- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Aug 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI think there is some difference here between committing an immoral act and sinning. In traditional Catholic doctrine, an act is a sin and the agent is a sinner if (1) it is evil, (2) the agent knows it is evil, and (3) the agent freely commits it. Mental competence is required for the latter 2 criteria, but the fact that the act is evil is independent of those 2 criteria. So one can commit an immoral act without sinning, and the act is immoral nonetheless.
This was answered above, an insane person is not responsible for their actions. Do you actually read the posts other people write? I think you have to reduce the scope of your moral question to morally competent agents - so sane and in control of their actions. You may be able to get me to agree with statements along the lines of "It is immoral for a ...[text shortened]... d be over the age of consent. So even allowing for competent agents I can find counterexamples.
Not that anyone has to "buy" this interpretation.
23 Aug 16
Originally posted by LemonJelloCrickets chirring....
You were supposed to provide a qualifying example and the reasons why you think it qualifies. The last bit is actually the most important part of this exchange, and you have yet to provide anything of substance. Ultimately, you have yet to provide any substance as to how it all wraps back around to the subject of God's existence, as well.
Well, with respect to the opening post in this thread, I guess Fetchmyjunk's activity here can be considered a case in point. Somehow, without God, there are no "moral absolutes", no "universal moral truths". His case underlying these assertions? Apparently nothing of substance, just hysterics with no rational basis.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
your OP seemed to throw a whole lot of text book dust up into the air.
What was THE most important point one was to get from that show of academic fireworks ?
I guess this must be a part of you major thought a little further down ?
No, I find arguments to the effect that God is necessary for [enter here something of existential importance to us humans] to be intellectually vapid. As such, I'm thinking that in trying to understand the psychological factors involved in their recurrence, we probably need to look deeper than just logical and evidential appeal.
Originally posted by JS357The problem I have with your interpretation is that you have the act as evil in and of itself. The difficulty with this is that if one replaces the agent with some sort of philosophical zombie (a machine say) then it can do good and evil. But it does not make sense that the acts of a machine can be categorised as good or evil, since the machine does not have intent (although its maker's might). If philosophical zombies can do good or evil what about nature? The meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs did a lot of harm (if one is a dinosaur) but cannot be sanely described as evil any more than old age or bad weather. What makes an act good or evil is not the act itself, but the intent behind it. That this is recognised in law in the mens rea formulation should serve as a good piece of supporting evidence.
I think there is some difference here between committing an immoral act and sinning. In traditional Catholic doctrine, an act is a sin and the agent is a sinner if (1) it is evil, (2) the agent knows it is evil, and (3) the agent freely commits it. Mental competence is required for the latter 2 criteria, but the fact that the act is evil is independent of thos ...[text shortened]... inning, and the act is immoral nonetheless.
Not that anyone has to "buy" this interpretation.
Originally posted by sonshipA "whole lot of text book dust" and "show of academic fireworks" ? Jesus, sonship, get a grip. All the quotes in my OP come from one short Nagel essay, and I think it is relatively non-technical as far as philosophical essays go. I'll not be offended if you're not inclined to read through my post. I'm not often inclined to read through some of yours, either (you know, a whole lot of biblical dust in a show of dogmatic fireworks, if fireworks were really, really, profoundly boring) .
your OP seemed to throw a whole lot of text book dust up into the air.
What was THE most important point one was to get from that show of academic fireworks ?
I guess this must be a part of you major thought a little further down ?
No, I find arguments to the effect that God is necessary for [enter here something of existential importance ...[text shortened]... r recurrence, we probably need to look deeper than just logical and evidential appeal.
I'm just repeating myself now, but I thought the last sentence in the post would have been sufficient to recap the thesis:
At any rate, I think such a characterization of "The Absurd" [referring, of course, to the Nagel account] can help us make some sense of cases where one is confronted with argumentative hysterics to the effect that in the absence of God all of our normative and evaluative bedrock crumbles under feet; and then one is subsequently confronted with the most bizarre ramblings when pressing for some rational explication as to why that would be the case.
Of course, I think this is just one factor. Another major factor might be related to the failures of perspective-taking. For a theist like Fetchmyjunk who clearly has some very God-centric existential commitments, it is apparently a challenge to take up, even hypothetically, an atheistic perspective. It's back to the cautionary point that one doesn't arrive at atheism by simply vaporizing God from within a theistic worldview. That just leaves one in an existential crisis in the middle of a collapsed worldview, sort of like how vaporizing a house's foundation would leave you with a collapsed house. But that does not constitute a general existential crisis any more than it constitutes a general housing crisis. So, perhaps some of the argumentative hysterics here issue in part from the trauma that attends this kind of failed perspective-taking.
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo could you posit a reason for the existence of universal moral truths (assuming they existed) apart from the existence of God? Could you build a stronger case for the flying spaghetti monster perhaps?
Crickets chirring....
Well, with respect to the opening post in this thread, I guess Fetchmyjunk's activity here can be considered a case in point. Somehow, without God, there are no "moral absolutes", no "universal moral truths". His case underlying these assertions? Apparently nothing of substance, just hysterics with no rational basis.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by LemonJello
I'll not be offended if you're not inclined to read through my post. I'm not often inclined to read through some of yours, either (you know, a whole lot of biblical dust in a show of dogmatic fireworks, if fireworks were really, really, profoundly boring) .
I read it and more than once.
OPs are best when they are concise. Yours seem loaded with much preemptive discussion. My verbosity usually comes after a relatively concise OP.
I'm just repeating myself now, but I thought the last sentence in the post would have been sufficient to recap the thesis:
At any rate, I think such a characterization of "The Absurd" [referring, of course, to the Nagel account] can help us make some sense of cases where one is confronted with argumentative hysterics to the effect that in the absence of God all of our normative and evaluative bedrock crumbles under feet; and then one is subsequently confronted with the most bizarre ramblings when pressing for some rational explication as to why that would be the case.
The Absurd matter I didn't follow too well. I know about the theater of the Absurd and use to be crazy about such artistic works. "Waiting For Godot" I thought was interesting. And the 60's file "Blow Up" made such an absurdist point.
I would consider some of Bergman's films like "The Seventh Seal" maybe to t ouch on the Absurd. Nagal I know nothing about. But from an artistic angle I get what some of the artist were saying.
You mentioned "Jesus" as a kind of curse word. It is funny that you chose the name Jesus. I have not seen many (if any) people curse with the name of Buddha or Confucius or Mohammed.
Why did you choose for your cursing "Jesus" ?
I think the more life a person has the more meaning they manifest in a sense.
A corpse has less meaning then a living person.
A person full of life, as Jesus Christ was, manifest the most meaning. It seems that you may intuitively sense that and wish to drag His name down from this high level into the mud out of some perverse pleasure.
And a person who overcomes death of course has incredible meaning.
And a Person like Christ Who overcame death and is alive forever and ever has i think the most meaning.
It is interesting that this sense of the most sacred provokes the kind of reaction you display, that of seizing upon the name of such a Person to drag it down for a handy curse word.
No other name of any other historical figure seemed to be quite as useful to you in your cursing at me.
Of course, I think this is just one factor. Another major factor might be related to the failures of perspective-taking. For a theist like Fetchmyjunk who clearly has some very God-centric existential commitments, it is apparently a challenge to take up, even hypothetically, an atheistic perspective. It's back to the cautionary point that one doesn't arrive at atheism by simply vaporizing God from within a theistic worldview. That just leaves one in an existential crisis in the middle of a collapsed worldview, sort of like how vaporizing a house's foundation would leave you with a collapsed house. But that does not constitute a general existential crisis any more than it constitutes a general housing crisis. So, perhaps some of the argumentative hysterics here issue in part from the trauma that attends this kind of failed perspective-taking.
I am going to go over this another time. But I noticed the repeated use of the word "hysterics". Funny, but I haven't noticed any "hysterics" going on in this from a theist.
What exactly do you hope to accomplish by labeling a belief that God grounds all moral meaning as "hysterical" ?
24 Aug 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThere you go again, presupposing that "absolute" or "universal" morals constitutively would stand in need of explanation in reference to the mental activity of some particular agent. Again, that is a subjectivist take on it, and as I already told you multiple times I do not subscribe to subjectivist takes on it. (It's a mystery that I would continue in this discussion when it is apparent that the words of others just bounce off your skull; and those words are in direct response to your own pointed questions, so it is to that extent even more egregious that you fail to show the respect of paying attention. ) So I wouldn't presume to build a case for them on the basis of God or the flying spaghetti monster or any other agent, real or imaginary. Like I already said, I think objectivist accounts enjoy more plausibility here.
So could you posit a reason for the existence of universal moral truths (assuming they existed) apart from the existence of God? Could you build a stronger case for the flying spaghetti monster perhaps?
Originally posted by sonshipI see that you are still complaining about the verbosity of the OP (physician, heal thyself) but, of course, the thesis there is in reference to the Nagel account. So, obviously, some cursory detailing of the Nagel account is in order, despite your protests.I'll not be offended if you're not inclined to read through my post. I'm not often inclined to read through some of yours, either (you know, a whole lot of biblical dust in a show of dogmatic fireworks, if fireworks were really, really, profoundly boring) .
I read it and more than once.
OPs are best when they are concise. Yours ...[text shortened]... you hope to accomplish by labeling a belief that God grounds all moral meaning as "hysterical" ?
Also, I didn't label the belief that God grounds moral meaning as hysterical. The "hysterics" here are in reference to the irrational contortions, and feverish passions thereof, that try to pass as justification for the sorts of claims at issue in the OP (e.g., the claim that God is necessary for moral grounding).
Back to the subject of perspective-taking, I guess the worry is in projecting one's own entrenched theoretical commitments onto others and casting them as universal requirements without any good dispassionate justification for that. The fact that your own moral worldview would collapse into chaotic rubble if we yanked God out isn't my problem or, for that matter, any other atheist's problem. The fact that so many of your metaphysical commitments hinge critically on the existence of some 2000 year-old zombie water-walker, born of a virgin, father of himself, sacrificer of himself unto himself to appease himself, isn't our problem, either. I take those to be problems specific and peculiar to a worldview like yours. I guess another worry is in extrapolating from an explanative role to one of necessity. That God has such a far-reaching role in explaining, to your own satisfaction, your own metaphysical commitments does not somehow make God necessary in such roles. This, again, I take to be related to a failure of perspective-taking.
To be clear, I would have no problems with the belief that God grounds (or is necessary for grounding) morality or meaning or whatever, inasmuch as the belief is based on good reasons. Similarly, I would have no problems with the claim that God is necessary for grounding matters of high existential seriousness, inasmuch as the claim is tied to good justificatory considerations. The latter condition is not satisfied by the typical Fetchmyjunk-ian hysterics that we encounter instead.
24 Aug 16
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI cannot speak for Fetchmyjunk's views on moral absolutes or universal truths, but in my
Crickets chirring....
Well, with respect to the opening post in this thread, I guess Fetchmyjunk's activity here can be considered a case in point. Somehow, without God, there are no "moral absolutes", no "universal moral truths". His case underlying these assertions? Apparently nothing of substance, just hysterics with no rational basis.
opinion any truth requires a standard to which to judge with. Without a means to measure
truth across all of the universe how can there be a universal truth, and if there isn't any
means with which to judge without absolutely being wrong how can there be anything
called an absolute truth? It is no different than saying there is no such thing as an "inch"
unless you can produce a measurement that shows us what a "inch" is.
I'd add a universal time *now* as well, without God there isn't anyone or anything that can
see all there is at all times either so anyone could argue against a universal now too.
24 Aug 16
Originally posted by LemonJello
The fact that so many of your metaphysical commitments hinge critically on the existence of some 2000 year-old zombie water-walker,
Sounds like rather hysterical lashing out. When I hear the word "zombie" I think of a horror movie. Do the Gospels read like a horror movie to you ?
When I think of "zombie" I think of a corpse walking showing marked signs of lack of self control, I think Jesus demonstrated enough self control over His own being which causes you to appear as a zombie in comparison.
Compared to Jesus, you live much more like a walking corpse under some voodoo spell. I think Jesus displayed far more self control then you ever will.
born of a virgin, father of himself, sacrificer of himself unto himself to appease himself, isn't our problem, either.
While you scoff, I don't see any explanation of how Jesus could orchestrate the surroundings of His own birth in accordance with a prophecy given during MIcah's lifetime six hundred years previous. The experts of the Hebrew Scriptures during the time of Christ's birth pinpointing the place of the birth of such a Person based on words penned by the prophet Micah (737 - 696 BC).
I think we're dealing with Someone not only whose life is eternal duration wise, but is also infinite in quality and also transcendence over time. Our reaction to such a Person might be compared to beings living on a two dimensional plane who encounter a being of three dimensions.
All this about a Father to Himself, to sacrifice to Himself to appease Himself expresses your bafflement and cynicism. My reactions are different. I think we are encountering an eternal life which to our limitations confounds our limits of rationality.
Of course if Jesus had just done a "trick" of walking on water, I don't think you would display the vehemence and disdain in your tone. It is not walking on water that bothers you, I think. I think there is something in His teaching and words which is the greater irritation, even perhaps fear.
I think some people should ask themselves honestly "Why do I have contempt for Jesus, really?" Magicians like Houdini don't cause such words of contempt, like calling "The Prince of Peace" to many, a "zombie".
Anyway, the stench of spiritual death is more pronounced in people who do not have self control over their sinning nature. The slaves to transgressions and iniquity are far more like walking dead men then such a Person as Jesus. He expressed the highest level of morality known in human history.
Compared to Christ are you sure you're not the zombie ?
I take those to be problems specific and peculiar to a worldview like yours.
I take God's triune being to be a instance of divine nature that us, bound by time and the limited dimensions of creation, to be perplexed at when we encounter time's Creator.
It is understandable that there might be something nearly incomprehensible to our creation bound minds when the Greater Cause of time and space reaches into our world for our salvation.
I realize some will say "This looks like God sacrificing Himself to Himself". But I think probably the matter "God is love" may indicate a profoundness in God's being which will take eternity to explore.
If [b]"God is love"{/b] describes God even before the existence of the universe there must be something about God that appears too extraordinary for our creaturehood.
I don't react to the mystery with same attitude because I don't just select one or two events of Christ's life. I holistically consider the fuller scope of His words and deeds. To me He is not just another Harry Houdini.
I guess another worry is in extrapolating from an explanative role to one of necessity.
I am not sure I am "extrapolating from a explanative [sic] role to one of necessity." But go on.
That God has such a far-reaching role in explaining, to your own satisfaction, your own metaphysical commitments does not somehow make God necessary in such roles. This, again, I take to be related to a failure of perspective-taking.
I cannot long discuss this at the moment. But that our moral being is only material movement of chemicals and molecules doesn't make sense to me.
I see our humanity as an effect which is due to a cause which is greater. My sense of justice, rightness, fairness, ethics, morality should not be due to something on a lower level of life, like an energy or force. It should be due to Someone of a higher level of life than myself.
Some people may refer to a "Higher Power". But power needs a generator. A personless "higher power" I would take to be on a lower level of being than myself.
Electricity is a great power. But I consider electricity to be on a lower level of being than my consciousness and certainly my moral awareness. I think the source of these attributes must be not just a "power". for I am "higher" than any power.
Something like a moral being on a higher level of being I would take as the source.
You spoke of my quoting the Bible. I do that because I believe that God has spoken to man. Even more this speaking God has become a man, the One you call a zombie.
I think you'r calling Christ a zombie is not a statement on how much of an enigma Christ is as much as how low humans have fallen from a normality at which we were designed to live originally.
That a man should be so utterly one with God, I take as normal. It is we and the world we produce which has fallen far below normal.
Jesus was not only good. He was good in a glorious way. He was not just right. He was right with splendor and radiance making a cataclysmic impact on human history.
I would dare say that any given three and one half years of your life in comparison would make you look like the stumbling zombie.
To be clear, I would have no problems with the belief that God grounds (or is necessary for grounding) morality or meaning or whatever, inasmuch as the belief is based on good reasons.
I might entertain that a materialist view of the universe is the answer if you could prove that a "good" atom and a "bad" atom exists.
[quote]
Similarly, I would have no problems with the claim that God is necessary for grounding matters of high existential seriousness, inasmuch as the claim is tied to good justificatory considerations. {/quote]
I may have a comment latter.
This is sonship on a relative's home PC.
24 Aug 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYour problem is that you are trying to work something like the following:
So could you posit a reason for the existence of universal moral truths (assuming they existed) apart from the existence of God? Could you build a stronger case for the flying spaghetti monster perhaps?
1) ∃x Gx = there is an object with the property of being God.
2) ∃x Gx -> ∃y My = if there is an object with the property of being God then there is an object with the property of being (absolute) morality.
As an exercise in logic it follows from (1) and (2) that absolute morality exists. Now, while people might argue with (1) and (2) they are perfectly reasonable axioms. It is at least plausible that if there is a God then his existence implies an absolute standard of morality. The problem for you is that what you are trying to argue is something like:
3) â–¡ (¬∃x Gx -> ¬∃y My) = necessarily, if there is no God then there is no absolute morality.
This is a very strong claim. In any possible world if there is no God then there is no absolute morality. You are claiming that it is unimaginable that there could be such a thing as absolute morality and not such a thing as God. Your statement is equivalent to:
4) â–¡ (∃y My -> ∃x Gx) = Necessarily, if there is an absolute morality then there is a God.
And there is no way of inferring this from (2). (2) as it stands merely says that in the actual world, if there is a God then there is an absolute morality. Suppose we strengthen this to:
5) â–¡ (∃x Gx -> ∃y My) = necessarily, if there is an object with the property of being God then there is an object with the property of being (absolute) morality.
An alternative statement of (5) is that in all possible worlds which have a God there is an absolute morality. I think that we might disagree with this statement, but I'll leave that for now. The important point is that you cannot get between (5) and (3) or (4). That claim would rely on a logical fallacy called asserting the consequent. So your problem is that you can't get to the big claim, that if there is no God then there is no absolute morality, from the plausible one that if there is a God then there is an absolute morality. I think that you are expecting this to follow somehow but it doesn't. What your full claim is is something along the lines of:
6) â–¡ (∃x Gx <-> ∃y My) = necessarily, If and only if God exists then morality exists.
In other words there is no possible world where God exists and absolute morality does not and there is no possible world where absolute morality exists and God does not. But you see for an atheist who believes in some form of natural rights theory then God does not exist and absolute morality does. I do not think you can find an internal problem with that position, so I think that there is a possible world (you'd have to show it's was inconsistent in some way to rule out this possible world) where morality exists and God does not. This means that strong versions of the claim (4) cannot be correct.
What is entirely plausible is the following set of statements:
7a) â—‡ ∃x Gx = Possibly there is a God = There are possible worlds where God exists.
7b) â—‡ (∃x Gx -> ∃y My) = Possibly, if there is a God then there is an absolute morality.
7c) â—‡ (∃y My -> ∃x Gx) = Possibly, if there is an absolute morality then there is a God.
These statements are so weak that I don't think anyone in the forum would disagree with at least 7a and 7b; 7c is a little more dicey. There is a set of possible worlds where there is a God. There are possible worlds where the existence of a God ensures the existence of absolute morality and there are possible worlds where the existence of absolute morality implies the existence of God. The problem for you is that these sets of possible worlds are overlapping but not identical. What is more there are no particular grounds to think that the actual world is in the intersection of all these sets of possible worlds. Especially as 7c seems to me to contain a fairly strong claim about morality having the same ontological status as something like space-time.
Just a final point. Above I used the example of an atheistic natural rights theorist as someone who imagines that the actual world has an absolute morality, at least as far as humans are concerned, but thinks that God does not exist. On the basis of this I claimed that there is a possible world where God does not exist and absolute morality does. Essentially this is a claim about what makes for an acceptable possible world - I'm required that it's imaginable to someone in the actual world and that there is nothing inherently inconsistent about it. There is an is-ought fallacy going on with natural rights theories but that is a potential problem with the claim that atheistic natural rights theory is true of the actual world, as a possible world it's fine. As a stronger requirement one could add the condition that the underlying laws of physics (or divine intervention or whatever makes things happen in a given possible world) produce the correct phenomenology and have more-or-less the same history (in other words physics experiments come out the same, the stars are all in the right places, the dodo is extinct...) - the possible world has to be "like" the actual world.
The basic informal fallacy going on here is that you are making an argument to adverse consequences. If there is no God then [insert adverse consequence]. So you have this accessibility criterion that effectively means that you're trying to insist that the actual world either has all the properties you are committed to or none of them and you are refusing to accept that possible worlds that do not conform to this are internally consistent. If you insist on this then really there are two possible worlds, one where God exists and an absolute morality exists and one where God does not exist and there is no absolute morality. In this subset of possible worlds (6) is true, but in doing this you've begged the question. The upshot of this is that you are confirming LJ's diagnosis regarding the removal of any one part of the foundation causing the entire house to fall down.
Originally posted by KellyJay...so anyone could argue against a universal now too.
I cannot speak for Fetchmyjunk's views on moral absolutes or universal truths, but in my
opinion any truth requires a standard to which to judge with. Without a means to measure
truth across all of the universe how can there be a universal truth, and if there isn't any
means with which to judge without absolutely being wrong how can there be anything
ca ...[text shortened]... hat can
see all there is at all times either so anyone could argue against a universal now too.
There is no universal "now". The paradigm of universal time dropped out of physics over a century ago with the advent of relativity. This is not a problem for most conceptions of God as an entity outside the universe (but with unlimited access) he can see it all at once, so there doesn't need to be a universal now to make the concept of omniscience coherent. I don't think this argument really gets you anywhere.
25 Aug 16
Originally posted by sonshippsycho-analyze much?I'll not be offended if you're not inclined to read through my post. I'm not often inclined to read through some of yours, either (you know, a whole lot of biblical dust in a show of dogmatic fireworks, if fireworks were really, really, profoundly boring) .
I read it and more than once.
OPs are best when they are concise. Yours ...[text shortened]... you hope to accomplish by labeling a belief that God grounds all moral meaning as "hysterical" ?
Geez, I guess people just use "jesus" cause it's the most relevent figure here and in western society . But I could be mistaken...