"There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness."
-The Dalai Lama
“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.”
-Kalu Rinpoche
"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me...)
-God (aka: Yahweh)
***
Since I don't really believe in the supernatural, I see a 'spiritual' person as a person that is very non-egotistical, is very empathetic and loving, is almost impossible to anger, is completely selfless, and lives in the moment rather than in the past or the future, thereby being ready to accept whatever life has to offer and to enjoy it all to its fullest, even the sad parts. A person who has genuinely attained an inner serenity.
Such a person almost invariably causes joy in those around them.
Given that definition, you can see why I so strongly differentiate 'spiritual' from 'religious.'
My readers may note that my idea of what constitutes a spiritual person is a very hard thing to attain, but is attainable, since such people have existed and do exist. Some Buddhist monks get there. Also some Christians and indeed some few people of every disparate faith, or even of no faith or belief at all, do seem to occassionally make it to that point.
Basically, the introspective ones get there, sometimes.
One may also note that my definition of a spiritual man is the very diametric opposite of the Old Testament God Yahweh. He's a self-centered egomaniacal small-minded wrathful self-righteous vindictive jealous asshole.
And that's supposed to be great somehow? Something to love? Something to emulate?
More like a cautionary tale. “Now Johnnie, don’t kill ants with that magnifying glass! You wouldn’t want to end up like GOD, now would you?”
(Little Johnnie pisses pants and promises to be a good boy, mommy)
I think it is a point worthy of pondering that a mere man, as noted above, can, albeit rarely, get to a much more spiritually evolved point than can the Christian God and most of His followers put together. Don’t you?
Of course, this is because Christianity is not a spiritual path. It is more like an immature misbegotten attempt at one at best. Something a child would think up in response to being told about the nebulous concept of spirituality from an adult… “I am too spiritual! I am! I am!”
(In a Trelayne voice, of course)
(Time to come in now, Yahweh…)
***
(The reader should also note that I am not even close to my own definition of what constitutes a spiritual man, nor do I claim to be)
***
For my readers like Botts (where is he, anyhow?) and all other more spiritual, less dogmatic (nicer/saner) Christians, I would add that most (but not all) of the portrayals of Jesus Christ in the Bible coincide with my definition of a spiritual person.
So there's that.
I certainly don't see that as somehow special to Him, though. As noted above, a mere human can most certainly attain it, too. It’s not easy, I’m told, but it’s definitely possible.
But not Yahweh. Not the Old Testament God of the Hebrews. No way. Lost cause, that one. He's way too immature. Way too wild. Still at the “Id” phase. He needs a SPANKING more than any kid I ever knew, and I’m even against corporal punishment. What a little snot He turned out to be!
I guess it’s only natural that an all-powerful orphan with no one ever around to discipline Him ever would turn out to be the Ultimate Immoral Spoiled Brat with no respect nor love for anyone but Himself.
Why, He even went and had a Son out of wedlock like that and all. So on top of everything else he’s kinda ‘white-trashy’ too.
And poor Joseph. Being cuckolded by your own deity has to suck. Who do you beat up?
***
Too bad He didn’t have a mommy and a daddy to raise Him up right. Take Him down a notch when He got too full of Himself.
Maybe if He had parents, decent loving parents, He’d be a little more like "Our Lord" and a little less like “Our Lord of the Flies..."
Sad, really. He had such potential. What a waste.
Yes, because an open marriage is itself wrong.
ReplyDeleteSays you (and me) but not a lot of other people. I should have expected this from the guy that thinks a nose ring is "wrong".
Since you think bodily mutilation is wrong even in isolation and even before and after the existance of humanity, do you think a woman wearing earrings is wrong? You must, no?
we all know people who are so lonely and weak that they don't at all mind being taken advantage of if they get attention from others, and we all know people who just love to find such people and take advantage of them.
ReplyDeleteDo we know that these address every situation?
So, clearly, the proposed alchemy of consent alone is not sufficient to transform an intrinsically immoral act into a moral one.
ReplyDeleteYou've still got to show that moral facts exist.
I don't know how, not stealing or, not hurting others is any more than when, if we visit some small village in Mexico and they all wear the same clothes because, "Es costumbre!"
ReplyDeleteAt one time it was customary for men to walk 'abroad' with swords and fight to the death if challenged.
At one time it was customary to capture black people and make them work for you.
Some believe that it is okay for it to be customary for them to be with a whole herd of women and kids, but they think that giving women the choice of what to do with their own bodies is evil.
Where is this Absolute Moral Standard?
This ridiculous, "Having fun torturing and raping innocents.", trying to make a point about Absolute Morality is total bullshit.
Is it less immoral to rape grown women, or even grown men?(and the 'for fun' is neither here nor there, is it? Just makes it sound worse.)
If we go to the opposite extreme even, "Raping the dead to make the 'victim's' relatives give to charity???
What can we learn from the standard that, "Raping and torturing children for fun is wrong!", if not that we ought not to be inflicting pain on others simply because we would not wish them to inflict pain on us and ours?
Is this a slippery slope argument? Is it that Eric thinks that if we have an open marriage, the next thing we know, our bedrooms will be filled with tortured and raped children for our 'enjoyment'????
I do think that there's a bit of that going on when someone imagines they are making a reasonable case with extreme examples, don't you?
At one time it was customary for men to walk 'abroad' with swords and fight to the death if challenged.
ReplyDeleteExactly. And it wasn't "murder" then, but it would certainly be "murder" today (here at least). There's a likelihood it won't be "murder" again someday.
Some believe that it is okay for it to be customary for them to be with a whole herd of women and kids
ReplyDeleteThis is supported by scripture...
This ridiculous, "Having fun torturing and raping innocents."
ReplyDeleteObviously, what if that innocent has incidental, indirect (must keep them innocent in this thought experiment) knowledge that will save all life on earth and who cares what emotions are going through the mind of the person extracting the information?
Perhaps the 'for fun' part is added to deliberately point to the 'thought crime' aspect, as if we might concoct another scenario where someone is being forced to rape children to try to save his own, or perhaps soldiers raping women with "at least" a revenge motive?
ReplyDeleteHmm. Wonder what the courts would say if the rapist said his motive was to have a child?
ReplyDeleteWhat about if the law was changed so that no abortion of even a rapist's 'seed' were allowed?
Perhaps this is another 'elephant in the room' scenario, where the dominators imagine the subservient would lie about being raped to gain an abortion, and of course, "We can't let the kids simply do as they please!"
Eric's on very shaky ground. Ultimately he has to appeal to an earthly authority (be it Lewis, his church or the bible) or simply throw out lame examples that obviously don't cover every situation.
ReplyDelete"Ultimately he has to appeal to an earthly authority (be it Lewis, his church or the bible) or simply throw out lame examples that obviously don't cover every situation."
ReplyDelete*sigh* What's the use? I say -- adn say it clearly -- that I'm not relying on authorities, but on reasoning -- the sort of reasoning natural law theorists engage in, and which presupposes nothing about god, revelation, etc. -- only to be told that I'm relying on authorities, god, revelation, etc. Oh well.
I suppose you can only do so much when dealing with people who insist on letting their presuppositions override what they can clearly read and hear when it doesn't jibe with those presuppositions. Hey, I've been guilty of it too, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating when I encounter it. I guess we've hit another brick wall.
ReplyDeleteI know Ryan. Seems that Eric imagines the most extreme example, the torturing and raping of innocent little girls and boys, and having BAGS of hilarious fun while they are at it, puts such a large umbrella of, "There HAS TO BE an absolute moral law to cover that, and well, every situation NOW, because imagine the poor children, and imagine the fun their torturers/rapists are having!"
ReplyDeleteStill, it seems odd to me that this crime of total domination and disregard for the will of the weak, is exactly the trap that proposers of Absolute Authority fall into.
Absolutely nothing is wrong if it is proposed or enacted in the name of some Absolute Authority and not in the name of fairness.
"That's not true. The arguments I've presented for the existence of god, for example, presuppose none of those things."
ReplyDeleteI think that they do. You base your arguments on philosophical constructs requiring great assumptions that don't pass objective muster but which are presented as a given. Logical statements can be created using baseless assumptions and still remain internally consistent. And still be incorrect. You have been clear that you believe your perceptions (and their presumed clarity) are as important as objective disciplines. You have hammered home again and again how the 'rightness of your moral feelings' and the fact they are strongly shared by many is in itself a proof of their correctness. The very definition of confirmation bias is to seek support for your position rather than to take note of the evidence as it exists. Words like intentionality are inconsequential against the masses of objective data visible within our very cells that tell a very different and far more cogent story about who and what we are. Inconvenient to admit but true. One of the beauties of scientific theories is that the good ones look better and better the closer we look at the details of reality. The opposite is true of deist philosophy and even more so for any of the specific sects.
As for you other question, It seems like a misdirection comparing apples to oranges and I have been very clear in the past (even posted on it).
"I think that they do. You base your arguments on philosophical constructs requiring great assumptions that don't pass objective muster but which are presented as a given."
ReplyDeleteCan you provide a specific example?
"You have been clear that you believe your perceptions (and their presumed clarity) are as important as objective disciplines."
False. You've mad a basic error here. My perceptions can be wrongly interpreted -- the stick in the water appears to be bent, but isn't -- but the fact that the stick appears to me to be bent is not something I can be wrong about. I may perceive a tree when there is in fact no tree, but I cannot be wrong about the fact that I am (in Chisholm's language) being "appeared to treely."
"You have hammered home again and again how the 'rightness of your moral feelings' and the fact they are strongly shared by many is in itself a proof of their correctness."
Again, this is simply false. I have never said that strong feelings about X and the existence of a consensus about X prove that X is true. Indeed, on this very thread I've said that the only "authority" I need to appeal to in most moral matters is *reason*, yet I've got Ryan telling me I depend on revelation and authorities, and you telling me I depend on feelings and consensus. Very frustrating.
Eric; how can reason lead you to believe that two people that agree on absolutely equal footing to marry and to each take lovers with the full knowledge of the others are sinning?
ReplyDeleteYou get to make up zombies to make a point, why can't we suppose a perfectly happy and consensual open marriage without you throwing "oh well some people take advantage of other people, thus the myth of moses is absolutely correct" and call it reasoning?
I can think of a million other situations where it's ok to not honor ones mother and father, kill, steal, etc...
I suppose you can only do so much when dealing with people who insist on letting their presuppositions override what they can clearly read and hear when it doesn't jibe with those presuppositions.
ReplyDeleteWell that was just a presumptuous thing to say.
"Eric; how can reason lead you to believe that two people that agree on absolutely equal footing to marry and to each take lovers with the full knowledge of the others are sinning?"
ReplyDeleteWell, it would take a bit of work, but the argument would involve (1) a meta-ethical analysis of just what constitutes good and evil, (2) a move from that meta-ethical analysis of good and evil to what constitutes rightness and wrongness (many people confuse the good with rightness), (3) an analysis of what human beings are essentially, from which their good and the rightness of their actions can be derived, (4) an analysis of marriage (from an essentialist position, which would presuppose a defense of essentialism against rivals like nominalism, which you seem to be supporting here), and finally (5) a deduction from all the above that such a "marriage" would be nothing of the sort: not only would it be disordered morally; it would also be a metaphysical impossibility. That is, such a marriage would be no more a marriage than my saying 2+2=5 makes it so, even if I get you and everyone else to agree with me (and I'm of course assuming that 2,+, = and 5 retain the same definitions).
Idiot.
ReplyDeleteEric said "metaphysical impossibility"
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!
"Idiot."
ReplyDeleteI think I'm through here now. The first time I left because I thought that Brian wanted me to; now I think I want to. I've introduced you guys to some new ideas and concepts, though you for the most part seem intent on misunderstanding and misrepresenting them. I don't think most of you are interested at all in pursuing the arguments seriously, wherever they lead (though Ed and Harry may be exceptions to this); heck, Brian and Floyd have in their own ways conceded this. Anyway, have fun, good luck, and I pray that you all receive the grace that I personally seek and hope for each day.
Pray in one hand and shit in the other Eric, whenever you feel like it, report back and let me know which one filled up faster.
ReplyDeleteAlso Eric, on your way out, why do you think you introduced anything new?
ReplyDeleteEric couldn't help but throw the heapingest dollop of his wonderful 'philosophy' to demonstrate his superiority, could he?
ReplyDelete"(1) a meta-ethical analysis of just what constitutes good and evil, (2) a move from that meta-ethical analysis of good and evil to what constitutes rightness and wrongness (many people confuse the good with rightness), (3) an analysis of what human beings are essentially, from which their good and the rightness of their actions can be derived, (4) an analysis of marriage (from an essentialist position, which would presuppose a defense of essentialism against rivals like nominalism, which you seem to be supporting here), and finally (5) a deduction from all the above that such a "marriage" would be nothing of the sort: not only would it be disordered morally; it would also be a metaphysical impossibility."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, without considering any of this baloney, some people go ahead and marry and don't hold out for sole rights to "sexual congress."
I think that there are a lot of women out there who marry men that they know are kinda gay, for example, and just turn a blind eye to it just so long as the man is the breadwinner and has given her the kids she wants.
Would this be a metaphysical half-impossibility or half a metaphysical impossibility?
It's a wonder that the 'walls of reality' can remain standing what with all the impossibilities and half-impossibilities going on.
Without appealing to nature (which doesn't support him), Eric has to appeal to his church or bible to define "marriage" in the first place.
ReplyDelete"Indeed, on this very thread I've said that the only "authority" I need to appeal to in most moral matters is *reason*, yet I've got Ryan telling me I depend on revelation and authorities, and you telling me I depend on feelings and consensus. Very frustrating."
ReplyDeleteI imagine it would be. Imagine our frustration with your arguments from 'reason'. The point I've made over and over and over again is that reason, logic processes and semantic arguments often to do not reflect actual reality no matter how internally consistent they are. Reread your own posts and you might understand what we mean.
A classic example I used before is Demski's Complex Specified Information used to support ID. Demski created a concept and gave it a fancy title. He made numerous logical arguments using it as a basis for his positions that random unguided processes could not result in CSI. That his concept is both mathematically unsound and in no way reflects what we actually observe has not dissuaded him in the least from speaking with authority on the matter. It's still false.
There are a lot of things we don't know though I suspect that most are knowable at some point. Plenty of areas to argue philosophy until the science catches up. But when you try and push metaphysical arguments into areas where the science is strong don't be surprised when you feel a strong push back.
As for us not being open minded, there is an alternate hypothesis - the arguments aren't compelling.
I've introduced you guys to some new ideas and concepts, though you for the most part seem intent on misunderstanding and misrepresenting them. I don't think most of you are interested at all in pursuing the arguments seriously, wherever they lead
ReplyDelete------------------
But... but....
We were having so much fun STUDYING you!
It's not everyday you have a man posting to your site that has reality exactly backwards but can actually (sort-of) SUPPORT his ridiculously untenable positiions in a semi-intelligent manner!
It's like finding a talking dog!
Please don't ever leave. Why look, you've posted here on this blog and gotten the posts up to over 400, all without any help except for your dogged insistence on being absolutely right about the absolutely ridiculous.
You are absolutely invaluable to my zoo.. er... blog here, eric. We'd all miss you. Not for the reasons that you'd like, but still, dude, don't do it.
As for myself, I WAS trying to see where the arguments would lead.
ReplyDeleteAnd I still think the five point rebuttal from page two stands unrefuted.
To paraphrase again:
ReplyDelete1. Consciousness (2.0): statistically likely / probable, given evolution.
2. Rationality: consequence of 1.
3. Free. Ian has pretty much summed it up. It's an illusion.
4. Morality. Construct necessary to the creation and maintenance of a successful society, no god necessary.
5. Seeking for the transcendental: Again, seeking for something says nothing about whether it exists in the first place.
Seeking for the transcendental
ReplyDeleteThe most satisfying explanation for this I've heard is that early hominids wouldn't have known what the F' a dream actually was. Dreams would have given rise to the notion part of us exists independent of the world, which would have given rise to the notion of the soul, which would have given rise to animism, animism to pantheism, pantheism to paganism, etc... etc...
But hey, apparently we aren't supposed to try to explain stuff beyond what the Pope tells us.
Eric said,
ReplyDelete"...(5) a deduction from all the above that such a "marriage" would be nothing of the sort: not only would it be disordered morally; it would also be a metaphysical impossibility."
Two terms demand a precise definition here for this statement to be considered as anything other than ridiculous:
Marriage,
and
Metaphysics.
I understand the etymology of "meatphysics" well enough. A similar example stems from the field of Geographic Information Systems, or GIS. One of the commom terms encountered when doing GIS is "metadata", and the definition of metadata is
ReplyDelete"data about the data".
What this refers to in as non-technical terms as I can describe is a set of facts concerning the information found in certain data formats.
Take for example a contour map of a geographic area. The map depicts elevation data, road alignments, forest cover, lakes, rivers, etc., urbanized areas and so on. That's the data.
The metadata is the information ABOUT the data: when it was compiled, how it was compiled, who compiled it, what the accuracy of features depicted on the map is, etc.
Analogous to the example I gave, metaphysics is the explanation for the physical sciences we observe. But it's not the same thing as "supernatural".
Metaphysics is concerned with trying to provide an explanation for why things are the way we observe them, whereas "supernatural" invokes magical explanations that have no connection to observed reality.
Am I on it so far?
In other words,
ReplyDelete"a physics about the physics".
I know...
ReplyDeleteThis discussion borders dangerously close on "design" arguments, but it necessarily must.
under "metaphysics" falls the ultimate reasons for why the fundamental constants governing the function of the universe are what they are.
The usual answer, if one is not a deist or theist of some sort, is that if those constants had been different, the universe would not have supported life, or would not have existed long enough before re-collapsing, or it would have expanded so fast that galaxies and stars would not have formed; and we wouldn't have come into existence to ask such impudent questions in the first place.
So, there goes design, as far as the universe is concerned.
Which came first: the universe, or humans?
If you answered 'the universe', congratulations. But this leaves no alternative but that man (and all other known life) fit itself to the available conditions, again denying the hand of an intelligent "designer", unless one postulates that the metaphysics is such that those fundamental constants were aranged in advance for the specific purpose of engendering life.
WHich brings us full circle to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
ReplyDeleteAgain, as I said in other posts, the verdict is still out on whether the universe had a "beginning"...
Yes, we all know that spacetime originated at the Big Bang; what we don't know (and current physics CANNOT define) are what were the conditions AT the singularity (we can "run the clock backward all the way to Planck time, but not further back; the math breaks down).
In other words, NO ONE can say that there was NOTHING in the instant before Planck time, and therefore, the statement that the universe poofed into existence from literally nothing (ex nihilo) is unsupported. despite the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper (if you read it, they admit that they don't know the "boundary conditions").
I should say, NO ONE can speak with authority to the idea that there was NOTHING in the instant before Planck time.
ReplyDeleteMorality, on the other hand, is and always has been a human concept.
ReplyDeleteWas there morality in the time of the dinosaurs? No.
If all humans were wiped out tomorrow, would there be morality a week from now? No.
Incidentally, the same argument works for God. Try it.
Look what Amazon's selling....
ReplyDeleteDepends on what's in your browser history.
ReplyDeleteI pulled up amazon, and the first thing that showed was a rack of atheist literature.
Who knew?
Eric is like my panda.
ReplyDeleteHow many zoos have one?
Please Ling Ling, don't leave. I promise more bamboo shoots.
And Eric, you might be right, after all. If you are, it's in spite of your arguments, which do not persuade. However, you statistially might be right. Oh sure, it might be on the order of probability of "Horton hears a Who" being a viable micro-cosmology, but after all, I cannot be absolutely positive that your exact precise version of God is not the author of this universe, now can I?
ReplyDeleteI should think that that microsliver of possibility of my being persuaded should give you hope, however, that no matter how sarcastic I might be to you and about you. I have no personal animosity toward you, you know. I just love busting you up about you defending the side of the occult against that of science. I mean, it's been done before, so we all know where it's gonna end up regardless of your eloquence. So there's that. It must end in sadness for you in spite of your admitted brilliance, since you find yourself in the unenviable position of defending elves and fairies. or gods and saints or whatever--to adults.
Sorry. But don't run away. Not cool. And definitely not manly.
So just out of curiosity, why do apologists refer to mathmatics as evidence of the metaphysical?
ReplyDeleteIf you have two apples in a sack, and you add two more apples, you have four apples in your sack. Nothing metaphysical about it in my opinion.
I understand that mathmatics is much more than addition and subtraction, but aren't addition and subtraction the foundation of all (most?) math?
I just think that Eric is feeling frustrated because he is not accomplishing his goal.
ReplyDeleteHis goal was to convince us that he can make a case for duality, make a case for Absolute Morality etc. finally leading to his case for Jesus Christ.
While we can imagine that the Big Bang theory is a good scientific model, Eric is happy to incorporate this model as FACT, which can incorporate into his dualist/Absolute Morality/etc./Jesus model.
Guess it's what we do, we humans don't like loose ends.
We have to buy the notion that ideas can be objective. Not that there ARE ideas(of course we know that we all have ideas), but the subject OF ideas(of course we know that an idea of a cat is an idea of an objective being(cats are real), but that the idea of ANOTHER idea, like morality, can be objective.(which is not true)
It's just a wonder that Eric wasn't throwing around the strange notion of 'specified complexity' while he was at it.
Heh.
What Eric seems unable to accept is that just because a person rejects his carefully crafted debate strategies does not a) mean they are stupid, b) mean they are poorly read, or 3) just being obstinate.
ReplyDeleteIn the past I'd pretty much tried to stay out of the philosophy part of things. The guerrilla war of philosophy makes me nuts - just when you get them cornered they disappear into some obscure metaphysical Narnia to hide out for a while claiming that naturalists cannot follow.
I can be pretty obstinate.
ReplyDeleteAm I on a different planet?
ReplyDeleteGuess so...
ReplyDeletePoint of order:
ReplyDeleteSpammers, fuck off.
a), b) or 3)?
ReplyDeleteReally Pliny?
LOL
I never got around to defining "Marriage"; I was going to leave that to Eric.
ReplyDeleteI think when government turned democratic, it was assumed that not everyone was being forced to pretend that they were of a certain religion anymore.
ReplyDeleteThat's when marriage became a common-law thing and in fact no ceremony at all is required in some jurisdictions, but traditionally people still like to make no bones about getting the government certificate, which helps with the tax forms and such, and even getting the blessing of their clergyman, if that's what they like to do.(nothing wrong with that)
In England, under the Anglican Church, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of Lord Hardwicke's Act in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.
Not sure what Eric is on about with his notion of a philosophical marriage, "Metaphysical impossibility" drivel.
Posturing?
If, in fact, there are moral laws and, if, we can point to what others at another time judged to be moral and claim they were wrong,
ReplyDeleteThen we can point that God was, in fact, wrong in the OT.
Slavery- WRONG
Genocide- WRONG
Infanticide- WRONG
Knocking up a 12 year old- WRONG..... er, wait, that's the NT.
I think the main thing that makes me not take Eric seriously is that he has predetermined what his conclusions are, and then uses "reason" to back into those conclusions. Anyone can do that with just about any conclusion, but he just dresses it up.
ReplyDeletea), b) or 3)?
ReplyDeleteReally Pliny?
--------------
DoH!
I was venting pboy! ;)
Ryan I think you are right and much clearer in your description than I was. Fitting the available data to support a conclusion is a classic set up for confirmation bias. Unless you are really really careful to make sure that all data is considered not just the convenient stuff.
Much better to look at all the data then come up with a theory that incorporates it all.
Exactly Pliny, I think it's telling that the apologist often tout their use of logic and reason, but rarely mention observational science in their defenses. There's a reason for that...
ReplyDeleteYeah, it is unfortunate that reality doesn't feel bound by the limits of our perceptions or imagination, isn't it ;)
ReplyDeleteKinda working on a theory that religion is the formalized 'hope' and social 'warning' that we pass on to our kids, because it was passed on to us.
ReplyDeleteAs we are developing our conscious self our parents/guardians are imparting their worldview onto us, but there is a lot of semi-forgotten stuff about doing what they tell you(Absolute Morality) and getting you to do stuff for future reward(Hope).
How about the lies we tell our children, not even counting magical beings, which are just 'fun' anyways.
The notion that life IS somehow fair and people DO live according to that standard.
Wealthy people must be teaching THEIR kids a different story, of how poor people, working people are saps to be ruthlessly taken advantage of.
GearHed, you forgot to click on MI of my post just above you to see what they were posting on Amazon.....
ReplyDeleteGo back and click on it.
You're right, though, it's atheistic stuff.
Was there a point to that?
ReplyDeleteThe weird thing about Eric and his philosophy is that his terms and jargon and that are just as debatable as he claims the average person't view of things are.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, he seems to be trying to impress on us that it's all a matter of opinion.
I think that there is something disingenuous in his imagining that we somehow have to knock down his philosophical view of things, sort of to make our case, prove his philosophical view wrong, and couch it to us in this perspective, when he knows the ins and outs of the philosophical arguments involved.
He's like, "I like this guy and I've already read fourteen points of view on it, so nothing you say is likely to surprise me."
I think he feels that, armed with his philosophy, there's no way that he can 'lose' an argument because he can draw any point to some debatable philosophical extreme and declare the subject undecided!
Ian "his imagining that we somehow have to knock down his philosophical view of things, sort of to make our case, prove his philosophical view wrong..."
ReplyDeleteThat seems to me to be the foundation of apologetics. They either don't understand where the burden of proof lies or try to ignore that fact.
Christopher Hitchens said it best "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Thing I like most about Hitchens is the title of his book, "God is Not Great.. etc.", guaranteed to make religious leaders balk.
ReplyDeleteOf course religious leaders feel that they are delivering God's message to their flock somehow, and in that way it's a direct slap in their face.
It's very sanctimonious of them to be insulted by this but they're kind of cornered into being sanctimonious, aren't they?
I enjoy that many of them consider the publishing of a book named "God is not Great" to be "persecution".
ReplyDeleteEither Eric is a fan of Intelligent Design and Jay Richards or it is the common argument to suggest that there must be a God because, "We all know moral facts such as, 'It is wrong rape and torture children for fun'."
ReplyDeleteEven if they were to grant the possibility that there might be no God, wouldn't it be just as true that raping and torturing children for fun is wrong?
Since there aren't any gods at all, not even the deist one which they seem happy to insta-convert to what they really want us to believe, why wouldn't just loving your children or knowing that parents love their children be sufficient for us to understand that people abusing any children would be wrong?
Also, as Hitchens points out, it's the mutilators-of-children's-genitals that are on the wrong side of this moral argument, the senders-of-children-to-blow-people-up and a lot of abusers-of-innocents that are on the wrong side of this morality argument.
ReplyDeleteI still cannot believe that Eric didn't just let his staunch Catholicism lapse a little when he was a freshman in college or suchlike, making a large deal about being a 'staunch atheist' now.
Plus the whole argument stinks! Just because we can couch things in a normative way, "You ought not to travel by way of along the edge of a cliff!"), just because we CAN couch things in this way doesn't make the proposition that any gods 'exist' any better at all.
"It is wrong rape and torture children for fun"
ReplyDeleteSadly, there are people that disagree with this statement.
I really never could see how Eric's "moral facts" differd in any way from "societies moral consensus".
I think he knew he was arguing with decent people so a statement like that would have traction, but I would love to see him present the same argument to John Wayne Gacey.
Eric "'It is wrong rape and torture children for fun'."
Gacey: "Meh".
He always claimed that because there are moral facts floating around the firmament, we'd expect disagreement, but that's no different (at least as I took it) than saying because the US government was behind 9/11, we'd expect the hijackers to be Saudis. A valid, but worthless statement.
I wonder if Boehner will join the Dick Armey?
ReplyDeleteHe says it's 'Bain-er' , but we know how it's pronounced.
Ever notice how boring this room gets when there's no Christians to argue with?
ReplyDeleteThen Harry pops in and reminds us all why we keep coming back.
Ha Ha, Harry, you're funny! ;~)
ReplyDeleteHa Ha, Harry, you're funny! ;~)
ReplyDeleteI speak toddler level German, it's definitely should be pronounced "Boner", maybe throw an h in there between the o and n for good measure, but it's definitely not Bain-er.
ReplyDeleteHey, Mary...
ReplyDeleteDo you have any thoughts of your own, or are you going to just link to other people's writings?
(you know we're not running down to the local Amazon store to buy those books, right?)
'...it's definitely should be pronounced "Boner"'
ReplyDeleteRyan,
No shit? I was just funnin.
That's fantastic. Thanks for the info.
Ed,
You all are so damn funny. I can't count how many times I've literally 'laughed out loud' from your bon mots.
Does anyone else find even positing the supernatural in the first place to be lazy and borderline dishonest?
ReplyDeleteTo me, you need the supernatural only when you want to throw in the towell because you can't find an explaination or because you want to avoid a valid explaination that conflicts with your ideology.
That's not to say for certain that the supernatural doesn't exist, just that there is no point in pondering it.
Also, not to say I believe we have a soul seperate from our mind/body, but I also don't see how the existance of an enduring soul would require the supernatural?
Discuss?
Ryan asked,
ReplyDelete"Also, not to say I believe we have a soul seperate from our mind/body, but I also don't see how the existance of an enduring soul would require the supernatural?"
This brings up a few questions of its own:
If 'soul' is distinct from 'mind', then what IS it?
We humans have pretty much decided that brain function is responsible for input/processing/output, so what's left for a soul to do?
How is a 'soul' bound to a body/brain, and why?
If a 'soul' is NOT bound to it's host body, can we train our souls to go wandering through the night while our bodies run on autopilot in some meditative/trancelike state?
I can probably think of some more, but those popped in without too much effort...
How will our heathen souls see the fire and brimstone without optical nerves?
ReplyDeleteAnd wouldn't the souls ability to sense make our actual senses redundant? Why evolve an eye when the soul can already see?
can we train our souls to go wandering through the night while our bodies run on autopilot in some meditative/trancelike state?
Shirley McClain would say yes...
Does anybody care what Shirley MacLaine thinks?
ReplyDeleteAh, so much navel gazing...
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you add something instead of just hitting us with the occasional drive-by, Mary?
ReplyDeleteIf your faith is well-founded and rational, then it should withstand questioning by a gang of godless heathens...
and bring your old chum Observant with you.
ReplyDeleteHe was always good for a few (a VERY few) laughs.
More evidence that religion makes you stupid...
ReplyDeleteI think you're taking for granted how much you know of other people's epistemic limits Ryan.
ReplyDeleteThe supernatural is a bad hypothesis prima facie but we can't assume everybody understands that and will choose it in spite of better hypotheses.
----
The soul...
It depends on how you define it. If you're talking about the ancient belief adopted and propagated by the gnostics and their children the christians, then I'm sure Eric has the answer.
Eric?
From what I can understand of it, which frankly ain't much, the most original conception of the soul is Aristotle's. It's of course the least spiritual too :)
What I could glean from the text is that the soul is the potentiality and actuality of the body, its final cause, and wrapped up in rational thought. Meaning it's completely predicated of the body, and isn't your unearthly identity inhabiting a temporary corpus.
He' probably better at explaining himself though.
"Suppose that the eye were an animal - sight would have been its soul, for sight is the substance of the eye which corresponds to the account, the eye being merely the matter of seeing... the soul is actuality in the sense corresponding to sight and the power in the tool; the body corresponds to what is in potentiality; as the pupil plus the power of sight constitutes the eye, so the soul plus the body constitutes the animal."
So in part, soul is the activity of the body.
While reading it I could totally see Abrahamics taking him out of context. I had a couple what the fuck moments before a minor realization that he was using his teleological concepts.
What the hell is navel gazing?...ah. Apparently complacent self-absorption.
ReplyDeleteEverybody...
Thank MI.
"Thanks MI. You're the swellest."
Well done everybody.
Harry; I'm going to have to reread my Aristotle. Thanks for the different perspective, when I read him in college, I thought when he said "soul" he meant "magic christian soul". It's amazing how a combination of words can be read one way by someone and then read another by someone else 20 years later.
ReplyDeleteWas that "naval gazing"? I don't care...
I don't blame you a bit Ryan.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that's helped me with his texts is using teleology as a key. It's not an understatement to say that it informs a lot of his views.
I was reading a bit about teleology.
ReplyDeleteThis has to do with purposes and causes, ultimate purposes and ultimate causes.
I recall Eric saying that he 'kinda liked it'.
I 'kinda had the feelin', I kept sayin' that it was circular.
It stands to reason that, if you think that there is a God, then you must imagine that HE made you, and that you are the final outcome of HIM making the Universe and that HE is, therefore the Necessary Cause. You would be HIS purpose.
Since, as Plato muses, when we are describing a situation, we are ultimately looking for a purpose, which, it turns out is asking, "What good is it for it to be like that?", when we're asking about the universe we're asking about the ultimate goodness that is happening on account of the situation.
I think that theists are simply stroking their philosophical cocks here, because they ask us to believe that any conscious being with the gift to ponder it's situation, must come to the conclusion that it has an eternal Sky-Daddy who wants it to love HIM.
Circular.
I think that it is circular in a sneaky way though.
ReplyDeleteOne has to start with the assumption that things HAVE a purpose beyond the purpose that we invoke mentally in them and that's easy to convince yourself with a billion simple (tautological, is it?) examples.
Animals which have legs, have legs for the purpose of walking, kind of thing. But it's a definition game since 'walking' is defined as using legs to get around.
If you see any situation as a yin, there's a yang to go with it.
I think that one would have to ignore evolution completely to imagine that all the animals are put on this planet for us. Doesn't really explain away extinct animals or animals which lived long before our branch of very social humans took over as the dominant tool/weapon making species.
peeb,
ReplyDeleteAristotelian teleology can be incorrect without being circular.
More to the point, it is incorrect, but I don't think you've made a convincing argument for its circularity.
Secondly,
We only know teleology is incorrect because of the evidence for evolution. The idea of evolution is counterintuitive, that's why Aristotle rejected it.
Do you think you would've faired better in that time period?
If you've got an hour forty to kill, this is pretty entertaining.
ReplyDeleteIf you start with the notion that there is a God or gods and that your purpose is to praise HIM or them, then teleology IS circular, no matter where you actually 'begin' your argument.
ReplyDeleteYou might start at the 'general', everthing has a purpose, everything is designed for a purpose and lead that back to a Necessary Cause, then it is circular.
And just because an idea is old doesn't mean it isn't being used anymore.
Eric is quite happy to use Aquinas version.
As totally unfalsifiable bullshit goes, religion is the worst.
ReplyDeleteFred Hoyle said the the Universe was eternal, and it would have suited theists fine if it was.
Along came the Big Bang and now THAT is touted as proof of a 'beginning' which 'needs' a (and this is where they lose me completely) conscious mind that does it's thing outside of time and space no less.
Creationists would have gobbled down the steady-state version of the universe as just eagerly for a proof of their God though.
Harry, you said, "Aristotelian teleology can be incorrect without being circular."
ReplyDeleteI didn't mention Aristotle at all.
I think that my main point was that any thinking being, any being who comes to have a consciousness, if Plato is right about his purposefullness thing, has to come to the conclusion that there is a Supreme Consciousness that made it all for him to worship it.
ReplyDeleteWhich is ludicrous.
But telling someone that they have no eternal purpose is like telling them that there is no dome of the sky over us, that the ground itself moves, that rocks fall from the sky, that the patterns we see in the sky AREN'T trying to convey secret knowledge to us, and so on.
ReplyDelete"I didn't mention Aristotle at all."
ReplyDeleteAh. Fair enough, so you didn't.
Eternal purpose is a tricky one. I suppose that's why so many people go 'spiritual' after their religious de-conversion.
They get tired of the false people, unrealistic rules, most of the major metaphysical claims, but their self-esteem would take a real hit without the supernatural altogether.
Eternal purpose is a tricky one.
ReplyDeleteIs it? Subjective purpose is, at least to me, more than adequate.
I didn't have purpose for 13.89999 billion years, and I won't have purpose after this brief span, but I fail to see how that diminishes the purpose I now have.
"Why can't people just tell me I'm right?"
ReplyDeleteYou're right Harry.
Peeb,
ReplyDeleteI know.
But now I'm left.
You'll have to catch up if you want me to pay for a round at the Canadian Scotsman tavern.
Ryan,
It's a good point, but ask yourself how many "spiritual" people think like that.
What I was implying, was that many people who de-convert from religion are compelled by the eternal purpose aspect of it to seek laissez faire rules and claims, so they can keep their self-esteem intact.
Not to get all Virginia Slims on ya, but you've come a long way baby.
They haven't.
Harry; I certainly agree, I did it myself for a while after deconverting.
ReplyDeleteFeels like far...
ReplyDeleteFor no particular reason,
ReplyDeleteI Can Play Anything
For no particular reason, in the comment section, for a laugh, I said, "I spy with my little eye, something beginning with 'f'.", a couple of days ago.
ReplyDeleteOne of my pet peeves about commercial television is this new style with a lady singing a little ditty, so they stick in my memory, these horrible little ditties.
Last night, I heard the new Rice Krispies commercial, which has a lady singing, "I spy with my little eye..."
Synchronicity Brian?
Well, I just put up a new post, but it's nothing to do with God. Just nature, as in, the small piece of it I've attempted to duplicate in my living room.
ReplyDeleteMy terrarium, in other words, is the subject.
Of course, after the glamour of it all wears off on you I would only expect the usual turn back toward things godly and religious and other such silliness.
Pboy, yes, I'd call that a synchronicity. And furthermore I'd wager that if they 'spooked you out' more, as in, if you gave them more prominence in your thoughts, thought about the weirdness more, they'd start to happen in groups and bunches. Note that I didn't say that you'd be noticing them more. No, they'd actually start occurring more. Or so happened to me, starting me off on what you might well term my 'Great Tangent...'
ReplyDeleteYou know what I'm thankful for?
ReplyDeleteInternet rumbles on Brian's blog that lead to internet hugs and then more rumbles.
:-)
Лучшие [url=http://bukdub.ru]визитные карточки[/url]. В блоге дозволено скачать книги про [url=http://bukdub.ru]визитки[/url], найти контакты лучших полиграфистов, разместить примеры своих работ и познакомиться с программами для создания [url=http://bukdub.ru]визиток[/url].
ReplyDeleteYou know anonymous posted in two indo-european languages.
ReplyDeleteWhat, no Japanese?
Bigot.
Hope all had a Happy Thanksgiving!
ReplyDeleteGear-Hed: I'm just not that interested in going there with you.
I've moved on.
Hopefully, for your sake, you'll find more believers to go round and round with. Funny how it never grows old for the atheist...
Funny blog
ReplyDeleteThe Russian stuff is spam, advertisements for a service that one can use to buy business cards and pamphlets, etc.
ReplyDeleteI'm just not that interested in going there with you.
ReplyDeleteTranslation; I'm set in my ways.
MI said,
ReplyDelete"...Gear-Hed: I'm just not that interested in going there with you.
I've moved on."
Well, keep moving then, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
I llove the blog
ReplyDeleteI llove llamas.
ReplyDelete