A question for everyone

[The happy Objectivist]

To your point, my understanding is that materialists cannot yet explain consciousness itself. As in real estate, the three most important attributes for scientists are location, location and location. Brain mapping studies have not yet shown the location in the brain that evidences certain kinds of consciousness.

Well, I'm not a materialist and so what if materialists can't explain consciousness. All the available evidence leads to the conclusion that consciousness is biological and ends at death. We only find it in biological organisms. We know that if we damage the brain and some part of it dies it can alter a person's consciousness. It would be absurd to think that if the whole brain dies that consciousness will go on. And if you are thinking that consciousness is supernatural then that is a debate that's over before it begins. Consciousness has identity which means it is very much natural and this-worldly. A thing's identity is its nature. To say that something transcends nature is to say that it has no identity, it is nothing in particular, i.e., it is nothing at all.

 

[Alistair_Wonderland]

Not at all. By life I mean the life proper to a rational being. A rational being needs freedom in order to operate. A slave is not free. He can not act on his judgment for his own sake if he's held captive.

Without our individual rights, we don't have a life. If I were a slave owner in the 19th century, knowing what I know now, I'd free all my slaves because it is unspeakably evil to own people as property and to take what's rightfully theirs. They have an inalienable right to live for their own sake.

I don't believe there are any inate goods. Good is a value judgement and requires a mind with conceptual capabilities and something to judge against an objective standard of what is good. I submit to you that life and its requirements are that standard. Any other standard would be arbitrary.

While I do not follow where one implies that "rights" come from if there are no innate goods, as a godless world ruled by nature would have no concept of fairness, I think you inadvertently are advocating for morality and innate good. I may be a Christian, but I never believed that good is merely the decree of a cosmic despot who rules just because he made everything. Rather, I believe that good is that which is best for our lives and for the balance of the universe, while evil is what is harmful to that balance and to our lives. Our misconceptions about good and evil come from ignorance; to understand whether something is harmful or not, one would have to consider all possible outcomes and options, which would be impossible without omniscience; just as bloodletting was a harmful thing of the past that everyone thought was helpful, so many apparently benign practices can be inadvertently harmful. On the flip side, acts which at the time feel unpleasant can in fact be much more beneficial to us than other choices; cookies for dinner every night is a child's dream, but without those vegetables and healthy foods, they would soon develop numerous health problems.

The entire Christian concept of good and evil and sin and all that are very poorly explained by its followers, so let me offer this to you for your consideration:
Sin is described in the Bible as a chain many times, with Jesus setting us free from it. Why is it described as such? Because despite popular culture's opinion that sin is freedom, sin is best described as negative addictive behavior.
Take for example the man addicted to pornography. He loves his wife, but he ends up destroying his marriage because of his addiction. He has a good work ethic, but he loses his job because he looks at porn more than working. His life is falling in shambles, and still he turns to the very thing that is destroying it.

Ultimately, the idea of morality is exactly what Jesus meant when He said "setting the captives free". If you were to be able to choose in any given circumstance, you would naturally try and choose the best choice, but our own ignorance can make us very short-sighted and, like the man addicted to pornography, can lead to us destroying our own lives, and like the people who died of bloodletting, we will eventually perish, unaware what we are even doing wrong.
Hence the importance of freedom. Jesus is actually pretty lax with the ideas of sin and such; punishment is made for correction and edification, not "tit-for-tat", and the whole point of Christianity is in being free from behaviors which otherwise would control our lives against our free will, and the idea of following God is not giving up freedom so much as admitting our ignorance to make the best decisions and getting help form someone who knows better.

In any case, that is the Christian understanding of it. Whether you believe it or not, I hope you at least understand our mentality... or at least, what it is supposed to be. (Not all people who claim the name of Christ follow His law of breaking chains, and in fact bring more. Charge their doings to them, not Him.)

 

[Alistair_Wonderland]

I see your "Christian" identity and began reading your post, but had to set it aside, partially because I'm off to other things for a while and partially because I immediately find pause from what I'm reading. IOW, there's probably a lot in your post to deal with, but not at the moment.

It seems like you're saying to be skeptical of men and the organized [by men] church. If so, then I as a Christian agree with you.

Do you personally believe in the ultimate authority that you can understand as a Christian? Do you personally believe in the authority of the written Word of God that you can read for yourself if you have doubts about those who teach it?

Thanks!

I do believe in the authority of God's Word. However, I believe that many people doubt God's word less from their own failings and more because of our own. I think it is very healthy to question God from time to time, not in a belligerent manner but in a spirit of uncovering truth, like a dedicated journalist interviewing a prominent figure. What makes the Bible better than the Quran? What makes Jesus real and Shiva fake? If we as Christians cannot ask these questions ourselves, we can never find the answers to give when people of other beliefs ask them.
I seek truth and goodness above all else. I follow Jesus because he has shown Himself to be true and good to me. Had Shiva or Buddha or some cosmic alien proven themselves to be the ultimate truth and goodness, I would have followed them instead. You see, one must question all one believes, and what one is seeking. Don't follow God or Jesus because you were told that they are good; question them, that they may give you the answers and show you who is true.
This is why I tell many unbelievers "if you have a question, ask the sky. Whoever is listening will answer." I will of course say that I believe the answer is Jesus, but I don't press it; what does my word matter? Many men say many things. But if the Bible says something, and it is fulfilled every time... well, that is worth consideration.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ah yes, another argument which is very destructive to the (incorrect) view that Christians tend to see for morality.

You see, morality is not "this is bad, this is good," so much as it is about time and place. The book of Ephesians in the Bible actually talks about this.

And I agree wholeheartedly -- morality is not objective or absolute, but always situational. Context matters.

I have stated previously, but to reiterate, I believe morality is based upon balance; good is what brings us closer to perfect balance and a state of perfection, evil is that which causes discord.

The problem as I see it is that "perfection" requires permanence -- if it's only temporary, it's not perfect. As morality is always situational and thus always changing, permanence, and thus perfection, are unattainable.

That's not to say that it's not a goal we should strive towards, even if we never reach it. And that's where discord comes into play -- chaos is a necessary agent of change; change is a necessary agent of growth.

The American Revolution,
The Civil War,
The Great Depression and New Deal,
The Civil Rights protests,
The Stonewall riots,
etc...

All of these were chaotic moments which caused great discord, but they led to change, which led to growth... I believe it was Aquinas who said that God allows evil to happen because He knows that a greater good will come from it somewhere down the line... and if that is so, can it truly be called "evil"?

So basically, the idea of morality is simply that good is, all things considered, the best choice for the benefit of all, yourself included. However, one would need to know literally everything to make the perfect decision at all times, as even the smallest actions can have major consequences, even if we do not notice them immediately.

Again, agreed 100% -- so we make the most moral decisions we can based on the information we have available to us.

I'm not going to go into all that right now; it's simple enough but can take a while to explain. I'm more than willing to make another post or directly message you about the matter, if you're interested.

While I cannot speak for other deities, God may seem flighty on the outside, but only because we do not understand all things. The idea is that God is doing what is the best possible option, given what He has to work with, for the given situation.

Perhaps -- but God has condoned, commanded, and committed wholesale slaughter (among other atrocities). Admittedly, my limited human intellect is having a difficult time fathoming a context where such actions might be considered "moral" -- and I'm afraid "He's God; just do as He says" isn't going to cut it.

I'm going to need some details before I accept Him as a source of ultimate morality.

The catch is, He has rules He abides by, and allowing free will is one of those. Ergo, certain things happen that He does not prevent, due to His respect for His own rules.

Omnipotence means that his abiding by such rules is a choice, not an obligation -- and He has not always abided by His own rules... ask Pharaoh.

Also, as this inevitably brings up the question "why would a good God let bad things happen?", I will explain as best as my humble mind knows about such a deep and unexplainable question:

No need; Thomas Aquinas (see above) has covered that to my satisfaction... but I do appreciate the effort.

I speak as someone who knows how painful and hopeless one feels in the moment of pain. I too have questioned God... many, many times. And He has answered. Hence why I am a Christian; I certainly would not be if there was no legitimacy, as following social norms is quite against my personality.

It sounds like you questioned God in your moments of pain and hopelessness. I question God because I find some of His actions highly questionable.

Suffice it to say, God will act differently at different times, but not because He has changed, but because we have, and the circumstance may require one thing or another. I do not claim to know why He lets some things happen; I struggle with that question a lot. But if you are going to believe in a God, you have to trust Him, other wise the whole belief is pointless.

Then I choose not to believe in an omnibenevolent theistic deity who acts (or doesn't act) in accordance with a preordained plan or the universe and everything in it.
I am, however, on the fence about a non-theistic higher force permeating the universe, as well as a spiritual aspect subject to this same higher force: the inescapable rule of cause-and-effect. For every action, there are consequences.

Hence, my stated belief as "agnostic," not "atheist."

And even if God were not to exist, the mentality of turning your suffering into opportunity is one that I think all people can agree is extremely healthy and beneficial.

Agreed -- which is why I prefer to see challenges and opportunities, not problems and suffering.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

While I do not follow where one implies that "rights" come from if there are no innate goods, as a godless world ruled by nature would have no concept of fairness, I think you inadvertently are advocating for morality and innate good. I may be a Christian, but I never believed that good is merely the decree of a cosmic despot who rules just because he made everything. Rather, I believe that good is that which is best for our lives and for the balance of the universe, while evil is what is harmful to that balance and to our lives. Our misconceptions about good and evil come from ignorance; to understand whether something is harmful or not, one would have to consider all possible outcomes and options, which would be impossible without omniscience; just as bloodletting was a harmful thing of the past that everyone thought was helpful, so many apparently benign practices can be inadvertently harmful. On the flip side, acts which at the time feel unpleasant can in fact be much more beneficial to us than other choices; cookies for dinner every night is a child's dream, but without those vegetables and healthy foods, they would soon develop numerous health problems.

The entire Christian concept of good and evil and sin and all that are very poorly explained by its followers, so let me offer this to you for your consideration:
Sin is described in the Bible as a chain many times, with Jesus setting us free from it. Why is it described as such? Because despite popular culture's opinion that sin is freedom, sin is best described as negative addictive behavior.
Take for example the man addicted to pornography. He loves his wife, but he ends up destroying his marriage because of his addiction. He has a good work ethic, but he loses his job because he looks at porn more than working. His life is falling in shambles, and still he turns to the very thing that is destroying it.

Ultimately, the idea of morality is exactly what Jesus meant when He said "setting the captives free". If you were to be able to choose in any given circumstance, you would naturally try and choose the best choice, but our own ignorance can make us very short-sighted and, like the man addicted to pornography, can lead to us destroying our own lives, and like the people who died of bloodletting, we will eventually perish, unaware what we are even doing wrong.
Hence the importance of freedom. Jesus is actually pretty lax with the ideas of sin and such; punishment is made for correction and edification, not "tit-for-tat", and the whole point of Christianity is in being free from behaviors which otherwise would control our lives against our free will, and the idea of following God is not giving up freedom so much as admitting our ignorance to make the best decisions and getting help form someone who knows better.

In any case, that is the Christian understanding of it. Whether you believe it or not, I hope you at least understand our mentality... or at least, what it is supposed to be. (Not all people who claim the name of Christ follow His law of breaking chains, and in fact bring more. Charge their doings to them, not Him.)

first of all, man has concepts, the "world" doesn't. But it's not true that a belief in a controlling god is needed to have the concept "fairness". Fairness means treating people with justice and that means giving to each person what he deserves. We can form this concept all on our own by observing reality. There are no innate judgments, there are innate facts.

In fact, the whole notion of concepts rests on the primacy of existence. If there were a consciousness that held primacy then we couldn't form any concepts to begin with. Concepts rest on the law of identity and the primacy of existence and the notion of "God" is a wholesale rejection of the law of identity and the primacy of existence.

Lastly, we do live in a godless world that is ruled by identity/nature and we do in fact have the concept of fairness. Even a little toddler knows what fairness is. When another child comes and takes the toy that he was playing with, he gets angry because he knows it's not fair even if he can't articulate it in concepts. In order to understand fairness, we'd have to understand cause and effect and to understand cause and effect we would have to have an understanding of identity since causality is the identity of actions. See we can reduce the concept of fairness back to an axiom so no god is needed.

Edit: I have to make a correction. I was thinking of the word "intrinsic" when I responded to you and got it confused with innate. What I meant to say is there are no intrinsic goods. But it is in fact our nature that determines what things are good for us. It's up to us to discover what those goods are and that's precisely what the science of ethics is all about.

 

[o_mlly]

By life I mean the life proper to a rational being. A rational being needs freedom in order to operate.

Our common understanding of needs provides the insight that there are no wrong or misguided needs. (We do recognize that there are wrong or misguided wants.)

No human being needs anything that is really bad for them and we ought to want things that are really good for us, and our free will makes a natural desire for freedom, as you rightfully claim, to be one such human need. But the same reasoning method allows us to arrive at human needs other than freedom.

As rational being, one could argue, humans need knowledge as we have a natural desire to know. As social beings, humans have a natural need for friendships as we have a natural desire to associate with others. There are arguably other innate human needs, e.g., wealth, health, pleasure, etc.. For those human needs we agree exist we must logically also agree that the prescriptive injunction applies to all such needs, i.e., we ought to desire that which is really good for us.

Morality seeks to first identify those things we ought to desire. Acts which promote the acquisition of or sustaining the possession of human needs are moral. Acts which prevent or diminish the same are immoral.

 

[o_mlly]

Well, I'm not a materialist and so what if materialists can't explain consciousness.

Rather than derail this interesting thread, let's leave the issue of science and consciousness for another thread.

 

[Leaf473]

I think the issue of consciousness, what causes it and what causes it to stop, is central to the OP.

But if people don't want to discuss it, that's fine.

 

[o_mlly]

I think the issue of consciousness, what causes it and what causes it to stop, is central to the OP.

But if people don't want to discuss it, that's fine.

If hO as the author of this thread agrees then who am I to say otherwise.

 

[Leaf473]

If hO as the author of this thread agrees then who am I to say otherwise.

It will be interesting to see what @The happy Objectivist says.

He mentioned "perceptually self-evident facts of reality" in the OP.

But from my point of view, that we cease to exist when our body stops working is not a self-evident fact. And that's where questions about consciousness would come in imo

But I'm not really heavily involved in this thread, so if you feel you had a good train of thought going,
I'll be happy to hold off, at least for a while.

May the peace of the Lord be always with you!

 

[o_mlly]

May the peace of the Lord be always with you!

Et cum spiritu tuo!

 

[Alistair_Wonderland]

Then I choose not to believe in an omnibenevolent theistic deity who acts (or doesn't act) in accordance with a preordained plan or the universe and everything in it.
I am, however, on the fence about a non-theistic higher force permeating the universe, as well as a spiritual aspect subject to this same higher force: the inescapable rule of cause-and-effect. For every action, there are consequences.

Hence, my stated belief as "agnostic," not "atheist."

With all due respect to the atheists on this forum, I believe that agnosticism is a much more sensible train of thought than atheism. Natural logic dictates that there is something that is supremely above all others, be that a deity, the laws of nature, the concept of thought, whatever. In the broadest sense, a supreme being is inevitable. What that being is, however, is a source of great debate.

This much I suggest: always keep an open mind. There is always new evidence for anything, and so we must always be ready and willing to question our beliefs. And seek truth above all else; I believe the many delusions we as humans buy into everyday play an important part in our mental stability, but they are hardly suitable for providing a solid basis for one's life.

 

[Alistair_Wonderland]

first of all, man has concepts, the "world" doesn't. But it's not true that a belief in a controlling god is needed to have the concept "fairness". Fairness means treating people with justice and that means giving to each person what he deserves. We can form this concept all on our own by observing reality. There are no innate judgments, there are innate facts.

In fact, the whole notion of concepts rests on the primacy of existence. If there were a consciousness that held primacy then we couldn't form any concepts to begin with. Concepts rest on the law of identity and the primacy of existence and the notion of "God" is a wholesale rejection of the law of identity and the primacy of existence.

Lastly, we do live in a godless world that is ruled by identity/nature and we do in fact have the concept of fairness. Even a little toddler knows what fairness is. When another child comes and takes the toy that he was playing with, he gets angry because he knows it's not fair even if he can't articulate it in concepts. In order to understand fairness, we'd have to understand cause and effect and to understand cause and effect we would have to have an understanding of identity since causality is the identity of actions. See we can reduce the concept of fairness back to an axiom so no god is needed.

Edit: I have to make a correction. I was thinking of the word "intrinsic" when I responded to you and got it confused with innate. What I meant to say is there are no intrinsic goods. But it is in fact our nature that determines what things are good for us. It's up to us to discover what those goods are and that's precisely what the science of ethics is all about.

Apologies if I came across as rude; I did not mean to be dismissive of your beliefs.
However, I beg to differ on the matter of concepts, or perhaps I have used an incorrect word. "Concepts" can indeed be human constructs, but the way I intended to use the word is more in the sense of a "universal law", e.g. how cause and effect is an eternal existing rule, regardless of our perception of the matter.

The idea of morality is literally as simple as making the best choice for the given opportunity. However, the universe is infinitely complex, and we are ignorant to what impact our actions may have because, to be properly informed, we would have to be omniscient, due to the butterfly effect of our actions and our ignorance about the effects of certain actions.
Morality in Christian beliefs is often poorly explained. Consider the possibility that a creative deity existed that made all things; thusly, that being would have the knowledge as to what actions were harmful and could instruct us how to make the best possible decisions. Christianity is unique in that it acknowledges that moral rule often is very situational, and that the necessity of salvation is due to the impossibility of said deity being able to portray to us all knowledge for how to react to every possible scenario without making us omniscient ourselves.

I do hope I don't come across as rude; I can indeed get a little intense, as I believe morality is integral to any form of society's existence. My sole intent is to instruct you in our beliefs as best I can so that you can make a better-informed decision on your own.
Also, many of the things you say are indeed true. As somebody who has seen several debates between religious and non-religious people, I have noticed one outstanding fact: we generally have the same evidence, and one side ignores some facts, and the other side ignores others, for the sake of their preconceptions.
The difficulty is, we cannot (and indeed will not, in many cases) prove that our perception is indeed infallible. Hence the importance of listening to alternative opinions and considering them as viable possibilities, regardless of if we perceive them as such. So thank you very much for your opinions; if nothing else, they offer me a better understanding of how other beliefs think.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

Due to multiple rule violations:

MOD HAT OFF​