton. It is the logical conclusion.

Ahh, but the problem is in our use of the term automaton. Your God would have me choose to be an automaton, whereas determinism merely states that one is an automaton, irrespective of choice. Within the scope of morality, which only exists within the framework of conscious decisions, whether or not my decisions are predetermined is not relevant to the fact that 'choice,' however it objectively exists, is still the issue.

Basically, your assertion that my choices are predetermined or not doesn't change the fact that they are still 'choices,' and it is still a matter of 'choosing' to follow a morally neutral being blindly or not.

Here is another way of looking at it:

Morality should govern all of one's choices -- that is what your God demands of all of us. In that sense, we should evaluate each course of action on some scale of morality, then choose that action with the highest moral value. God is morally neutral; there is no greater moral value to loving God or to hating him, to listening to him or to ignoring him, to following him or to spurning him. Choosing to do as God says is itself a choice. How do we judge the moral value of that choice? By first choosing to do as God says?

You can see the circular nature of this argument -- it is an empty point, just like the axiomatic concepts. But unlike the axiomatic concepts, there do exist alternatives, and thus the tautology is invalidated: Other standards of morality. Nihilism is one. Objectivism is another. Secularism is another. Humanism is another. How do you justify theistic morality over, say, Objectivist morality, when the former can only be justified by an empty, meaningless, circular statement?

You cannot.

 

[No*s]

In the preceding, you make several assumptions which are unwarranted. Why would a being who is not subject to the universe be subject to logic? It is not logical to assume anything about such a being. If there is a creator to the universe, and I believe there is, then the Creator will be fundamentally unlike anything that exists. The rules and restraints built into our existence will not apply. They are part of our existence and part of the universe. We do not have any reason to believe they extend past this.

If you can establish that a being not contianed in the universe (but would rather contain it), not restrained by time, etc. is subject to our laws, and the logic we use to perceive the world (again, I do not think logic is inherent in the universe), then I will discuss putting God under that microscope. If, however, you cannot, then you have no rational reason to request I do so.

I agree. But the heart of my objection to the spirit of your point is in your evaluation of 'glorified.' No one would call a Cray supercomputer or cybernetic artificial intelligence a 'glorified abacus' and seek to draw a relevant conclusion from that distinction. In the same way, calling humans a glorified computer -- while true in the sense that we hold to causality and, thus, determinism -- is a fairly meaningless statement.

I'm glad we agree that determinism is the logical result. How are we fundamentally different from a computer if we grant your presuppositions? We both operate under a binary system. A computer program is encoded in ones and zeros, and are processed by a computer whose central nervous system is a CPU wherein electricity is used to process those commands with input from the enviroment (if any), until the program terminates.

We are beings encoded in binary (DNA is binary, after all). These instructions are processed by a biological unit, whose central nervous system is a CPU composed of organic material that processes through electricity and chemical responses, until the organism terminates (and its programming by extension).

If we grant materialism, and determinism as its logical conclusion, then we are more like a Cray computer than the Cray is like an abacus. Difference in processing power is no more relevent than it is between an 8086 and a Cray. I, thus, feel my assertion that we are "glorified computers" in determinism is justified.

Ahh, but the problem is in our use of the term automaton. Your God would have me choose to be an automaton, whereas determinism merely states that one is an automaton, irrespective of choice. Within the scope of morality, which only exists within the framework of conscious decisions, whether or not my decisions are predetermined is not relevant to the fact that 'choice,' however it objectively exists, is still the issue.

Basically, your assertion that my choices are predetermined or not doesn't change the fact that they are still 'choices,' and it is still a matter of 'choosing' to follow a morally neutral being blindly or not.

Actually, no. I never asserted either determinism or fatalism for my system. Actually, theism allows me to assert the opposite as a capacity from God, and it meshes quite well with our apparent freewill. It has no need to postulate that it is illusory. Your acceptance of determinism does.

The same goes for your argument that I am an automaton morally on account of my theism. It goes:

Morality should govern all of one's choices -- that is what your God demands of all of us. In that sense, we should evaluate each course of action on some scale of morality, then choose that action with the highest moral value. God is morally neutral; there is no greater moral value to loving God or to hating him, to listening to him or to ignoring him, to following him or to spurning him. Choosing to do as God says is itself a choice. How do we judge the moral value of that choice? By first choosing to do as God says?

You can see the circular nature of this argument -- it is an empty point, just like the axiomatic concepts. But unlike the axiomatic concepts, there do exist alternatives, and thus the tautology is invalidated: Other standards of morality. Nihilism is one. Objectivism is another. Secularism is another. Humanism is another. How do you justify theistic morality over, say, Objectivist morality, when the former can only be justified by an empty, meaningless, circular statement?

You cannot.

How do I justify it over your Objectivist morality? It's rather easy. I first point out that you have accepted materialism. I then point out that your system moves inescapably toward nihilism. You are solely material, fundamentally no different than a rock or a pretty tree. There is no inherent value in the universe, but only what we ascribe. We have no capacity to ascribe value to anything freely (not to say we don't).

In this type of system, there is no difference value-wise between stepping on a roach accidently and deliberately murdering an old lady in an alley to get her money so you can get a burger. Your system is incapable of making a distinction. If you take these values seriously, then the above is also inescapable. Since you do not see how objectivism avoids materialism, and I do not think it can, then objectivism cannot rationally avoid this conclusion.

Theism, on the other hand, is quite capable of avoiding that problem. It asserts that God created the universe, and there is an order to it, and an order to all its constituents, and this includes humans. In this sense, God created morality as an intrinsic part of our nature. Likewise, it postulates the supreme happiness is union with God, the after-life, and many other things.

Theism, thus, asserts a moral system and our capacity to obey it. It asserts it as fundamental a part of our nature as is breathing and sex.

I did slightly misunderstand the thrust of your argument. You misunderstood my reply entirely. I thought you were limiting it to freewill. My reply, thus, limited itself to that. After all, how can you, who must accept determinism, criticize my view on the basis of freewill? It is debatable in my system, but not in yours.

However, now that I have learned that your primary thrust with the automaton argument was that somehow theism abrogates morality, my potential counter-response only becomes far stronger. Your presuppositions cannot support a fundamental morality any more than it can avoid determinism.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

In the preceding, you make several assumptions which are unwarranted. Why would a being who is not subject to the universe be subject to logic?

So he is not subject to logic? Logic is the method of non-contradictory identification. To invalidate logic, you must either assert that non-contradiction doesn't apply, or identification doesn't apply. If you do that, then I cannot be wrong about anything I say regarding God -- because being wrong implies that I have contradicted something about the identity of God.

The fundamental difference between me and a computer, a tree or a stone is that I possess consciousness and our concept of computers, trees and stones do not. If we learn later on that computers, trees and stones do possess consciousness, then you can say we are not fundamentally different.

Given that fundamental difference, Objectivism certainly does not inescapably move towards nihilism -- my consciousness values itself, and from that value, all other values spring.

In order to posit that Objectivism leads to nihilism, you must deny consciousness. I welcome you to try it, both here and on the thread discussing it as an axiomatic concept. Remember the crux of the axiomatic concepts? Oh yeah: They are undeniable.

You still have not justified theistic morality over, say, random morality -- you cannot support the idea that theistic morality is of greater morality than random morality, except by first appealing to theistic morality.

The difference with Objectivist morality is that Objectivist morality does not value itself by appealing to Objectivist morality: It begins with the axiomatic concepts that cannot be denied, and using only them formulates itself. Objectivist morality has a foundation -- the axiomatic concepts of reality, which I have opened to discussion in another thread. Objectivism does not assert the axiomatic concepts of reality; they are unassertable. It simply recognizes that they are objectively, absolutely, undeniably true -- I welcome you to argue otherwise.

What is the foundation of theistic morality?

ITSELF.

There's your zero. There's your blank-out.

If anyone else is following this discussion, I apologize for the fact that we've managed to bleed two threads into one.

Theism, on the other hand, is quite capable of avoiding that problem. It asserts that God created the universe,

How? You have said you cannot apply logic to God, or anything that relates to God. You cannot value faith, except through faith. You cannot value God, except through God, who has no identity, no characteristics, no attributes, no moral value; he is a zero.

In short, your first assertion is a zero: A meaningless, empty phrase with all of the structure of a house of cards built on its own roof.

 

[lilithu]

The fundamental difference between me and a computer, a tree or a stone is that I possess consciousness and our concept of computers, trees and stones do not. If we learn later on that computers, trees and stones do possess consciousness, then you can say we are not fundamentally different.

Given that fundamental difference, Objectivism certainly does not inescapably move towards nihilism -- my consciousness values itself, and from that value, all other values spring.

In order to posit that Objectivism leads to nihilism, you must deny consciousness. I welcome you to try it, both here and on the thread discussing it as an axiomatic concept. Remember the crux of the axiomatic concepts? Oh yeah: They are undeniable.

As a self-described subscriber to material determinism, how can you with a straight face pull out the "consciousness" argument? Any materialist worthy of the label knows that "consciousness" is just a name that we give for what we don't yet understand. As Paul Churchland put it, we say that "the sun sets" because that's how it appears to us and we didn't know any better before. It is not a description of reality; merely a handy term describing our own perceptions. The same with the word "consciousness." As a materialist, what do you think consciousness is? Is it more than the sum total of the activity patterns of our brains? If so, how? Any answer that you give must still be explained within the material. No pulling sematical rabbits out of a hat.

In addition to "Goedel, Escher, Bach," as Deut mentioned, you should try reading Dan Dennett's "Consciousness Explained." It's a little dated now, but the logical conclusions for a materialist view of "consciousness" are inescapable.

In short, your first assertion is a zero: A meaningless, empty phrase with all of the structure of a house of cards built on its own roof.

Bummer. Thought this would be an interesting show, but it's a rerun.

 

[No*s]

So he is not subject to logic? Logic is the method of non-contradictory identification. To invalidate logic, you must either assert that non-contradiction doesn't apply, or identification doesn't apply. If you do that, then I cannot be wrong about anything I say regarding God -- because being wrong implies that I have contradicted something about the identity of God.

Or I can assert that God is simply beyond our ability to comprehend, and that His nature is fundamentally unlike anything we can relate to. Logic only functions reliably when we have reliable premises. If we cannot have those, then logic cannot function. It is, after all, just a construct of the human mind to understand the world around us. It is not an immutable law of nature. What may appear irrational and logical from one POV, suddenly becomes rational and logical from another.

As a result, I have no problem believing contradictory things about God. It doesn't phase me in the least. I only have problems when I believe it about myself, people, the world, or the like. If I go to the store, and they charge me for for, I will very quickly assert the law of non-contradiction . When I believe the teachings of the Christian faith that one God is revealed in three persons, it doesn't cause me any problems.

The fundamental difference between me and a computer, a tree or a stone is that I possess consciousness and our concept of computers, trees and stones do not. If we learn later on that computers, trees and stones do possess consciousness, then you can say we are not fundamentally different.

This is one of those places where I have a problem with contradiction. You have asserted determinism and materialism. Now, however, you are asserting consciousness. These are contradictory views, and they would be a problem with me. This contradiction would be a problem in even my system.

Consciousness is a form of self-awareness. This, of course, depends on the recognition of the fact that "I can do a thing," or "I can choose a thing." Determinism, though, denies we have choices in this matter. Consciousness, then, is an illusion. I trick of binary computation.

If you deny consciousness is self-awareness or its relationship to free-will, then on what grounds do you say a computer isn't conscious? They have recenely constructed a computer capable of observing Paper, Rock, Scissors, and learning the game through induction. It is still a computer, but it had no prior programming to tell it what Paper, Rock, Scissors was. Computers are actually blurring the line of consciousness, and so is research into animals.

Most of the rest of your arguments, though, build on the assumption of your consciousness. You have not established that. In fact, you have contradicted it.

In order to posit that Objectivism leads to nihilism, you must deny consciousness. I welcome you to try it, both here and on the thread discussing it as an axiomatic concept. Remember the crux of the axiomatic concepts? Oh yeah: They are undeniable.

I can, and I did. You haven't established consciousness. You have assumed it, and said it separates us from a computer, despite the fact that you have denied prerequisites for consciousness. Again, you are a computer. Nihilism is unavoidable. There is no value that you can appeal to, no nothing to make you more valuable than a rock or a tree. You are just a bunch of random chemicals proceeding on a set path you cannot alter. In a few decades (at the most), the chemicals will be disassembled to become part of some other formation. You have no say in the matter, you have no capacity to change things. You cannot ascribe value beyond this. Your consciousness is a trick of firing electrons which work in a very similar way to a computer. Your body is almost identical to a computer program.

Your awareness is a set of programming to force you to respond to your enviroment. The "I," "you," and the like that flashes through our minds is nothing more than computations to allow for various variables in the enviroment. In essence, it is a lot like a bot in Unreal Tournament. When we look at it this way, materialism and determinism make you essentially a complicated AI, where the things you consider evidence of self-awareness are simply variables in computing your enviroment.

Nihilism is the logical result of this. Without genuine awareness and free-will, you are incapable of making the decisions upon which value rests. The presuppositions you have supplied make this unavoidable. If you feel otherwise, you have two alternatives to demonstrate the fallacy of my logic. You may show that the conepts you have, such as "I," "you," "tree," "food," etc. are not the same thing as computer variables. To do this, you must assert a way to avoid determinism with your presuppositions, but you haven't found that yet by your own admission.

Granting materialistic presuppositions, you are a computer, nothing more or less, and have no more value than the Athlon-XP I am typing this on.

You still have not justified theistic morality over, say, random morality -- you cannot support the idea that theistic morality is of greater morality than random morality, except by first appealing to theistic morality.

No, we don't have to assume a theistic morality, we have to assume a form of theism that supports it. Theistic morality stems from some forms of theism. I hold to such a form. Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Stoicism, Neo-Platonism, and several other forms of theism posit a deity, and the nature of that deity causes an outgrowth of morality. In very few of these is it based on reason alone so that it falls into the trap you are describing. I am a Christian, and I believe in divine revelation. My theistic morality isn't based on the assumption of theistic morality, but on the assumption of divine revelation.

Thus, I am not subject to the circular logic you pointed out. Most forms of theism are not.

The difference with Objectivist morality is that Objectivist morality does not value itself by appealing to Objectivist morality: It begins with the axiomatic concepts that cannot be denied, and using only them formulates itself. Objectivist morality has a foundation -- the axiomatic concepts of reality, which I have opened to discussion in another thread. Objectivism does not assert the axiomatic concepts of reality; they are unassertable. It simply recognizes that they are objectively, absolutely, undeniably true -- I welcome you to argue otherwise.

They can be denied, and you have denied them. While asserting the fundamental underpinnings, you have acknowledged materialism and its daughter determinism. These philosophies deny your consciousness. You have undermined your own system with the statements you have granted.

You haven't managed to show me the same contradiction in my thought processes, though. The only challenges you have made are those that stem from your own axioms, axioms I do not share. Without my granting the axioms, the logic is not compelling to me.

What is the foundation of theistic morality?

ITSELF.

There's your zero. There's your blank-out.

Aristotle pointed out that every system has within it presuppositions and beliefs that are not subject to logic. You have failed to aknowledge in this statement that I have given validity in this thread to divine revelation. All my assertions about God come from it, or from the fact that He is fundamentally dissimilar. You have yet to show me how my system is inharmonious. You only appeal to your system, and it is no more sacred than divine revelation in this discussion.

Also, for being so willing to be this blunt, you have yet to explain to me where value comes from. Logic cannot supply moral axioms. Your appeal is dependent on consciousness, but you have supplied all the presuppositions neccessary to deny it. That's not exactly going to persuade, or even challenge, a thoughtful theist to abandon their beliefs for a self-contradictory system.

How? You have said you cannot apply logic to God, or anything that relates to God. You cannot value faith, except through faith. You cannot value God, except through God, who has no identity, no characteristics, no attributes, no moral value; he is a zero.

I asserted a manner in which theism gives morality: the created order. God ordered the universe, and each creature has a nature and behavior. Remember, I have no tdenied God acts, and I did not say "no attributes." I said no attributes we can comprehend, so we use metaphor. They are two different things.

By asserting that God created the natural world, and that He upholds it (actions both), I have posited a view of nature that allows for morality. Each thing, in order to obtain peace, must act in accordance with its nature. Humans have a nature, chimps have a nature, cockroaches have a nature. Morality is a concern for humans in all places at all times. It is a concern that is part of our nature. It is, thus, natural and good for us to concern ourselves with morality and the moral axioms common to us all.

The above is a beginning argument for Stoicism and Christianity. Left there, it leads to Stoicism, not Christianity, becuase Christianity requires divine revelation. Stoicism, in its turn is a form of panentheism. This, frankly, is very similar to what I've gathered Lilithu's beliefs are. The system is rational, it supports morality, and it allows for consciousness. It is also internally cohesive.

When we add divine revelation, we have yet another source for the divine, and this can lead us in different directions. I have deliberately underplayed this, but I do believe it.

Thus, I do not use the circular logic you are attributing to me.

 

[No*s]

Bummer. Thought this would be an interesting show, but it's a rerun.

My sentiments exactly .

 

[lilithu]

By asserting that God created the natural world, and that He upholds it (actions both), I have posited a view of nature that allows for morality. Each thing, in order to obtain peace, must act in accordance with its nature. Humans have a nature, chimps have a nature, cockroaches have a nature. Morality is a concern for humans in all places at all times. It is a concern that is part of our nature. It is, thus, natural and good for us to concern ourselves with morality and the moral axioms common to us all.

The above is a beginning argument for Stoicism and Christianity. Left there, it leads to Stoicism, not Christianity, becuase Christianity requires divine revelation. Stoicism, in its turn is a form of panentheism. This, frankly, is very similar to what I've gathered Lilithu's beliefs are. The system is rational, it supports morality, and it allows for consciousness. It is also internally cohesive.

When we add divine revelation, we have yet another source for the divine, and this can lead us in different directions. I have deliberately underplayed this, but I do believe it.

Well, as Kierkegaard said of the Greeks, they almost got it right. They got as close to the truth as they could get without help from divine revelation. (Actually he said that of Socrates; not sure what he thought of Zeno.)

I just wanted to add that the philosophy that you outlined is also very much in keeping with Hinduism, some forms of Mahayana Buddhism and Confucianism/Taoism. And I came to my own beliefs much more thru those than from Stoicism. Carry on!

 

[No*s]

Well, as Kierkegaard said of the Greeks, they almost got it right. They got as close to the truth as they could get without help from divine revelation. (Actually he said that of Socrates; not sure what he thought of Zeno.)

I just wanted to add that the philosophy that you outlined is also very much in keeping with Hinduism, some forms of Mahayana Buddhism and Confucianism/Taoism. And I came to my own beliefs much more thru those than from Stoicism. Carry on!

Yes, the comparisons are fascinating. I have great respect for the Stoics and Platonists . I haven't studied the others nearly as much, but I don't dislike them either.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

I'm sorry, it appears I missed this thread in the shuffle -- hopefully you all haven't lost interest yet

As a self-described subscriber to material determinism, how can you with a straight face pull out the "consciousness" argument?

I can pull out the consciousness argument by recognizing it as a self-evident axiom. Not a single person in this thread is denying the self-evident truth of consciousness: There are things of which I am conscious, and decisions that I make of my own volition. Those statements will never be proven false, as they are either axioms, or direct corollaries of axioms.

The nature of consciousness is something I am hopelessly unfamiliar with (when I read those books you and Deut 32.8 have listed, perhaps I'll be better armed). In the above explanation of my own consciousness, it is our understanding of the nature of 'I' and 'conscious' and 'my' that will change; our understanding of what comprises the 'self.' These are scientific questions, not philosophical ones; the existence of consciousness, whatever its relationship to the physical world and its sciences, is philosophically self-evident and undeniable.

The Objectivist argument against materialistic Determinism relates it, analogously, to matter. Humans do not know what matter is. We have isolated it, broken it down into its constituent parts (atoms, quarks, etc), even glimpsed strange and wonderful things about it (quantum mechanics), but we don't know what it is and how it relates to the rest of reality (that's the holy grail of physics: Unified Field Theory). The same is true of consciousness. We have isolated it, broken it down into its constituent parts (neurons, chemicals, etc), even glimpsed strange and wonderful things about (the concept of 'self'), but we don't know what it is and how it relates to the rest of reality.

The false dichotomy you present implies that consciousness must be either supernatural or nonexistent, filling the spaces of our ignorance on the subject with dualistic certainty. Conversely, the same must be true of matter: The nature of it, those spaces of the ignorance on the subject, must be either supernatural or nonexistent. It's God of the Gaps, making assertions about things we do not understand.

The logically responsible path to follow would be one that accepts the self-evident as objectively true, then seeks to explain them as best as our limited faculties can. A lack of ability to explain something does not necessitate its nonexistence, as you seem to be insisting. With our understanding of consciousness being so fundamentally immature, it is an act of monumental hubris to start making sweeping assertions about what is and what isn't necessary to its nature.

If we cannot have those, then logic cannot function.

I've learned from spending time debating on forums such as these that a victor is rarely crowned; it's not often that a person concedes another's point and ends the thread there.

This is as close as I've ever come: I've gotten a theist to explicitly admit that belief in God requires a complete abdication of reason.

How does one abdicate reason? From the first moment of your awareness to the present, everything you understand about the world -- every single kernel of metaphysical knowledge you have ever attained -- was attained through the use of your five senses. Everything attained through one's senses adheres to the Law of Identity and is, necessarily, non-contradictory. Logic is nothing more than the identification of contradictions: Anything that accepts the Law of Identity is, by definition, logical. Since the sum total of your metaphysical knowledge adheres, without exception, to the Law of Identity, logic is quite clearly the one and only arbiter of reason.

Abdicating logic is a choice that must be made logically. You accept this necessity, because you've spent the bulk of this thread logically justifying your abdication of logic. So if I am unable to logically discuss the logic behind God, then let me discuss the logic behind abdicating logic.

There are only two influences that could exist outside of logic; only two things that might serve as a bridge between logic and the rejection of logic, that may lead someone to reject the Law of Identity and embrace contradiction as fact: supernatural revelation, which defines itself as existing outside of logic, and human revelation, which is imperfect and very capable of acting irrationally.

We have certainly moved beyond the topic of God's morality, since your position on the subject is inarguable -- it is admittedly irrational. The topic has now become an analysis of this irrationality and the reasons behind it; I'll likely start another thread on this subject next week.

 

[lilithu]

I'm sorry, it appears I missed this thread in the shuffle -- hopefully you all haven't lost interest yet

The topic itself was never of interest to me, but you otoh, push my buttons. It's one thing to not know what you're talking about and be humble about it. It's another thing to know what you're talking about and be arrogant about it. But it's quite another thing to not know what you're talking about and be arrogant about it.

I can pull out the consciousness argument by recognizing it as a self-evident axiom.

Sorry, the self-evident argument doesn't cut it. Why is it that those who worship science a) do not understand science and b) turn their backs on science when it leads to conclusions that they don't like? There are all sorts of things that appear "self-evident" that science has shown to be wrong. The sunset was one example. The solidity of a table is another example. Heck, it is "self-evident" to most people that if you flip a coin ten times and get "heads" that there is a greater than 50% chance of getting "tails" the next flip, but they would be wrong. "Self-evident" is a slight of hand argument that I will allow the Founding Fathers to use when talking about human rights, but not you in this argument.


First you say:

The nature of consciousness is something I am hopelessly unfamiliar with (when I read those books you and Deut 32.8 have listed, perhaps I'll be better armed).

And then you turn right around and say:

The false dichotomy you present implies that consciousness must be either supernatural or nonexistent, filling the spaces of our ignorance on the subject with dualistic certainty. Conversely, the same must be true of matter: The nature of it, those spaces of the ignorance on the subject, must be either supernatural or nonexistent. It's God of the Gaps, making assertions about things we do not understand.

So basically you admit that you are arguing out of your league and then proceed to try to refute my argument by asserting that I'm making assertions about things we do not understand. Consciousness was my field of study thru undergrad, grad school, and postdoc. I've pursued it thru biology, psychology and philosophy (of mind). Yes, there are things that are as yet unexplained, but if one follows the materialist argument to its logical ends, the conclusion that consciousness, as we recognize it, does not really exist is inevitable. There are other materialists in these forums who recognize the inevitability of this conclusion and have no problem with it, and I have no problem with them. I was not asserting a God of the Gaps. You were asserting a Consciousness of the Gaps - taking refuge in what is as yet unexplained in order to hold onto an idea that you do not wish to give up.

You can believe whatever you want. But at least be aware of the weaknesses in your own belief system before you go attacking those of others. And for future reference, verbosity alone does not amount to substance.

 

[Melody]

Lilithu...I'd frubal you if I hadn't already tonight .

I still have one or two left -- frubals to you, Lilith. I've often wondered the same thing.