 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
My last statement is not completely fair, i know, but the extent of 'Faith Posting' has been the admission from some that God is a possibility. hardly representative of a Christian.
|
True. I know this is biased in favour of my argument but I think it's much harder to justify the existence of God using logic (I know I said that logic can be used to justify or refute anything out of context... but firstly I'm speaking from my POV and secondly empirical universe is a context). I might be proved wrong there in due course, but that's where my 2 cents are at. If you accept that God is faith-based then using reason would surely defeat the point?*
If an "atheism = categorically false" proponent were to pop up, presumably he'd disagree completely with my statement and we'd have to argue on definitions before we could proceed.
*What I mean is that if you are comfortable in your faith, in the presence of an opposing argument you don't need to defend your faith for it to have validity, and provided faith doesn't try to make scientific claims, then all the arguments in the world can't touch you.
Last edited by Whaleboy on 04-01-2005 at 07:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
beleiving in god(s) is sort of like beleiving in string theory, there is no scientific reason to or not to (And some very smart peopel beleive in it, and other smart people do not) |
I have always been confused about something.
Science, at its very foundation, relies on naturalism. It assumes things in this universe can be measured. It also assumes something you measure at one instant does not change, this is the basis of repeatability.
On the other hand, at the core of Christianity - at least according to orthodox doctrines - is an infinite being who is omnipotent. Therefore this being can change basic physical constants and other things in this universe as easily as we breathe. If this being exists, science can be tossed out the window, as all measurements we took and will take are going to be ultimately unreliable.
So, how do you reconcile this two fundamentally exclusive positions? I remember I used to ask Rogan Josh about this, but he never gave me a straight answer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:16
|
|
Well, faith in God vs. a presumption of morality, that's tricky. Belief in a God is obedience to what you assume is a real being. Presumption of morality sounds like simply obeying your own inclinations...which isn't "morality" at all. Moral behavior always involves some denial of what you really want to do. You want to flip the bird at the guy who cut you off in traffic, but you don't, because that wouldn't be nice. You want to wolf-whistle at the cheerleader and grab at her butt, but you tell yourself sexual harrassment is wrong. And so on. Basing your actions on obedience to the "program" is risky, because there seem to be a large number of viruses offering contrary instructions, and many times they do an excellent job of impersonating the program itself. I think the phrase is, "letting the fox guard the chicken coop." 
And there are some emotions that are thoroughly illogical. Spite is a big one. So's pride/vanity, which is effectively ego masturbation, rewarding the self for nonexistent accomplishment and distracting from real problems.
I'm not sure about perpetuating my own genes either. I'm aware that it's in the Program, but people have been following the Program for thousands of years and it hasn't solved certain problems. The same can be said of religion, but then I think the negative aspects of the Program have been sabotaging its progress. I bet you're sick of my hijacking that idea already, huh?
I'm not sure we have covered the distinction between faith and religion. I know that there are "personal faiths," e.g. most pagans, but that's just slapping a theistic label on your Program AFAIC. Worshipping what you want to do anyway, bowing down to your own dreams.
And I agree that this thread has been very thought-provoking. And yes, BK's absence has something to do with it. Which is not meant to be a critique of Ben's debate methods so much as an observation that when he joins a debate, the first sign is half a page of long posts, followed by a page and a half of angry rebuttals, and eventually the BK War takes over the whole thread. Then we progress into BK War stage 2, in which someone like UR or GePap gets frustrated and starts telling Ben off, setting off a chain reaction of flames, ad hominems, and tirades about invisible pink unicorns on the moon and primitive superstition yadda yadda yadda. Those damned invisible unicorn comparisons are the bane of all civilized discussion. Grr.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Presumption of morality sounds like simply obeying your own inclinations...which isn't "morality" at all.
|
Presumption of others, and inducing morality because of it, but emotively, you’re right, it’s not morality if you consider morality to be some universal system of rights and wrongs. Note I differentiate ethics and morality while others use the terms interchangeably. Ethics to me as I often say is like defining murder; whereas morality goes on to say that murder is wrong (ethics is not claiming essentialism). By that definition, emotivism is not morality, but if we question the idea of a universal morality, we can see instead that emotivism describes how such a system can come to be… our own emotional reactions.
In the sense that you use it, I broadly concur that science cannot provide us with a moral system akin to faith/religion-based moral systems, but then the very definition of morality would rest upon which of those two notions you accept.
quote:
And there are some emotions that are thoroughly illogical. Spite is a big one. So's pride/vanity, which is effectively ego masturbation, rewarding the self for nonexistent accomplishment and distracting from real problems.
|
Ah I think what you’re doing here is looking at “all we do is in our own self-interest/benefit” and using a familial interpretation of the word benefit. Benefit in this context need not be judged by consequence, indeed, if we all acted in our own self-interests the consequences would certainly not always be pretty. Rather, it is the intent, which is what a logical system like the brain would deal with.
quote:
I'm not sure about perpetuating my own genes either. I'm aware that it's in the Program, but people have been following the Program for thousands of years and it hasn't solved certain problems. The same can be said of religion, but then I think the negative aspects of the Program have been sabotaging its progress. I bet you're sick of my hijacking that idea already, huh?
|
The idea of the program? Well I think the danger is that it’s read as prescriptive, in the sense that I think you apply it to my concepts I mean it descriptively.
quote:
I'm not sure we have covered the distinction between faith and religion. I know that there are "personal faiths," e.g. most pagans, but that's just slapping a theistic label on your Program AFAIC. Worshipping what you want to do anyway, bowing down to your own dreams.
|
Well to me, faith is the relevant part here, since the object of a theist here imo would be to validate faith, validate the existence of God. It’s difficult to go from “God” in the traditional definition and then say “by the way, God = Christianity”. The existence of a plethora of monotheistic religions throughout history would call that notion into doubt. To me, a religion is a social construct, a means of control. Look at the word. Religion comes from Latin religio, which in turn comes from “re legare” or “return to bondage”. I’d call these enormous institutions, these systematic regulations of worship and the scripture and customs that go with it, to be a sociological twisting by men in power throughout history of the human tendency to faith. IMO, faith is the sound component of the argument, especially if one assumes that belief in God = faith.
quote:
Darwinism raises some troubling ethical questions (like accidentally paves the way for Social Darwinism, however obscurely), but it's absurd to say that it must be false because of that.
|
Agreed, indeed the same could be said of many big ideas throughout history. I don’t think you can deduce social Darwinism from evolution though, it’s an implication that rests upon other premises which are debatable, such as what makes a good society and the individuals role in society etc etc.
quote:
Natural selection doesn't select for ethical egoism.
|
I grant that we have instincts for affinity toward other humans but that’s not an end in itself. It’s a means to an egoistic end.
quote:
It does what I want it to do - vaporize the notion that ethical egoism is the only consistent position for the skeptic.
|
Well I’m not sure of that… it’s a good line of reasoning but then I think it’s committing the relativistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy ) which is something one should always be careful of when invoking relativism. For me as a relativist it’s a useful fallacy to be aware of. That the claim is relative and not absolute, allowing for equal validity of other claims out of context doesn’t mean that the claim is invalid or relative in context. Any logical claim rests upon its premises and argument, or the context, and its validity is in virtue of the context, and it is that which is relative. Accept the context and one may proceed unhindered.
Last edited by Whaleboy on 04-01-2005 at 21:18
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bayraven
|
|
WB,
Don't take my complaint as discouraging even the tangential discussions that have happened here. I have learned more about the context of (faith, religion, God) here than in any church based format I’ve been in. When the discussion here gets too far off what I'm reading for, I skip to the next post. I agree that the people posting here are comfortably set in the opinions they espouse, and are not likely to be 'converted' by anything written. But I also believe there are some reading this thread that aren't posting, perhaps less fixed in their opinion and looking for answers to the basic Does God Exist question.
It is for this reason that I bemoan the absence of a qualified spokesperson for the existence of God through Jesus Christ. My real angst is in the revelation that every argument that I can conceive for faith is predicated on a preexisting possession of faith. Without faith to begin with, the things I believe to be tenants are only mantra. For example, Berzerker asked me something like; 'so, those that follow the teachings of Christ without accepting his deity are tortured in hell, while completely rotten people that believe in the resurrection go to heaven, is that the plan?'
Brilliant question! (especially if asked looking for an answer and not just lauding his existing position). Because my understanding already 'exists' in faith, it is clear to me that someone genuinely committed to belief in Christ wouldn't allow themselves to remain 'rotten'. Or, in the context I've learned from reading this thread, Mr. Rotten would begin to use the morality of Christ as the objective point, and wouldn't be satisfied with ethical egoism, which allows for that person to benefit themselves to the detriment of another.
Back to my point, knowing that a true Christian would not want to remain rotten requires a preexisting faith in its own reality, and is unconvincing to a person without faith. To the person without faith, Mr. Rotten IS a Christian and hypocrite as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
Boris, I have never paid much attention to the logic of SD, I never realised it was that different.
Bayraven, I agree it must be difficult. If belief in deity is predicated in faith, I don't think faith is something you can pick up in a debate but then I haven't really made my mind up about whether or not it's a good idea to have a debate on this topic to try to convince people. Ordinarily I say that there are two types of debates, a debate like this one, which is more like a game of chess that is very interesting to those who like the game, or a popular debate designed to recruit, as a marketting tool. On this topic, my gut tells me that if the undecided are looking in, the best bet would be a cross between the two, but I have a personal hostility toward popularism, democracy, public opinion and the marketing that goes along with it.
On the other hand, I agree... For the sake of the debate I wish there was someone who was diametrically opposed to me/the atheist position so that we could have a really good look at each others views. I know that it probably wouldn't work on the off topic without degenerating  .
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
"The Selfish Gene?" |
The Selfish Gene.
The Selfish Gene metaphor captures the fact that genes are selected for their ability to faciliate their own replication. It's genes that are "selfish", not (necessarily) the individuals carrying the genes, whereas ethical egoism as here discussed applies precisely to individuals.
Actually, the Selfish Gene POV offers a very simple explanation of why organism sometimes acts altruistically; by sacrificing themselves, they can improve their genes' chances, and genes causing such behaviour will, of course, be selected for.
Now, some people will say that acting to help the replication of their genes is to act for one's own benefit. This is the age-old practice of redefining the terms so that the linguistic form of your initial statement still stands after its content has been defeated. Individuals (human and non-human) simply do plenty of things that are not to their personal benefit in anything resembling the normal meaning of the word. At the most basic level, putting the welfare of your children before that of your own is in direct contradiction of the basic tenet of ethical egoism, yet it's a behaviour whose causative genes are frequently selected for.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
|
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:16
|
|
I think not. 
quote:
which is something one should always be careful of when invoking relativism. For me as a relativist it’s a useful fallacy to be aware of. That the claim is relative and not absolute, allowing for equal validity of other claims out of context doesn’t mean that the claim is invalid or relative in context. Any logical claim rests upon its premises and argument, or the context, and its validity is in virtue of the context, and it is that which is relative. Accept the context and one may proceed unhindered. |
Yes, I could accept the context and proceed. But the point is precisely that I do not accept the context.
He's basically asking me to accept his conclusion before the debate starts. I have no more reason to accept that than you would have, if you and I were to discuss God's existence, to accept the premise "God exists". Even if my position on ethical egoism, and yours on God's existence, should happen to be wrong, we're under no obligation to accept the charge they're inconsistent just because someone else comes bandying an axiom which, when added to them we accept, renders our positions so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
I think there's a misunderstanding; I pointed it out on the previous page, but you initially said:
quote:
I've come to conclude that I'll never understand the view that ethical egoism is the "logical" choice.
Like every ethical system I've ever ran across, it's founded on an ad hoc assumption; specifcally, that I should strive for my own benefit, and only that.
|
That’s the foundation for your position here, in that this “ad hoc assumption” is relative. However, I think you are presuming that ethical egoism, and the notion of striving only for ones self-interest, is prescriptive. It is not. If it were, you would be absolutely correct and I’d be the first person to concur with you, and indeed it is an astute observation, but an easy misunderstanding. That we strive for our own benefit isn’t saying that we “should”. Indeed, it’s inconsistent with my position to introduce shoulds and shouldn’ts. Rather, it is a description of our actions and motivations. You cannot, in my mind at least, go from that to a prescriptive morality, hence my earlier “Cogito ergo sum -> solipcism -> egoism -> objective moral nihilism”.
My point about the fallacy was an error on my part; I forgot what you had said on the other page and my pointing out the misunderstanding. I was basically saying that stating that a thesis is relative does not necessarily validate the antithesis, true as that may be it was unnecessary here.
quote:
Now, some people will say that acting to help the replication of their genes is to act for one's own benefit. This is the age-old practice of redefining the terms so that the linguistic form of your initial statement still stands after its content has been defeated. Individuals (human and non-human) simply do plenty of things that are not to their personal benefit in anything resembling the normal meaning of the word.
|
Well I agree that it depends on the definition of the term “benefit” but the root of the word is “bene”, stemming from “good”. And good is relative  . I don’t think that the statement selfish gene demonstrates egoism is borne out of some malicious redefinition, it seems a sensible way of using the concept. “Normal meaning of the word”, in the sense of what is popular, is troublesome, since normal meanings are dependent on various things, so it’s always a good idea in these discussions to be able to define ones own terms and what you mean by them, instead we'd be stuck in ambiguity and confusion of how a word is "normally" used. I make the distinction here between benefit as an outsider might view it (consequence) and subjective benefit (intent), which obviously works for subconscious and logic too.
quote:
At the most basic level, putting the welfare of your children before that of your own is in direct contradiction of the basic tenet of ethical egoism, yet it's a behaviour whose causative genes are frequently selected for.
|
There is no tenet of ethical egoism, that implies that it is a moral system with “oughts” and “shoulds”, it is not. Consider that if one did *anything* at all it boils down to self-interest, is incompatible with the notion of a moral system, or compliance to a system with tenets. That we do things for other people, our children, strangers, with no apparent self-benefit does not preclude the idea of egoism and does not support altruism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
|
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:16
|
|
We'd then seem to have different ideas of what "ethical egoism" is. The usage I'm familiar with - which might not be the commonest one; I've never studied philosophy in any formal setting - is precisely the prescriptive one; that one should act for one's own benefit, and only that. Anyway, whether it's the most appropriate term or not, it would seem to be the position Elok was thinking of.
As an example of the attitude he gives this:
quote:
"Create a better world for our children?" Why should I care? I'll be dead. |
It goes without saying that this attitude will not be selected for in the world of the selfish gene.
Regarding the appeal to the everyday meaning of words, yes, it's dangerous, since everyday meanings are often shifting and imprecise, but it's even more dangerous to give words definition that clashes with everyday usage; it's asking to be misunderstood.
Now, if you find it sensible to say that a mother giving her life to save her children is acting egoistically, fine, but you're in the minority. Similarly for if you find it sensible to say that a man who avoids having children so that he can afford more icecream for himself is acting selflessly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
We'd then seem to have different ideas of what "ethical egoism" is. The usage I'm familiar with - which might not be the commonest one; I've never studied philosophy in any formal setting - is precisely the prescriptive one; that one should act for one's own benefit, and only that.
|
Ah that’s ok…. like I said emotivism does not make “ought” statements.
quote:
Anyway, whether it's the most appropriate term or not, it would seem to be the position Elok was thinking of.
"Create a better world for our children?" Why should I care? I'll be dead.
It goes without saying that this attitude will not be selected for in the world of the selfish gene.
|
Assuming it’s a genetic trait, agreed. An example of the difference would be that emotivism/egoism in the proper sense (descriptive) would not be saying “you shouldn’t care”, it is instead analysing the desire to create a better world for our children. It’s consequence may be one of helping other people (and that’s certainly our conscious experience of performing tasks to that end), but that’s obviously not the whole picture, since an action is predicated on the intent, which is by definition self-interested.
quote:
Now, if you find it sensible to say that a mother giving her life to save her children is acting egoistically, fine, but you're in the minority. Similarly for if you find it sensible to say that a man who avoids having children so that he can afford more icecream for himself is acting selflessly.
|
Well I don’t think that majorities or minorities have anything to do with it but…
quote:
Regarding the appeal to the everyday meaning of words, yes, it's dangerous, since everyday meanings are often shifting and imprecise, but it's even more dangerous to give words definition that clashes with everyday usage; it's asking to be misunderstood.
|
Misunderstanding is always a risk and if you can give me a dictionary term for benefit that works better I’d be happy to use it. If you like, treat my usage interchangeably with “advantage” but I don’t think my usage clashes with everyday usage (and “advantage” is also operating on the same subjective notion of “good”. “Benefit” is ambivalent and often undefined, a constituent part of that is my definition with I isolate with an explanation, hence (one hopes) avoiding the risk of misunderstanding.
quote:
if you find it sensible to say that a man who avoids having children so that he can afford more icecream for himself is acting selflessly
|
I’m not sure that’s a fair example since the purpose of egoism here is to show that it’s not comparable and not dualistic to altruism, rather the latter is comprised of the former.
It would probably be more advantageous in this debate whenever someone mentions egoism (and it's ethical description) one assumes the proper, descriptive sense. I don't like the term "ethical egoism" since it implies prescription, and I've done my best to avoid using it, I think the term is a misnomer here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
|
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Assuming it’s a genetic trait, agreed. |
If it's not genetic, it won't be selected for either, on account of NS only working on genetic traits.
quote:
Well I don’t think that majorities or minorities have anything to do with it but… |
It relates to the risk of misunderstanding.
quote:
Misunderstanding is always a risk and if you can give me a dictionary term for benefit that works better I’d be happy to use it. |
I don't think one'll find a dictionary definition that's strict - dictionaries, after-all, try their best to capture the sometimes rather nebulous semantic fields that words cover in everyday language - but one might attempt the formulation of a strict defintion that agrees better with everyday usage. The obvious candidate would be identifying "benefit" with maximization of long-time pleasure.
quote:
It would probably be more advantageous in this debate whenever someone mentions egoism (and it's ethical description) one assumes the proper, descriptive sense. I don't like the term "ethical egoism" since it implies prescription, and I've done my best to avoid using it, I think the term is a misnomer here. |
But I want a term that imples prescription. I am, after all, talking about prescriptive ethics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
I don't think one'll find a dictionary definition that's strict - dictionaries, after-all, try their best to capture the sometimes rather nebulous semantic fields that words cover in everyday language - but one might attempt the formulation of a strict defintion that agrees better with everyday usage. The obvious candidate would be identifying "benefit" with maximization of long-time pleasure.
|
In my experience this is why dictionaries give multiple definitions. Remember that words are contextual too. Certainly "benefit" or "advantage" fits in with this, but if you want to identify it with hedonistic utilitarianism, then you're getting into a big debate there, and I don't think it follows from the term "benefit". You have the debate between intent and consequence, and then different kinds of utilitarianism.... if one person accepted preference utilitarianism and one accepted personal utilitarianism, another yours... then you have a massive difference there.
quote:
But I want a term that imples prescription. I am, after all, talking about prescriptive ethics.
|
You won't find it with egoism, since to prescribe with egoism implies the presence of altruism, which egoism holds as self-beneficial so it's a contradictary argument. To closest I can give you is a categorical (Kantian argument), if you imply the existence of the other people, on top of that you can further imply "do unto others as you would have done yourself". It's not watertight, but it's the closest to prescriptive ethics you're going to get from this, remember obj. moral nihilism denies such prescription.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bayraven
|
|
Edit- full representation of quote
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Ordinarily I say that there are two types of debates, a debate like this one, which is more like a game of chess that is very interesting to those who like the game, or a popular debate designed to recruit, as a marketting tool. On this topic, my gut tells me that if the undecided are looking in, the best bet would be a cross between the two, but I have a personal hostility toward popularism, democracy, public opinion and the marketing that goes along with it.
|
Would you say the Russell debates were more of the chess game type for his own amusement, or the proposition of a idea for public consumption?
If the latter, I can assume the hostility applies?
Last edited by bayraven on 05-01-2005 at 09:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bayraven
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I don't see why not. Jefferson did it, after all. Buddhists don't believe Buddha was a god, either. Being an "ist" or "ian" denotes being a follower, not necessarily a worshipper, IMO.
|
The tenants of Buddhism do not proscribe him as deity. The NT makes it clear the Jesus was God. The comparison is apples and pomegranates. If a previous president were to have pronounced belief in say, Hinduism, we would not reconsider that religion based on his permutations.
quote:
So by all means, folks who want to follow the example of Jesus that's described in the Bible should be allowed to call themselves Christian, whether they believe in his divinity or not.
|
I think all Hebrews should profess belief in Jesus as the messiah, but that doesn’t change the tenants of their religion.
quote:
Maybe if more people did that instead of just worshipping him in name only, there would be a lot less of those horrible things you mentioned in the world.
|
I can agree the world would be a better place if more people would follow the example of Jesus’ life. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-01-2005 07:03
|