Killing the Devil inside of me, with the help of Descartes?

[2PhiloVoid]

Historically, during times of profound transition and spiritual confusion, mysticism tends to be more common. People seek out direct experiences when authorities collapse.

I've come to realize in the past year I have a profound dissatisfaction with the world- one that mainstream Christianity, at least as it exists in the US where I am at, can't seem to remedy, so consequently I have recently switched gears in my spiritual life, and am approaching this issue by engaging with the Social Gospel tradition and Engaged Buddhism, as well a reading about historical Jesus scholarship.

Good to see you again, FD76! You say you've switched gears theologically and this is enabling you to tackle the focal points of my OP? In which ways? It almost seems like you're following suite in with one of my favorite theologians, Langdon Gilkey, but I'm sure you have your own angle on it all. Feel free to share more if you want to ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It was suggested elsewhere that God is not interested in saving everyone, but rather a select few of a certain disposition. It was then suggested that by making arguments for God's existence that people not of that disposition were sure to reject, one was actually doing God's work by pushing the "wrong" people away from Christianity. But this would seem to be in line with the Devil's goals, assuming that he, too, wants to dissuade people from Christianity. It's also directly in conflict with the intent of Pascal's wager, which speaks directly to people who are so made that they cannot be persuaded of God's existence, offering them a way that they might still be saved.

If you truly believe there's a God and a Devil battling for souls, it should be a very real concern to you that the Devil might be tricking you into doing his work when you find that God's directives align with the Devil's.


The simulation theory line? I usually see it in response to cosmological arguments which attempt to jump from "the universe had a beginning" directly to "that beginning must be God." Simulation theory is as good a candidate explanation as any for the beginning of the universe.

Y'know, I can't really digest this "simulation theory" stuff. I guess I'll have to break down and read Nick Bostrom's paper that seems to take this to another level beyond the Brain-In-A-Vat of the previous decades. In the meantime, I'm just putting the following out there for some of us to hear and ponder:

 

[FireDragon76]

Good to see you again, FD76! You say you've switched gears theologically and this is enabling you to tackle the focal points of my OP? In which ways? It almost seems like you're following suite in with one of my favorite theologians, Langdon Gilkey, but I'm sure you have your own angle on it all. Feel free to share more if you want to ...

I had to look him up on wikipedia as I'd never heard of him. I'll have to do more reading about him, thanks. I particularly find this quote interesting:

"The question for our age," he once wrote, "may well become, not will religion survive, as much as will we survive and with what sort of religion, a creative or demonic one?"[1]

Wow... sound prophetic.

I've just come to realize there are issues in the world that are bigger than my instinctive aversion to liberal theology and that perhaps Christianity alone, at least as it exists in my own context, does not have the tools to deal with them. In a world in chaos with global existential threats, I'm not sure evangelicalism's parochialism really fits in with Jesus notion of agape- Christianity's values are not necessarily Jesus'/ God's values. I also miss the sense of inner peace and integrity I used to experience years ago when I was an eclectic Buddhist (the reason I returned to Christianity as a young 30-something was basically two things - I believed in Jesus resurrection and in light of William James' pragmatic arguments for belief, I saw Christianity as a more obvious spiritual path).

 

[Moral Orel]

... ok. Do likewise for me as well, Nick, since I'm not an advocate of Intelligent Design, nor do I assume that we're spirits in bodies!

Okay, my bad on the spirit thing. I honestly thought that was a staple of Christianity. You think we might be just meat?
And I know that you aren't an advocate of ID, but God had to design physical reality in order to create it, didn't He? I'm assuming God must have created what "seeing" is, for example. Why am I wrong there?

What elements are you implying? Personally, without your divulging of the very concepts you hold in your mind about what constitutes elements of a Matrix (or Brain-In-A-Vat), I have little to no idea. But I'd surmise that they'd be something along the line of those which philosopher Hillary Putnam thinks you're implying, the kind that rely upon "magical theories of reference."

That's the part that confuses me. I asked if you believed there was a being capable of deceiving us like that, and you said yes, but when I asked how you know that being doesn't want to, you point me to someone arguing that it's impossible to deceive us like that.

My Hermeneutical Movie Evaluation: Dark Phoenix is better than Captain Marvel ... so there, liberal critics! Take that!

I sure hope so. I won't see Dark Phoenix till it hits DVD/streaming, but I hated Captain Marvel. I hated Black Panther too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I had to look him up on wikipedia as I'd never heard of him. I'll have to do more reading about him, thanks. I particularly find this quote interesting:

"The question for our age," he once wrote, "may well become, not will religion survive, as much as will we survive and with what sort of religion, a creative or demonic one?"[1]

Yeah, that sounds like him. He was a student of Paul Tillich, so he's very philosophical and thoughtful in his approach to theology.

Wow... sound prophetic.

I've just come to realize there are issues in the world that are bigger than my instinctive aversion to liberal theology and that perhaps Christianity alone, at least as it exists in my own context, does not have the tools to deal with them. In a world in chaos with global existential threats, I'm not sure evangelicalism's parochialism really fits in with Jesus notion of agape- Christianity's values are not necessarily Jesus'/ God's values. I also miss the sense of inner peace and integrity I used to experience years ago when I was an eclectic Buddhist (the reason I returned to Christianity as a young 30-something was basically two things - I believed in Jesus resurrection and in light of William James' pragmatic arguments for belief, I saw Christianity as a more obvious spiritual path).

I don't think that being a Christian, nor having the Bible in one's hands, necessarily 'equips' any Christian with the tools to deal with the world. No, those tools come by God's Spirit in development among His body, the Church of Christ (i.e. Christians of all denominations who hold to Trinitarian doctrine and the Principle of God's love for humanity in Christ). Of course, you know this already, but my point is that the preparatory tools include the Bible, obviously, but they also transcend and exist socially and spiritually outside just the Bible alone.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, my bad on the spirit thing. I honestly thought that was a staple of Christianity. You think we might be just meat?

No, I don't think we're 'just' meat. There is another Jewish notion that we don't have souls, but that we 'are' souls, that our soul, spirit, and body are "one" in integral fusion, not separate bits that have been put together like Lego pieces.

And I know that you aren't an advocate of ID, but God had to design physical reality in order to create it, didn't He? I'm assuming God must have created what "seeing" is, for example. Why am I wrong there?

Of course, as a Christian I can semantically use the term "believe" when I say I 'believe' that our universe IS God's handiwork. But to use this term doesn't by necessity denote a singular reference or connotation as to how and why I believe that idea. My affirmation of the idea may come rather as an extension from a complex of what I Subjectively see as coherent, even if not systematically structured, theology involving the Christian idea(s) of Revelation. I'm not looking for physical structures in the universe to back this idea, and even when I DO look at the physical structures of our universe, it isn't to 'see' in some direct, empirical fashion the seeming fingerprints of God, but rather to be confronted by the aesthetically and existential impression enormity of its Glory. (As I've noted to another poster here several months back, think the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, or the movie Gravity for the general conceptual typology I'm attempting to infer but can't really directly demonstrate.) As for the physical, as a Methodological Naturalist, I just leave the grandeur of the scientific study of the universe to our various experts, specialists, and scientists...

That's the part that confuses me. I asked if you believed there was a being capable of deceiving us like that, and you said yes, but when I asked how you know that being doesn't want to, you point me to someone arguing that it's impossible to deceive us like that.

That's because my answer, reflecting some of the things that Descartes expressed in his Meditations, was actually referring to God Himself, not the Devil nor an evil demon god or Malevolent Matrix Architect.

So, as I see it, my answers were accurate: God is capable (the only one, really who can) of deceiving us in a totalistic way; and through the filter of having applied Philosophical Hermeneutics rather than just playing with concepts and words by way of semantic sophistry or "magical theories of reference," I also understand that God does not wish to deceive us in that way, even IF as a course of judgement against those who hold out against Him in the long run of Apocalyptic transgression, He may allow the Devil to run the course against (and through) much of humanity.

On a practical, linguistic scale, I also accord with Hillary Putnam's analytic assessment, as well as Descartes final resolution, Pascal's deliberation, Kierkegaard's existential choice to move beyond the aesthetic, the intepretive measures of Philosophical Hermeneuticists in their Critical Realism and thereby reject the seeming claimed cogency of any Brain-In-A-Vat scenarios along with any and all evil god scenarios.

I sure hope so. I won't see Dark Phoenix till it hits DVD/streaming, but I hated Captain Marvel. I hated Black Panther too.

... just don't expect Dark Phoenix to be 'the Avengers: Infinity War/Endgame,' it is somewhat parred down from that scale, even though the original story from the comic books in the early 80's was essentially on a par with that level of story. If anything, Dark Phoenix has a cool soundtrack ...

...the interesting thing about the Dark Phoenix story is that it does kind of tie into my OP; so, what do we do if we're influenced against our will to see the world in a cynical way, or make certain negative decisions and/or destructive choices, one way or another, from both the outside, and the inside, of our minds?

 

[FireDragon76]

Yeah, that sounds like him. He was a student of Paul Tillich, so he's very philosophical and thoughtful in his approach to theology.

It sounds like similar intuitions I have had- that the doctrine of the fall does not derive from history, but from human experience. I'm sure he was simply echoing other Neo-Orthodox theologians.

The doctrine of creation is definitely a weak spot for Christianity, and I think he zeroed in on that vulnerability that might not be immediately obvious. In some ways it sounds like Gilckey had a Christian religious ethos that was moving similar to Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism, which was really a Hindu religious response to Buddhism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It sounds like similar intuitions I have had- that the doctrine of the fall does not derive from history, but from human experience. I'm sure he was simply echoing other Neo-Orthodox theologians.

Yes, that's more or less his position, but I'm sure that his experiences in China, both just before.....and during....the 2nd World War had something to do with his later developing thought and dialogue with Eastern thought. (He was a P.O.W.)

The doctrine of creation is definitely a weak spot for Christianity, and I think he zeroed in on that vulnerability that might not be immediately obvious. In some ways it sounds like Gilckey had a Christian religious ethos that was moving similar to Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism, which was really a Hindu religious response to Buddhism.

Besides his flirtation with Eastern thought, Gilkey was also a voice in working to resolve the philosophical (and legal) tension between Science and Religion, and out of those syntheses, he moved along as a committed humanitarian Christian, even if not in line with mainstream U.S. evangelicalism.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, I don't think we're 'just' meat. There is another Jewish notion that we don't have souls, but that we 'are' souls, that our soul, spirit, and body are "one" in integral fusion, not separate bits that have been put together like Lego pieces.

I'm thinking about how you good folks are going to get new bodies after the end of the world. I always assumed that meant a soul/spirit transplant.

Of course, as a Christian I can semantically use the term "believe" when I say I 'believe' that our universe IS God's handiwork. But to use this term doesn't by necessity denote a singular reference or connotation as to how and why I believe that idea. My affirmation of the idea may come rather as an extension from a complex of what I Subjectively see as coherent, even if not systematically structured, theology involving the Christian idea(s) of Revelation. I'm not looking for physical structures in the universe to back this idea, and even when I DO look at the physical structures of our universe, it isn't to 'see' in some direct, empirical fashion the seeming fingerprints of God, but rather to be confronted by the aesthetically and existential impression enormity of its Glory. (As I've noted to another poster here several months back, think the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, or the movie Gravity for the general conceptual typology I'm attempting to infer but can't really directly demonstrate.) As for the physical, as a Methodological Naturalist, I just leave the grandeur of the scientific study of the universe to our various experts, specialists, and scientists...

My questions aren't about finding evidence for God in physical reality, just the conclusion that He must have designed how it works because it didn't exist without Him creating it. Without God creating our universe things like space and time didn't exist. So He must have designed those things. Those things needed to be designed. How He caused them to be, and whether we can see evidence that Goddidit aren't the issue, just that they wouldn't exist without being designed and created by God.

That's because my answer, reflecting some of the things that Descartes expressed in his Meditations, was actually referring to God Himself, not the Devil nor an evil demon god or Malevolent Matrix Architect.

I know. I think that you think that my invoking the matrix as an analogy automatically brings with it a less than perfectly good person behind the controls. That's not the case.

So, as I see it, my answers were accurate: God is capable (the only one, really who can) of deceiving us in a totalistic way; and through the filter of having applied Philosophical Hermeneutics rather than just playing with concepts and words by way of semantic sophistry or "magical theories of reference," I also understand that God does not wish to deceive us in that way, even IF as a course of judgement against those who hold out against Him in the long run of Apocalyptic transgression, He may allow the Devil to run the course against (and through) much of humanity.

On a practical, linguistic scale, I also accord with Hillary Putnam's analytic assessment, as well as Descartes final resolution, Pascal's deliberation, Kierkegaard's existential choice to move beyond the aesthetic, the intepretive measures of Philosophical Hermeneuticists in their Critical Realism and thereby reject the seeming claimed cogency of any Brain-In-A-Vat scenarios along with any and all evil god scenarios.

I still see these as contradictory. If God is capable of implementing reality via brains-in-vats perceiving a physical world outside of themselves, then Putnam's wrong. Or God can do logically impossible things.

... just don't expect Dark Phoenix to be 'the Avengers: Infinity War/Endgame,' it is somewhat parred down from that scale, even though the original story from the comic books in the early 80's was essentially on a par with that level of story. If anything, Dark Phoenix has a cool soundtrack ...

Good. I think the MEU has been suffering from power-creep for a long time and I'm getting sick of it. Conversely, I was disappointed with what a wimp they made Apocalypse, so really I'm more excited to see New Mutants for an original story outside of the running story that's been going with the X-Men gang.

...the interesting thing about the Dark Phoenix story is that it does kind of tie into my OP; so, what do we do if we're influenced against our will to see the world in a cynical way, or make certain negative decisions and/or destructive choices, one way or another, from both the outside, and the inside, of our minds?

*shrug* I think it depends on the extent whether there's anything that can realistically be done. Do you think that on an individual scale, He allows the devil to deceive totally?

 

[Moral Orel]

For the purpose of Pascal's Wager, I don't find this line of thought at all convincing. As soon as we've posited a God operating under orange and blue morality, who will punish people for not adhering to some arbitrary standard, then we have entered evil God territory. If it punishes you for worship, then it's effectively condemning you for what is really a positive aspect of human life that a lot of people find ultimately meaningful. That means it's out to get us, and good luck playing its game. If it doesn't punish worship but is indifferent to it, then there's no danger inherent in worshipping it.

I do find any option besides a good God and an existentially evil God to be hopelessly anthropomorphic, though. That is moving beyond Pascal's Wager and getting into the convertibility of the transcendentals--if God is conceived as Being Itself, then Being can be identified as an ultimate good or an ultimate evil, but having all sorts of bizarre arbitrary desires and motivations just comes across as silly.

Maybe the really real God is more human than you think and our attempts to avoid anthropomorphizing are moving in the wrong direction. Maybe she doesn't care about worship or people even acknowledging her existence while they exist on Earth, she just wants to find other like minded individuals who happen to share her values without getting her influence mixed into their decision making process. And of course, smiting those who disagree with her values because clearly her values are just the bee's knees.

The problem is to first address what we would call a "god". Does it have to be "Being Itself" or do you also need to weigh in any possible scenario that involves a being capable of granting you eternal bliss or eternal misery? Because the power to do that isn't intrinsically linked with being the creator of the cosmos.

That said, there are reasons that Pascal's Wager only works if theism is a live option for you, and I think we're getting into them a bit. An atheist tends to see all concepts as equally ridiculous, but if there's one in particular that someone finds logical and possible, then you can't really toss out infinite concepts that they don't accept either as counters to the Wager.

They would need to really think about why they don't accept those infinite concepts, though. Is it because they're illogical and impossible, or do they just find one to be logical and possible because they find it the most appealing emotionally?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm thinking about how you good folks are going to get new bodies after the end of the world. I always assumed that meant a soul/spirit transplant.

... of course, it would have been nice if God had included at least a brief, technical pamphlet about exactly 'how' He is going to reconstitute our very beings as individual, material entities without, at the same time, losing our individual identities. But, He didn't include it, so I'm not willing to waste time trying to figure it out. It will either happen at some time in the future, or it won't. ....oh my, Pascal has arrived! Great! Everyone, place your bets!

My questions aren't about finding evidence for God in physical reality, just the conclusion that He must have designed how it works because it didn't exist without Him creating it. Without God creating our universe things like space and time didn't exist. So He must have designed those things. Those things needed to be designed. How He caused them to be, and whether we can see evidence that Goddidit aren't the issue, just that they wouldn't exist without being designed and created by God.

The problem, as we might pull a further insinuation from what I've just said above, is that while I can conceptually hold a 'belief' that God-did-it, this isn't to say that I 'mean' the same thing by that term as does one of my more Fundamentalistic brethren. There are deeper semantics and even semiotics involved conceptually with all of this, some of which can't be dug into, much to our scientific chagrin. As for such-and-such entities of the universe needing to be "designed" or "created," I'm not sure to what extent these two terms are actually in intercourse with each other to fill in a required understanding of 'how' God may have set various causative factors into motion and thereby arriving at "us." I'm not sure 'design' is the right word we're looking for ...

I know. I think that you think that my invoking the matrix as an analogy automatically brings with it a less than perfectly good person behind the controls. That's not the case.

You'll have to argue with Descartes about that, among many others, not the least of which will be various Jewish and Gentile theologians.

I still see these as contradictory. If God is capable of implementing reality via brains-in-vats perceiving a physical world outside of themselves, then Putnam's wrong. Or God can do logically impossible things.

Of course you do, but keep in mind, it might also be inconsistent (and I know you don't want to be cited as being inconsistent) by concluding what you're concluding without having actually read and deliberated over the discussions and arguments that are multiply supplied by the SEVERAL names alone that I've provided, and not just that of Putnam (who wasn't a Christian by the way, but an analytical Jewish philosopher of science, math, mind, language, and some computer science). So, that's fine if you 'feel' you have to disagree, but I'd suggest that for the sake of more cogency, you don't just jump to conclusions blithely without having first engaged some of the various philosophers on these matters. I wouldn't just toss Putnam (or many others) to the side like a rag-doll just because they might not simply hold your interest at the moment. As intelligent as you are, Nick, I'd think you'd actually try to read some of them and then critique ... but I could be wrong. Anyway, it's a free country, you do what you feel you want to do.

Hilary Putnam (1926-2016): A Philosopher of Science's Late-Life Return to His Native Judaism | The University of Chicago Divinity School

Good. I think the MEU has been suffering from power-creep for a long time and I'm getting sick of it. Conversely, I was disappointed with what a wimp they made Apocalypse, so really I'm more excited to see New Mutants for an original story outside of the running story that's been going with the X-Men gang.

I thought the X-men: Apocalypse movie could have been better; but fortunately, Apocalypse as a new villain in MCU came just about the time, or after, I had stopped collecting comics for a while as a kid, so I didn't get any large emotional dosage from that story line like I did when I was 11 with the Dark Phoenix Saga.

*shrug* I think it depends on the extent whether there's anything that can realistically be done. Do you think that on an individual scale, He allows the devil to deceive totally?

No, I think God allows deception from the Devil to the level that we'd each secretly harbor emotional investments in believing that "all that kind of biblical stuff" just couldn't be true. The more intense we are about it, the more God allows for the dial on our level of belief/disbelief ratio to be turned ... down. I could be wrong epistemologically about all of that, but at the present time, that's basically how I see it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Of course you do, but keep in mind, it might also be inconsistent (and I know you don't want to be cited as being inconsistent) by concluding what you're concluding without having actually read and deliberated over the discussions and arguments that are multiply supplied by the SEVERAL names alone that I've provided, and not just that of Putnam (who wasn't a Christian by the way, but an analytical Jewish philosopher of science, math, mind, language, and some computer science). So, that's fine if you 'feel' you have to disagree, but I'd suggest that for the sake of more cogency, you don't just jump to conclusions blithely without having first engaged some of the various philosophers on these matters. I wouldn't just toss Putnam (or many others) to the side like a rag-doll just because they might not simply hold your interest at the moment. As intelligent as you are, Nick, I'd think you'd actually try to read some of them and then critique ... but I could be wrong. Anyway, it's a free country, you do what you feel you want to do.

Hilary Putnam (1926-2016): A Philosopher of Science's Late-Life Return to His Native Judaism | The University of Chicago Divinity School

Who said I didn't read this?
https://marksprevak.com/pdf/paper/SprevakMcLeish---Magic Semantics and Putnam.pdf

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Who said I didn't read this?
https://marksprevak.com/pdf/paper/SprevakMcLeish---Magic Semantics and Putnam.pdf

...that's a good start, and it looks like an interesting read. I'm not sure it'll quash my view on things, but at least you're in the kitchen actually cooking now! I was wondering when you finally get around to looking something up. (So, let me read it, too, and I'll get back to you on it.)

 

[Silmarien]

Maybe the really real God is more human than you think and our attempts to avoid anthropomorphizing are moving in the wrong direction. Maybe she doesn't care about worship or people even acknowledging her existence while they exist on Earth, she just wants to find other like minded individuals who happen to share her values without getting her influence mixed into their decision making process. And of course, smiting those who disagree with her values because clearly her values are just the bee's knees.

The problem is to first address what we would call a "god". Does it have to be "Being Itself" or do you also need to weigh in any possible scenario that involves a being capable of granting you eternal bliss or eternal misery? Because the power to do that isn't intrinsically linked with being the creator of the cosmos.

This is really the equivalent of saying that maybe there's a teacup in orbit somewhere between Earth and Mars, or an invisible pink unicorn. There's no reason to accept any conception of God simply because someone proposes it as a possibility with no justification whatsoever. So no, I don't see any need to weigh in possible scenarios unless a compelling reason to do so is presented as well.

They would need to really think about why they don't accept those infinite concepts, though. Is it because they're illogical and impossible, or do they just find one to be logical and possible because they find it the most appealing emotionally?

I don't think so, actually. My whole point was that you don't need to accept infinite concepts as equally relevant. I've already stated why you don't have to factor in any of the evil God concepts, which would encompass any of the ones who are playing games and would smite you for arbitrary reasons. That leaves the indifferent ones, who are irrelevant to the question, and the ones who are thought to provide ultimate meaning to human existence. It's only the latter group that really matter, so anything else can be safely discarded.

At that point, you can certainly justify going with whatever is most emotionally appealing and/or existentially meaningful on Pascalian grounds. Why should a person be crippled by indecision concerning multiple concepts when there is only one that speaks to them at a deeper level and would provide a meaningful framework for their life? Isn't there something inauthentic about refusing whatever is calling out to you simply because you don't want to make a decision? Isn't that a sort of self-negation in its own right?

 

[Moral Orel]

...that's a good start, and it looks like an interesting read. I'm not sure it'll quash my view on things, but at least you're in the kitchen actually cooking now! I was wondering when you finally get around to looking something up. (So, let me read it, too, and I'll get back to you on it.)

I looked it up as soon as you mentioned "magical theories of reference". I wouldn't have been talking about what Putnam said without looking up what Putnam said.

Can you just be uncharacteristically direct with me for a moment? You don't think I'm fit to have a conversation with you on this until after I've read at least ten more books, do you? The only conversation you're interested in having is with folks that have already engrossed themselves in philosophy like yourself, and for the rest of us you're just hoping you'll inspire us to go do a bunch of reading, right? After all the times you've told me to "take my objections up with such-and-such philosopher", or "that sort of thing was already explored by so-and-so", without actually just telling me what the objection is, I think I'm getting a read on you. Which is fine. There are some kinds of conversations I don't like so I avoid them too. I'm just asking you to be more open about it when you're dismissive.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I looked it up as soon as you mentioned "magical theories of reference". I wouldn't have been talking about what Putnam said without looking up what Putnam said.

... that's great if you did, but there's not sure fire way I could have known you did.

Can you just be uncharacteristically direct with me for a moment? You don't think I'm fit to have a conversation with you on this until after I've read at least ten more books, do you? The only conversation you're interested in having is with folks that have already engrossed themselves in philosophy like yourself, and for the rest of us you're just hoping you'll inspire us to go do a bunch of reading, right? After all the times you've told me to "take my objections up with such-and-such philosopher", or "that sort of thing was already explored by so-and-so", without actually just telling me what the objection is, I think I'm getting a read on you. Which is fine. There are some kinds of conversations I don't like so I avoid them too. I'm just asking you to be more open about it when you're dismissive.

Let's face it, Nick, the reputation of the typical Web Forum poster isn't one that usually reflects a deeper, more thoughtful, more academically informed approach to studying anything that might amount to a conceptual hill of beans, so I don't take it for granted that anyone else--6 times out of 10---just simply "understands" all of what I may be saying so, I'm usually nudging others to dig deeper. Of course, I know that with you there are often exceptions, such as when we discussed that issue about Rape in the Bible and in some relation to the Talmuds a few years ago, and I thought you did great with that discussion. I even learned quite a bit in the process. But regardless of that, the casualness with which many if not most forum interlocutors toss out answers make be suspect that they aren't quite getting the conceptual contours of the discussion... and unlike many, I like to see some evidence that they aren't just belching forth their latest and greatest emotively driven opinion.

So, my apologies if you feel like I've underestimated you. But the truth is, I think you're a fairly formidable discussion partner when you put your mind to it and especially if it's on a subject (legal stuff?) that you care about. I'm sorry if you feel that you're being shuffled around like a 6-week old puppy.

Just keep in mind that I don't take it very seriously when some folks here just blithely say, "I disagree for such and such generic reason," and then refuse to admit when it's not their own objection they've articulated. When I see that kind of thing, I just remember back to my college days when the professors pounded into my little brain something called that 'Plagiarism.' Maybe I shouldn't have taken them seriously. Maybe I should have graduated and done a brain dump so I could just go on a web-site and claim any dandy thing I want to if it seems like the words will roll off my fingers while I'm typing. Unfortunately, in all honestly and directness, I guess I'm drain-bramaged from all of the pounding I received about proper protocols of thought and providing at least minimal citations when I reference someone's else's [professional] ideas.........

Anyway, I'm still reading the article you've kindly provided, and it is giving me some pause for reassessment on Putnam's argument. Thank you for that!

 

[Moral Orel]

... that's great if you did, but there's not sure fire way I could have known you did.

I dunno, you could ask before you assume I'm the sort of bloke who wouldn't ever bother.

Let's face it, Nick, the reputation of the typical Web Forum poster isn't one that usually reflects a deeper, more thoughtful, more academically informed approach to studying anything that might amount to a conceptual hill of beans, so I don't take it for granted that anyone else--6 times out of 10---just simply "understands" all of what I may be saying so, I'm usually nudging others to dig deeper. Of course, I know that with you there are often exceptions, such as when we discussed that issue about Rape in the Bible and in some relation to the Talmuds a few years ago, and I thought you did great with that discussion. I even learned quite a bit in the process. But regardless of that, the casualness with which many if not most forum interlocutors toss out answers make be suspect that they aren't quite getting the conceptual contours of the discussion... and unlike many, I like to see some evidence that they aren't just belching forth their latest and greatest emotively driven opinion.

So, my apologies if you feel like I've underestimated you. But the truth is, I think you're a fairly formidable discussion partner when you put your mind to it and especially if it's on a subject (legal stuff?) that you care about. I'm sorry if you feel that you're being shuffled around like a 6-week old puppy.

Just keep in mind that I don't take it very seriously when some folks here just blithely say, "I disagree for such and such generic reason," and then refuse to admit when it's not their own objection they've articulated. When I see that kind of thing, I just remember back to my college days when the professors pounded into my little brain something called that 'Plagiarism.' Maybe I shouldn't have taken them seriously. Maybe I should have graduated and done a brain dump so I could just go on a web-site and claim any dandy thing I want to if it seems like the words will roll off my fingers while I'm typing. Unfortunately, in all honestly and directness, I guess I'm drain-bramaged from all of the pounding I received about proper protocols of thought and providing at least minimal citations when I reference someone's else's [professional] ideas.........

Anyway, I'm still reading the article you've kindly provided, and it is giving me some pause for reassessment on Putnam's argument. Thank you for that!

I don't care if you underestimate me, I don't care if you insult me. I just want you to tell me whether you're going to bother to engage me or not. I've seen folks accuse you philosophy types of being pretentious for all the name-dropping that you do. That isn't the issue I take with it. It's great if you cite your sources when you're making an argument. The problem I have is that you don't really offer anything other than the bibliography. If you want to tell me that Descartes or whomever says my ideas are wrong, then tell me what they have to say about it. If you think engaging at that level is beneath you, just say so. It's fine, really, I'm not mad. But I feel like I'm wasting both of our time trying to have a conversation if all I'm going to get back is, "Go read a book".

 

[Moral Orel]

This is really the equivalent of saying that maybe there's a teacup in orbit somewhere between Earth and Mars, or an invisible pink unicorn. There's no reason to accept any conception of God simply because someone proposes it as a possibility with no justification whatsoever. So no, I don't see any need to weigh in possible scenarios unless a compelling reason to do so is presented as well.

Let's say you're a god and you like reading books, and you want humans to like reading books. You could tell humans, "Go, and read books!". Some will because they like reading books, and some will because you told them to. Some of those folks that read books because you told them to might have read books all on their own, but they only like books because you like books. If you don't engage the filthy humans at all, and just sit back and wait to see who likes books and who doesn't, you'll only find folks reading books for the genuine love of books, which is what you want. There's plenty of potential good reasons for a god to remain hidden and still expect humans to share her values.

At that point, you can certainly justify going with whatever is most emotionally appealing and/or existentially meaningful on Pascalian grounds. Why should a person be crippled by indecision concerning multiple concepts when there is only one that speaks to them at a deeper level and would provide a meaningful framework for their life? Isn't there something inauthentic about refusing whatever is calling out to you simply because you don't want to make a decision? Isn't that a sort of self-negation in its own right?

Absolutely! That's exactly my point. No one is ever going to prove logically that the concept of God they have is the only logical possibility; no one is ever going to prove that their God holds the values they think He does, so no one is ever going to know what they should be striving for. The only sure fire way to win something in Pascal's Wager is to do what you find fulfilling and meaningful now, not to guess what is going to be fulfilling and meaningful beyond the point that you know next to nothing about (death). Of course, guessing blindly can be fulfilling and meaningful to some, so have at it!

 

[Silmarien]

Let's say you're a god and you like reading books, and you want humans to like reading books. You could tell humans, "Go, and read books!". Some will because they like reading books, and some will because you told them to. Some of those folks that read books because you told them to might have read books all on their own, but they only like books because you like books. If you don't engage the filthy humans at all, and just sit back and wait to see who likes books and who doesn't, you'll only find folks reading books for the genuine love of books, which is what you want. There's plenty of potential good reasons for a god to remain hidden and still expect humans to share her values.

I'm a classical theist, Nicholas. I only accept the existence of a God that can be identified with Being Itself, and everything else is a category error. This means that the very concept of a god who possesses values in the same way that humans do is basically so much nonsense to me, in the same way that it would be to an atheist.

I'm invoking Russell's Teapot in all seriousness here. If you want me to take an anthropomorphic god seriously, you need to offer compelling grounds to assume one exists. Which basically means you need to convert yourself to this form of theism.

Absolutely! That's exactly my point. No one is ever going to prove logically that the concept of God they have is the only logical possibility; no one is ever going to prove that their God holds the values they think He does, so no one is ever going to know what they should be striving for. The only sure fire way to win something in Pascal's Wager is to do what you find fulfilling and meaningful now, not to guess what is going to be fulfilling and meaningful beyond the point that you know next to nothing about (death). Of course, guessing blindly can be fulfilling and meaningful to some, so have at it!

Oh, I disagree with this. Pascal's Wager is always teleological in nature--consider, for example, the atheistic version that @gaara4158 mentioned several pages ago about living morally. If moral values are something intrinsic to reality, then your life is objectively better by adhering to them, and if moral values don't really exist, then you lose nothing.

Pascal's Wager always involves binding yourself to the possibility that some subjective moral or religious imperative is ontologically real. Unless you've decided that whatever you find fulfilling and meaningful in the present has some fundamentally deep existential purpose to it, you're not engaged in a wager. You're just stuck at Carpe Diem.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I dunno, you could ask before you assume I'm the sort of bloke who wouldn't ever bother.

I don't care if you underestimate me, I don't care if you insult me. I just want you to tell me whether you're going to bother to engage me or not. I've seen folks accuse you philosophy types of being pretentious for all the name-dropping that you do. That isn't the issue I take with it. It's great if you cite your sources when you're making an argument. The problem I have is that you don't really offer anything other than the bibliography. If you want to tell me that Descartes or whomever says my ideas are wrong, then tell me what they have to say about it. If you think engaging at that level is beneath you, just say so. It's fine, really, I'm not mad. But I feel like I'm wasting both of our time trying to have a conversation if all I'm going to get back is, "Go read a book".

Can you define what you think "engagement" entails in this case? I ask because I thought I had mentioned above that I was happily in the process of reading the article you provided so we can discuss it further which to me is a form of "engagement." Or, is that not the kind of interaction you're looking for?

As for my intent to make an argument, you might have to bear with me since the Kierkegaardian influences have indeed rubbed off on me and while I may offer 'points' of interest, I by no means believe that theology is systematic in nature, despite the many Systematic Theologies that have been produced, nor do I think that evidence will go very far epistemologically in the mind of most people and somehow enable them to reach a point of "eureka" with the Christian faith. Yeah, I don't think it works that way; in fact, I think even W.L.C. would admit that there are some elements of the Christian faith that sheer argumentation just can't affect. But on the practical side of interlocution, if you'd rather have me present 'bullet points' from the various sources that I read or watch, then just say so and I'll see what I can do.

Ok. Back to reading Sprevak and McLeish's article ...