Atheism and nihilism

[zippy2006]

You won't donate to charity unless you have been convinced that doing so will make you happy. If you never look into it or if you simply haven't found a convincing argument, then neglecting to donate to charity isn't being selfish, it's merely ignorant. If being happy is good, and everyone is merely acting in a manner that makes them happy to the best of their knowledge, then they can't do evil, they can only be ignorant. Accountability crushed!

(You're arguing against a categorical imperative, not accountability per se. Most would say that accountability can exist on hypothetical imperatives as well. See Foot's article.)

Consider for example a scenario in which there is a common goal which different individuals can approach differently, such as a game. In high school we played "The Stock Market Game." Consider an adapted version where three people are each given $10,000 and the goal is to make as much money as they can in a month.

It's just a game, but there is still accountability. There are better and worse ways to invest and use the money. The participants may put forth more or less effort, research, reasoning, and whatnot. Then at the end of the day we award one person the winner because they did a better job than the other two. They made better choices.

But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest' (Matthew 25:26-27).​

 

[Leaf473]

I'm not talking about an "experiment," but do we not observe people apparently making choices? Do we not have the subjective experience of making choices?

I brought up the idea of an experiment because experimentation and observation are the basis of the scientific method, as I understand it.

I agree that we can observe people apparently making choices.
but, as an experiment, I can program my computer so that it will apparently make a choice.

but it is not actually choosing, according to the definition of choice/choose that we've been using.

I agree that if we survey 100 people and ask them if they have the experience of choosing, all will probably say yes.

but does this demonstrate that we have the ability to choose?
or does it demonstrate that the electrons rattling around in our brains produce the sensation of choosing?

 

[Speedwell]

I brought up the idea of an experiment because experimentation and observation are the basis of the scientific method, as I understand it.

I agree that we can observe people apparently making choices.
but, as an experiment, I can program my computer so that it will apparently make a choice.

but it is not actually choosing, according to the definition of choice/choose that we've been using.

I agree that if we survey 100 people and ask them if they have the experience of choosing, all will probably say yes.

but does this demonstrate that we have the ability to choose?
or does it demonstrate that the electrons rattling around in our brains produce the sensation of choosing?

My point exactly.

 

[Leaf473]

I am 100% convinced that I know and control what goes on inside of my head because I cannot see any reason to assume otherwise.

well, one reason to consider otherwise is that everything we have learned from physics tells us that our brains operate by a combination of determinism and randomness.
from what I hear, those who say that we are solely the product of evolution say that the sensation of choosing might increase survivability, so maybe that's why we developed it.

but hey, I agree with you, that we control our thoughts.
and just as you are completely convinced that you control your thoughts, so I am also convinced that there is justice.
but justice requires that some part of our consciousness continue after death, after our brains stop functioning, because it doesn't look to me like people receive the full rewards and consequences of their choices during their lifetime.

I also consider the possibility that the matter and energy in our brains gives rise to our consciousness.
to me, then, the possibility doesn't seem totally outlandish that the entire universe produces a consciousness.
the consciousness of the entire universe could be called God, imo.
would he/she/it try to communicate with us?
seems possible.

or turn that whole idea on its head, and say that first there was God.
God fell asleep and had a dream.
the universe is the product of that dream.
our consciousness is the piece of God that is dreaming "us".

 

[Moral Orel]

No, not "levels of choice," "levels of freedom." Both pianists have the same level of choice, the same set of keys.

Bologna. I can't choose to play Chopin on the piano any more than I can choose to dunk a basketball or choose to fly. But I guess you're saying that an iWatch has more freedom than a Tiger electronic handheld game, right?

Where did you do that?

You can't choose to believe something about my shirt. You need evidence that causes you to be convinced.

Granting your point for the sake of argument: who cares? My point still holds.

What point?! You were trying to make an analogy, and you didn't.

Why? Why would that demonstrate freedom?

It would show that you can choose something else.

And yet your whole argument is that a lack of possibilities entails determinism (i.e. having only one end, desiring only happiness). If a lack of possibilities entails determinism, then the presence of possibilities represents a prima facie context for freedom. Honestly, I think you're mistaken when you say you agree that there are endless possibilities. You don't think that. You think everything happens as it will without any possibility of divergence. You think there are no possibilities!

Well, we have to talk about different kinds of possibilities. Logically possible, physically possible, etc. It's logically possible for me to fly like Superman, but not physically possible with the constraints of the laws of physics. It is physically possible for me to bend my neck and back forward quickly, but doing so would cause me to crash my face through my glass desk, so it isn't possible for me to choose to do that because it would make me unhappy. To further complicate things, through subjectivity and the billions of humans, it's possible for chocolate ice cream to make one person super happy, and it's possible for chocolate ice cream to make another person feel violently ill. When it comes down to decision time, there is only one possible choice, sure.

Your argument is actually invalid. We are determined to pursue happiness, but we are not determined in the way we pursue it. Having an ultimate end doesn't entail determinism in the means. Just because we cannot do something for a different reason than the pursuit of happiness or the good does not mean that we are determined. If you think it does then present your argument.

We are determined to pursue happiness the best way we know how. We are determined to know how to pursue happiness by reasons that convince us.

We don't choose to act a certain way; we must act that way because we believe it will make us happy.
We don't choose to believe acting a certain way will make us happy; we must believe that which convinces us.

My actions are caused by my beliefs, my beliefs are caused by evidence. No where is there room for freedom in that.

Why would I need to defend altruism to defend freedom?

(Your error has to do with the modern denial of common goods--communal happiness, but we're not going off on another tangent. )

This is a more interesting argument that I have been speaking to some others about, but again, I don't want to stray. (You're arguing against a categorical imperative, not accountability per se. Most would say that accountability can exist on hypothetical imperatives as well. See Foot's article.)

You don't have to go off on a tangent if you don't want, I didn't say that these tangents were related to freedom. You keep saying that free will is unfalsifiable, so I was giving you optional conversations that you could try to argue instead.

unless you just mean that you are the cause in the same way that the cue ball is the cause of the motion in the ball it strikes--one deterministic cause in a long line.

Yep.

Nah. When you justify your choices or actions with reasoning you are implicating yourself in all sorts of freedom.

Nope. Even though I doubt freedom is possible, I can't stop pursuing happiness. And proving you wrong makes me happy, so I must give reasons.

Sure, I agree with the minor points, but I disagree that happiness and pleasure are just the same thing. ..or that happiness and "a good feeling" are just the same thing, etc.

I explicitly said that happiness and pleasure are not the same thing. And I explicitly said that I was conflating and equivocating "pleasure" with "a good feeling" so by inference you should have seen that I said "a good feeling" and "happiness" are not the same thing since I also didn't say they were.

 

[Ken-1122]

well, one reason to consider otherwise is that everything we have learned from physics tells us that our brains operate by a combination of determinism and randomness.
from what I hear, those who say that we are solely the product of evolution say that the sensation of choosing might increase survivability, so maybe that's why we developed it.

I know very little about the brain and how it works, so even though I don’t know enough to refute that claim, I also don’t know enough to agree with it either.

but hey, I agree with you, that we control our thoughts.
and just as you are completely convinced that you control your thoughts, so I am also convinced that there is justice.
but justice requires that some part of our consciousness continue after death, after our brains stop functioning, because it doesn't look to me like people receive the full rewards and consequences of their choices during their lifetime.

Does the idea of eternal punishment for a temporary life of bad behavior sound like justice to you?

I also consider the possibility that the matter and energy in our brains gives rise to our consciousness.
to me, then, the possibility doesn't seem totally outlandish that the entire universe produces a consciousness.
the consciousness of the entire universe could be called God, imo.
would he/she/it try to communicate with us?
seems possible.

IMO God is such a loaded term. When I think of God, I think of a being that is at least conscious (aware of his surroundings), Intelligent (have knowledge), and in control of his actions. When I think of the Universe, I think of something that is neither conscious, intelligent, or in control of it’s actions. I find God and the Universe almost to be polar opposites.

or turn that whole idea on its head, and say that first there was God.
God fell asleep and had a dream.
the universe is the product of that dream.
our consciousness is the piece of God that is dreaming "us".

Very interesting concept.

 

[Leaf473]

I know very little about the brain and how it works, so even though I don’t know enough to refute that claim, I also don’t know enough to agree with it either.

you may wish to explore it further.
(we could even explore it together!)
it's one of the reasons that I said earlier that, imo, atheism tends to lead to nihilism and apathy.

Does the idea of eternal punishment for a temporary life of bad behavior sound like justice to you?

no, but I don't believe in eternal punishment, either.

IMO God is such a loaded term. When I think of God, I think of a being that is at least conscious (aware of his surroundings), Intelligent (have knowledge), and in control of his actions. When I think of the Universe, I think of something that is neither conscious, intelligent, or in control of it’s actions. I find God and the Universe almost to be polar opposites.

I hear you on that.
I think in large part it's due to the Christian influence in our culture.
we're used to thinking of a spirit/matter dichotomy or dualism.

but try letting this idea sink in, if you wish:
given that it is your brain and your brain only that produces your consciousness,
and that consciousness is produced by things like atoms of hydrogen,
and these atoms of hydrogen behave the same way in your brain that they do when they are floating around in the atmosphere,
or fusing in a star,
why wouldn't the universe produce consciousness?

it just may not be a consciousness like we think of!

Very interesting concept.

it's definitely a different way of looking at things.
it makes the dreamer real, and the things we perceive like air, cars, sunlight, the the illusion.

 

[Ken-1122]

you may wish to explore it further.
(we could even explore it together!)
it's one of the reasons that I said earlier that, imo, atheism tends to lead to nihilism and apathy.

How about if you explain how you believe atheism leads to a lack of moral principles, and a lack of caring.

no, but I don't believe in eternal punishment, either.

Do you believe in eternal life?

I hear you on that.
I think in large part it's due to the Christian influence in our culture.
we're used to thinking of a spirit/matter dichotomy or dualism. but try letting this idea sink in, if you wish:
given that it is your brain and your brain only that produces your consciousness,
and that consciousness is produced by things like atoms of hydrogen,
and these atoms of hydrogen behave the same way in your brain that they do when they are floating around in the atmosphere,
or fusing in a star,
why wouldn't the universe produce consciousness?

The Universe is defined as “all that exist” since humans exist, we are a part of the Universe. Now I don't know if I would say humans "produce" consciousness, but have the ability of consciousness.

 

[Leaf473]

How about if you explain how you believe atheism leads to a lack of moral principles, and a lack of caring.

I don't think it's lack of moral principles, it's lack of an objective morality.
I thought you had already expressed this doubt of objective morality to other people in this thread.
or did I misunderstand?

I believe you had also written that purpose in life was subjective.

that fits well with nihilism, imo.

I think atheism tends to lead to nihilism and apathy because there is a high correlation between atheism and the idea that the material world is all that exists
(or that the term "exists" can only apply to material things).

there is often also a suspicion of interior sensations, such as the sensation of the presence of God.

since there is no basis in science to think that we control our own thoughts, and if the interior sensation of choosing is disregarded,
then there is no reason to think of ourselves as any different from an ant wandering around on the sidewalk.
or a rock tumbling down a mountainside.
or a dandelion growing in a meadow.

there are some forms of Buddhism that actually capitalize on this,
saying that seeing yourself that way is actually the best way to be happy.

Do you believe in eternal life?

yes!

The Universe is defined as “all that exist” since humans exist, we are a part of the Universe.

well, then it would seem reasonable that the universe as a whole might have different characteristics then a part of the universe.
just like a carbon atom by itself has different characteristics than a carbon and oxygen molecule.

Now I don't know if I would say humans "produce" consciousness, but have the ability of consciousness.

well, going with that, I believe it would follow that the universe as a whole would have the ability of consciousness.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't think it's lack of moral principles, it's lack of an objective morality.
I thought you had already expressed this doubt of objective morality to other people in this thread.
or did I misunderstand?

As you can see from the below definition (dictionary.com) Nihilism is not a lack of objective morality. The below definition does not describe me.

Nihilism
noun
*total rejection of established laws and institutions.
*anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
*total and absolute destructiveness, especially toward the world at large and including oneself:

Philosophy.
an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nihilism?s=t

I believe you had also written that purpose in life was subjective.

that fits well with nihilism, imo.

I don’t recall saying that; I’ve always maintained I am not assigned purpose to life like a slave, I bring purpose to my life.

I think atheism tends to lead to nihilism and apathy because there is a high correlation between atheism and the idea that the material world is all that exists
(or that the term "exists" can only apply to material things).

How are you defining Nihilism? What does that word mean to you?

there is often also a suspicion of interior sensations, such as the sensation of the presence of God.

since there is no basis in science to think that we control our own thoughts,

We don’t need a scientific theory to tell us we control our thoughts, a functioning brain is all you need.

yes!

In your view, does everybody eventually spend eternity in Heaven?

well, going with that, I believe it would follow that the universe as a whole would have the ability of consciousness.

You seem to be making the mistake of speaking of the Universe as one entity, when it is not.

 

[zippy2006]

It would show that you can choose something else.

I can already choose different ways to achieve happiness, and yet you still deny that I have freedom. I have no idea why being able to choose something other than happiness would overcome your denial of freedom.

Well, we have to talk about different kinds of possibilities. Logically possible, physically possible, etc. It's logically possible for me to fly like Superman, but not physically possible with the constraints of the laws of physics. It is physically possible for me to bend my neck and back forward quickly, but doing so would cause me to crash my face through my glass desk, so it isn't possible for me to choose to do that because it would make me unhappy. To further complicate things, through subjectivity and the billions of humans, it's possible for chocolate ice cream to make one person super happy, and it's possible for chocolate ice cream to make another person feel violently ill. When it comes down to decision time, there is only one possible choice, sure.

I'm not sure how that was meant to interact with what I said. Are you just agreeing that there are no possibilities? You seem to want to imply that there were possibilities before "decision time"...?

We are determined to pursue happiness the best way we know how. We are determined to know how to pursue happiness by reasons that convince us.

Why would the pursuit of happiness or rationality entail determinism? I grant that we pursue happiness as best we know how, via rationality. Why does that commit me to determinism?

We don't choose to act a certain way; we must act that way because we believe it will make us happy.
We don't choose to believe acting a certain way will make us happy; we must believe that which convinces us.

I grant that if we believe some path will make us happy then we will pursue that path, but I also affirm that our rational decision-making process identifies which path will make us happy, and that this process involves freedom.

My actions are caused by my beliefs, my beliefs are caused by evidence. No where is there room for freedom in that.

So you are saying that causality precludes freedom? I think that's an honest statement, if not compelling.

You say: Evidence -> Beliefs -> Actions || Cue -> Cue Ball -> Cued Ball

The obvious alternative is that humans rationally weigh the evidence according to their knowledge and freedom in order to arrive at beliefs and actions. Again, just because I can't randomly choose to believe things doesn't mean that my beliefs are not affected by my freedom and my reasoning.

In general I would say that although there is a deterministic link between believing that something will make us happy and choosing that thing, the process of reasoning that leads to belief involves freedom, thus making the ultimate choice an object of freedom.

You don't have to go off on a tangent if you don't want, I didn't say that these tangents were related to freedom. You keep saying that free will is unfalsifiable, so I was giving you optional conversations that you could try to argue instead.

I would just quote Thomas, "Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain" (link). People are of course free to drop all of these obvious realities in favor of an unevidenced determinism.

We may as well quote your objection in Thomas' Summa:

Objection 5. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 5): "According as each one is, such does the end seem to him." But it is not in our power to be of one quality or another; for this comes to us from nature. Therefore it is natural to us to follow some particular end, and therefore we are not free in so doing.

Reply to Objection 5. Quality in man is of two kinds: natural and adventitious. Now the natural quality may be in the intellectual part, or in the body and its powers. From the very fact, therefore, that man is such by virtue of a natural quality which is in the intellectual part, he naturally desires his last end, which is happiness. Which desire, indeed, is a natural desire, and is not subject to free-will, as is clear from what we have said above (I:82:2). But on the part of the body and its powers man may be such by virtue of a natural quality, inasmuch as he is of such a temperament or disposition due to any impression whatever produced by corporeal causes, which cannot affect the intellectual part, since it is not the act of a corporeal organ. And such as a man is by virtue of a corporeal quality, such also does his end seem to him, because from such a disposition a man is inclined to choose or reject something. But these inclinations are subject to the judgment of reason, which the lower appetite obeys, as we have said (I:81:3. Wherefore this is in no way prejudicial to free-will.

The adventitious qualities are habits and passions, by virtue of which a man is inclined to one thing rather than to another. And yet even these inclinations are subject to the judgment of reason. Such qualities, too, are subject to reason, as it is in our power either to acquire them, whether by causing them or disposing ourselves to them, or to reject them. And so there is nothing in this that is repugnant to free-will.
​

Thomas' point is that although natural inclinations exist, according to which we act and desire, reason is capable of scrutinizing them and rejecting them. For example, men may be inclined to polygamy, but subject polygamy to reason and decide that it is inappropriate, and thus reject it.

Nope. Even though I doubt freedom is possible, I can't stop pursuing happiness. And proving you wrong makes me happy, so I must give reasons.

You can't prove me wrong if you have no freedom. Proof, like argument, requires the possibility of truth and falsity and the ability to demonstrate that one or the other follows of logical necessity. Only free agents can prove things. A golden retriever or an orbiting planet could never prove that E=MC^2. This is because they are merely a collection of deterministic particles in motion. The dog's bark could never have the same significance and intentionality of Einstein's utterance. If someone can't see this they are surely to be pitied.

I explicitly said that happiness and pleasure are not the same thing. And I explicitly said that I was conflating and equivocating "pleasure" with "a good feeling" so by inference you should have seen that I said "a good feeling" and "happiness" are not the same thing since I also didn't say they were.

You think pleasure is that which all men desire. But that which all men desire is happiness. Therefore you think pleasure and happiness are the same thing.

 

[Leaf473]

As you can see from the below definition (dictionary.com) Nihilism is not a lack of objective morality. The below definition does not describe me.


Nihilism

noun

*total rejection of established laws and institutions.

*anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.

*total and absolute destructiveness, especially toward the world at large and including oneself:


Philosophy.

an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.

Definition of nihilism | Dictionary.com

as with many philosophical concepts, there are multiple ways to define nihilism
"Most commonly, nihilism refers to existential nihilism, according to which life is believed to be without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[4] Moral nihilism asserts that nothing is morally right or wrong. Among others, nihilism may also take the form of epistemological nihilism, according to which knowledge is impossible, and a number of metaphysical forms of nihilism, which assert that composite objects do not exist, that necessary objects do not exist, or even that reality itself does not exist."
Nihilism - Wikipedia

I don’t recall saying that; I’ve always maintained I am not assigned purpose to life like a slave, I bring purpose to my life.

in post 638 I believe you wrote,
"My life has meaning. But the meaning I bring to my life is subjective, not objective."
Atheism and nihilism

it sounded to me like you were saying there that life doesn't have an objective meaning and purpose.
but are you saying that it does?
if so, what is it, in your view?

How are you defining Nihilism? What does that word mean to you?

well, as I wrote in Post 632,
'...we are basically at a common definition of nihilism:
"...existential nihilism, in which life is believed to be without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[3] Moral nihilists assert that morality does not exist at all." '
Nihilism - Wikipedia

We don’t need a scientific theory to tell us we control our thoughts, a functioning brain is all you need.

if you assert that you control your thoughts, I think you have to base that on faith.
I am not aware of any objective evidence that we control our thoughts.

if you have objective evidence that we do, please present it.

In your view, does everybody eventually spend eternity in Heaven?

I don't know, it's possible.

You seem to be making the mistake of speaking of the Universe as one entity, when it is not.

what word would you use to describe all of the matter and energy that compose the Stars, planets, space dust, etc.?

are you certain that I, Leaf473, am conscious?
do you have objective evidence that I am?
if you believe that I am conscious, what led you to believe that matter and energy is not conscious?

 

[Moral Orel]

I can already choose different ways to achieve happiness, and yet you still deny that I have freedom. I have no idea why being able to choose something other than happiness would overcome your denial of freedom.

You can't choose different ways to achieve happiness, that's the point. Whatever you believe will make you the happiest you must do. If you could choose something that you believed would make you unhappy or less happy, then you might have a choice, but you can't, so you don't.

I'm not sure how that was meant to interact with what I said. Are you just agreeing that there are no possibilities? You seem to want to imply that there were possibilities before "decision time"...?

There are many logical possibilities, there is one and only one possible outcome.

So you are saying that causality precludes freedom? I think that's an honest statement, if not compelling.

You say: Evidence -> Beliefs -> Actions || Cue -> Cue Ball -> Cued Ball

Yep. The point being that your will is not the cause. We've already established and agreed that beliefs are the cause of actions. You seem to think that your will is the cause of your beliefs, but you can't demonstrate it. In fact, I'd point out that believing is an act too, so you're going to believe what will make you happy to believe it.

The obvious alternative is that humans rationally weigh the evidence according to their knowledge and freedom in order to arrive at beliefs and actions. Again, just because I can't randomly choose to believe things doesn't mean that my beliefs are not affected by my freedom and my reasoning.

You can't use your will to cause you to believe something, therefore you can't choose to believe something. Something other than your will causes you to believe, i.e. evidence. Remember that you said when you see the truth, you just believe it. You used it as an analogy to how we just do what we believe will make us happy. Of course, I showed a good number of instances where people also just believe all sorts of things that are false too so it isn't about "the truth" but rather what is convincing.

I would just quote Thomas, "Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain" (link). People are of course free to drop all of these obvious realities in favor of an unevidenced determinism.

See, I don't get this. Why would they be in vain? My actions still cause predictable results even if my choices aren't free. Even if you were right, an appeal to consequences isn't a valid argument anyways.

You can't prove me wrong if you have no freedom.

Sure I can.

Proof, like argument, requires the possibility of truth and falsity and the ability to demonstrate that one or the other follows of logical necessity.

Alright, I'm following you so far...

Only free agents can prove things.

Woah! Out of left field! Where did that assertion come from?

A golden retriever or an orbiting planet could never prove that E=MC^2. This is because they are merely a collection of deterministic particles in motion. The dog's bark could never have the same significance and intentionality of Einstein's utterance.

A golden retriever and an orbiting planet lack the means of communication to state reasons, that's why they can't prove things. It has nothing to do with determinism. I could make a video that proves E=MC^2, and that video would be entirely deterministic.

And what's with the weird case of human exceptionalism? Animals don't have free will at all now?

If someone can't see this they are surely to be pitied.

Now what is the purpose of this statement? You just wanted to let me know that you pity me? A lot of folks would get offended at personal digs like this. I don't mind. If you have to resort to comments like this, that's how I know I'm winning!

You think pleasure is that which all men desire. But that which all men desire is happiness. Therefore you think pleasure and happiness are the same thing.

Nope. You're way off base here.

Orel: I think it's X.
Zippy: Actually, it's Y. Therefore you think X and Y are the same thing.
Orel:????

Orel: Well, X and Y are related: X causes Y.
Zippy: I just can't agree that X and Y are the same thing, sorry!
Orel: ????

Orel: I think all men seek water.
Zippy: Actually, all men seek to have their thirst quenched, therefore you think water and a quenched thirst are the same thing.
Orel: ????

Orel: Well, water and a quenched thirst are related: water quenches thirst.
Zippy: I just can't agree that water and a quenched thirst are the same thing, sorry!
Orel: ????

Are you getting frustrated, Zippy? You're getting super sloppy. Ad homs, non sequiturs to justify straw men... I think you've got nothing and instead of just owning that you're getting desperate and swinging around wildly. You don't lose gracefully. Seems to me that admitting I'm right that there's good reason to doubt free will would make you unhappy, so you can't do it.

 

[zippy2006]

You can't choose different ways to achieve happiness, that's the point. Whatever you believe will make you the happiest you must do. If you could choose something that you believed would make you unhappy or less happy, then you might have a choice, but you can't, so you don't.

I can choose to eat a pizza or a hamburger for lunch depending on what I decide will make me happier. Supposing for the moment that beliefs determine actions, you say that we can't affect our own beliefs. I say we can through free acts of reasoning.

Yep. The point being that your will is not the cause. We've already established and agreed that beliefs are the cause of actions. You seem to think that your will is the cause of your beliefs, but you can't demonstrate it. In fact, I'd point out that believing is an act too, so you're going to believe what will make you happy to believe it.

I never said I could demonstrate it. From the very beginning of our conversation I was clear about that.

You can't use your will to cause you to believe something, therefore you can't choose to believe something.

Free acts of reasoning affect our beliefs, thus choice affects belief.

Something other than your will causes you to believe, i.e. evidence.

You're oversimplifying. Evidence itself presupposes a will to judge. There is no such thing as evidence from the point of view of rocks.

Remember that you said when you see the truth, you just believe it. You used it as an analogy to how we just do what we believe will make us happy. Of course, I showed a good number of instances where people also just believe all sorts of things that are false too so it isn't about "the truth" but rather what is convincing.

The fact that there are necessary causal connections present in human life doesn't mean that the whole is deterministic. This is just a fallacy. The human being isn't constantly perceiving objects under the aspect of the perfect and ineluctable good, or perfect truth.

See, I don't get this. Why would they be in vain? My actions still cause predictable results even if my choices aren't free.

If you don't see why then I would say that you simply don't understand the meaning of those words Thomas is using. Let's take one: exhortation. When you exhort someone to do something you appeal to their will to act in a way that they are also capable of not-acting. If they are deterministic then, rather than exhorting them to give you the weather forecast, you would provide a deterministic instruction. You would say, "Alexa, what's the weather like tomorrow?" The idea is that there is a qualitatively different way that we relate to Alexa as opposed to real human beings.

Even if you were right, an appeal to consequences isn't a valid argument anyways.

It's a reductio ad absurdum.

Sure I can.

Alright, I'm following you so far...

Woah! Out of left field! Where did that assertion come from?

The reasoning mind must be capable of approaching truth and falsity in a indeterministic way, else there would be no ground for reasoning. For the reasoning mind the unknown is truth-indeterministic. It is contingent. It could be one way or another. If the mind is to discover the truth it must have a similar aspect of indeterminacy. That's why dogs don't do physics.

A golden retriever and an orbiting planet lack the means of communication to state reasons, that's why they can't prove things. It has nothing to do with determinism.

Nope. Anything which lacks indeterminacy cannot prove things, for it cannot consider propositions as truth-indeterminate. If your dog jumps on your keyboard and manages to somehow type "E=MC^2" you might conclude that he has managed to prove a complex equation in physics. Yet you know he didn't, because you know that dogs have no inherent capacity for reasoning or proof. They have no capacity to reflect upon their own image of reality and place it in a truth-indeterminate context.

I could make a video that proves E=MC^2, and that video would be entirely deterministic.

This is another basic error. The video itself is capable of proof no more than the words the dog typed are capable of proof. We associate meaning with sensible signs, but the meaning is not inherently in the signs. The meaning comes from intentionality (language, reason, will, etc.) and the intentionality is a contingent fact.

And what's with the weird case of human exceptionalism? Animals don't have free will at all now?

Of course not. No philosopher thinks animals have free will in any real sense.

Now what is the purpose of this statement? You just wanted to let me know that you pity me? A lot of folks would get offended at personal digs like this. I don't mind. If you have to resort to comments like this, that's how I know I'm winning!

It rather seems like you do mind, and you should. If you can't see the difference between a human being and a dog then I'm not sure you would know the difference between, say, human genocide and canine genocide.

Nope. You're way off base here.

Orel: I think it's X.
Zippy: Actually, it's Y. Therefore you think X and Y are the same thing.
Orel:????

Orel: Well, X and Y are related: X causes Y.
Zippy: I just can't agree that X and Y are the same thing, sorry!
Orel: ????

Orel: I think all men seek water.
Zippy: Actually, all men seek to have their thirst quenched, therefore you think water and a quenched thirst are the same thing.
Orel: ????

Orel: Well, water and a quenched thirst are related: water quenches thirst.
Zippy: I just can't agree that water and a quenched thirst are the same thing, sorry!
Orel: ????

I'm not sure what you thought this was supposed to show, but the fact remains that I disagree with you. Pleasure is not that which all men desire. That's the root disagreement I am not interested in pursuing further in this vein of the conversation. I realize I skipped a few steps, but then again I never claimed otherwise. I said "Agree to disagree" and you tried to guess why.

Are you getting frustrated, Zippy? You're getting super sloppy. Ad homs, non sequiturs to justify straw men... I think you've got nothing and instead of just owning that you're getting desperate and swinging around wildly. You don't lose gracefully. Seems to me that admitting I'm right that there's good reason to doubt free will would make you unhappy, so you can't do it.

Lol. Nah, just a bit bored. Back when we were still talking about happiness I admitted that determinism is an unprovable proposition, so I'm not quite sure what we're doing. You keep talking, failing to offer proofs, and claiming that I can't demonstrate free will. The only interesting question is whether my premises about seeking happiness entail determinism. But there too you've generally failed to offer any arguments, instead continually asserting that our choices in no way affect our beliefs, that belief is absolutely ontologically prior to choice. But that's begging the question in favor of the determinism premise, it's not an entailment from my own premises regarding the pursuit of happiness. Again, the fact of the matter is not that my beliefs lead to determinism, it's that you are a staunch determinist. You are unable to consider any belief in a non-deterministic way.

 

[Moral Orel]

I can choose to eat a pizza or a hamburger for lunch depending on what I decide will make me happier. Supposing for the moment that beliefs determine actions, you say that we can't affect our own beliefs. I say we can through free acts of reasoning.

You've already contradicted yourself. Acts aren't free if beliefs determine them, and we've already established that they do. You just want to claim some actions are different somehow because reasons.

I never said I could demonstrate it. From the very beginning of our conversation I was clear about that.

I was talking specifically about choosing what you believe. You can't demonstrate that you can choose to believe something whether that choice is free or not. Let's try another experiment. This time I'll give you the reason you say you need to interact with your free choice to believe. My shirt actually is black. I only have a few shirts that I wear for going out which is rare these days. The rest of the time it's the same 'ol black Dickies t-shirts I wear to work. Now, choose to not believe me. See, I want you to believe my shirt is black because that's the truth and I want to demonstrate that you can't choose to not believe me, but you say you have a choice, so choose to believe what is false: that my shirt is not black.

Free acts of reasoning affect our beliefs, thus choice affects belief.

Our actions affect our beliefs, I've already said as much. You keep declaring that acts are free even though you've already conceded that our acts are determined in our pursuit of happiness though.

Evidence itself presupposes a will to judge.

No it doesn't. A bloody knife found in a man's apartment doesn't presuppose anything. Either that convinces us that man is connected to a murder or it doesn't.

The fact that there are necessary causal connections present in human life doesn't mean that the whole is deterministic. This is just a fallacy.

Good thing I didn't say that.

If you don't see why then I would say that you simply don't understand the meaning of those words Thomas is using. Let's take one: exhortation. When you exhort someone to do something you appeal to their will to act in a way that they are also capable of not-acting. If they are deterministic then, rather than exhorting them to give you the weather forecast, you would provide a deterministic instruction. You would say, "Alexa, what's the weather like tomorrow?" The idea is that there is a qualitatively different way that we relate to Alexa as opposed to real human beings.

Then I think you simply don't understand what the phrase "in vain" means.

It's a reductio ad absurdum.

No it's not. It's an appeal to consequences. Just because you think those consequences are absurd doesn't mean they aren't true. But as I pointed out, they aren't true either. Our actions, whether free choices or not, still produce the results we desire so they aren't in vain.

The reasoning mind must be capable of approaching truth and falsity in a indeterministic way, else there would be no ground for reasoning. For the reasoning mind the unknown is truth-indeterministic. It is contingent. It could be one way or another. If the mind is to discover the truth it must have a similar aspect of indeterminacy.

Sounds like a computer program. Software is constantly evaluating "if x == y".

That's why dogs don't do physics.

Dogs don't do physics because they lack the computational power. Computers do physics though.

Nope. Anything which lacks indeterminacy cannot prove things, for it cannot consider propositions as truth-indeterminate. If your dog jumps on your keyboard and manages to somehow type "E=MC^2" you might conclude that he has managed to prove a complex equation in physics. Yet you know he didn't, because you know that dogs have no inherent capacity for reasoning or proof. They have no capacity to reflect upon their own image of reality and place it in a truth-indeterminate context.

Sure he proved it. He can prove things he can't understand. You proved determinism through your argument for morality without understanding what you were doing.

This is another basic error. The video itself is capable of proof no more than the words the dog typed are capable of proof. We associate meaning with sensible signs, but the meaning is not inherently in the signs. The meaning comes from intentionality (language, reason, will, etc.) and the intentionality is a contingent fact.

Ahh, I think you have it backwards. You think meaning is connected to the cause, which it can be in certain contexts. But we're talking about belief which is the effect. How the receiver sees the proof is what matters, not what caused the proof. A scientist in a lab mixing chemicals finds that chemical A reacts to chemical B because after he mixed them, they reacted. The chemical reaction is the proof.

How about another analogy with language this time? A person visiting a foreign country for the first time and who doesn't speak the language might refer to a foreigner-to-Murican dictionary to ask "Where is the bathroom?" but fuddle it all up so that the foreigner hears, "I want to kiss your goats". The Murican meant one thing, but he said something else because the listener heard something else.

Of course not. No philosopher thinks animals have free will in any real sense.

That's a pretty broad claim. Have you not heard of human-exceptionalism that I mentioned? Some folks think that there is something special about humans that is unreliable to animals, some folks think that humans just have some qualities that are much more advanced, but still resemble the more basic qualities of other animals. I'm sure there are some philosophers that ascribe to the latter, aren't you? I mean, it pretty much follows from the ToE.

It rather seems like you do mind, and you should. If you can't see the difference between a human being and a dog then I'm not sure you would know the difference between, say, human genocide and canine genocide.

I just told you the difference between humans and dogs so this is wrong. Can you see the difference between a dog and an Alexa? You wouldn't care if I stomped on an Alexa until it couldn't talk anymore, is it okay to do that to dogs because they're both just a bunch of deterministic particles?

I'm not sure what you thought this was supposed to show

How can I state it more simply for you?

but the fact remains that I disagree with you. Pleasure is not that which all men desire. That's the root disagreement I am not interested in pursuing further in this vein of the conversation. I realize I skipped a few steps, but then again I never claimed otherwise. I said "Agree to disagree" and you tried to guess why.

You made a claim about what I think. "Therefore you think that pleasure and happiness are the same thing". The step you skipped to prove that claim was using the quote feature because I never said any such thing.

Lol. Nah, just a bit bored. Back when we were still talking about happiness I admitted that determinism is an unprovable proposition, so I'm not quite sure what we're doing. You keep talking, failing to offer proofs, and claiming that I can't demonstrate free will.

We claim that you can't demonstrate free will. "I never said I could demonstrate it. From the very beginning of our conversation I was clear about that."

The only interesting question is whether my premises about seeking happiness entail determinism. But there too you've generally failed to offer any arguments, instead continually asserting that our choices in no way affect our beliefs, that belief is absolutely ontologically prior to choice.

I never said that. In fact, we went over this earlier and I said the opposite. Remember you were talking about the basketball player and I said that our actions cause effects that affect our beliefs and it's this feedback that creates the illusion of freewill.

But that's begging the question in favor of the determinism premise, it's not an entailment from my own premises regarding the pursuit of happiness. Again, the fact of the matter is not that my beliefs lead to determinism, it's that you are a staunch determinist. You are unable to consider any belief in a non-deterministic way.

The fact of the matter is not that my reasoning presupposes free will, it's that you are a staunch Free-Willy-ist. You are unable to consider any belief in a deterministic way.

I'm not a staunch anything. I'll hold any belief I think I can make a good case for because winning arguments makes me happy so I have to.

 

[zippy2006]

You've already contradicted yourself. Acts aren't free if beliefs determine them, and we've already established that they do. You just want to claim some actions are different somehow because reasons.

Do I really need to point out the fact that I consider an act of reasoning and a physical action to be different things?

I was talking specifically about choosing what you believe. You can't demonstrate that you can choose to believe something whether that choice is free or not. Let's try another experiment. This time I'll give you the reason you say you need to interact with your free choice to believe. My shirt actually is black. I only have a few shirts that I wear for going out which is rare these days. The rest of the time it's the same 'ol black Dickies t-shirts I wear to work. Now, choose to not believe me. See, I want you to believe my shirt is black because that's the truth and I want to demonstrate that you can't choose to not believe me, but you say you have a choice, so choose to believe what is false: that my shirt is not black.

How is that any different from your earlier example?

Our actions affect our beliefs, I've already said as much. You keep declaring that acts are free even though you've already conceded that our acts are determined in our pursuit of happiness though.

Where have I conceded that our acts are determined by the pursuit of happiness? That's your thesis, and it's the one I've been opposing ever since we started talking about determinism.

No it doesn't. A bloody knife found in a man's apartment doesn't presuppose anything. Either that convinces us that man is connected to a murder or it doesn't.

Your example also presupposes a will to judge. It is present in the "us" in your sentence.

Good thing I didn't say that.

Then you deny the principle?

Then I think you simply don't understand what the phrase "in vain" means.

Or else I am more familiar with Thomas and the translation of his Latin than you are.

No it's not. It's an appeal to consequences. Just because you think those consequences are absurd doesn't mean they aren't true.

Lol. So now you're rejecting the very idea of a reductio?

Sounds like a computer program. Software is constantly evaluating "if x == y".

A computer is like a Plinko board. Differing inputs will generate differing outputs but the ordering schema is always fixed. The ordering schema has no indeterminateness. Computers have no will. Humans are able to conform to indeterminateness even in their "ordering schema"--even at the highest levels, over time.

Dogs don't do physics because they lack the computational power.

Ah, okay.

How the receiver sees the proof is what matters, not what caused the proof.

The speaker of the proof and the listener are both important, but if the listener receives a proof that the speaker was not intending then that fact is due not to communication but to natural discovery, so to speak.

How about another analogy with language this time? A person visiting a foreign country for the first time and who doesn't speak the language might refer to a foreigner-to-Murican dictionary to ask "Where is the bathroom?" but fuddle it all up so that the foreigner hears, "I want to kiss your goats". The Murican meant one thing, but he said something else because the listener heard something else.

I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate with this, but there are three relevant pieces: the speaker's intentionality, the signs produced, and the listener's interpretation. In this case the speaker is producing signs that do not signify what he intends them to signify (based on the language-consensus).

That's a pretty broad claim. Have you not heard of human-exceptionalism that I mentioned? Some folks think that there is something special about humans that is unreliable to animals, some folks think that humans just have some qualities that are much more advanced, but still resemble the more basic qualities of other animals. I'm sure there are some philosophers that ascribe to the latter, aren't you? I mean, it pretty much follows from the ToE.

There may be exceptions.

We claim that you can't demonstrate free will. "I never said I could demonstrate it. From the very beginning of our conversation I was clear about that."

Right, which is why it's strange that you keep claiming it.

I never said that. In fact, we went over this earlier and I said the opposite. Remember you were talking about the basketball player and I said that our actions cause effects that affect our beliefs and it's this feedback that creates the illusion of freewill.

Right: you think belief is absolutely ontologically prior to choice.

The fact of the matter is not that my reasoning presupposes free will, it's that you are a staunch Free-Willy-ist. You are unable to consider any belief in a deterministic way.

I'm not a staunch anything. I'll hold any belief I think I can make a good case for because winning arguments makes me happy so I have to.

Well the invalidity of your inference and the claim that true reasoning implies free will are two different things, though I am content to affirm both of them.

 

[Moral Orel]

Then you deny the principle?

Of course I deny your straw man, isn't that the point of straw men? Since you've repeatedly shown that you can't respond to the things I say, this conversation is going nowhere and I just don't have the interest in correcting the same things over and over again. Let me know if you want to put a little more effort into your reading comprehension and we can try again some time.

 

[Ken-1122]

I've been away for a few days and didn't have access to a computer. I'm back now; time to respond

as with many philosophical concepts, there are multiple ways to define nihilism
"Most commonly, nihilism refers to existential nihilism, according to which life is believed to be without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

Obviously life has value, but what do you mean by objective meaning, and objective purpose? If “objective” means based on fact, demonstrable as true, not based on your thoughts, beliefs, perspectives, or opinions, perhaps you can give an example of meaning and purpose that is based on fact that can be demonstrated as true; before I give a response.

[4] Moral nihilism asserts that nothing is morally right or wrong.

Definitely doesn’t describe me, I say things are morally right or wrong all the time!

Among others, nihilism may also take the form of epistemological nihilism, according to which knowledge is impossible,

Knowledge is impossible? No; not me.

and a number of metaphysical forms of nihilism, which assert that composite objects do not exist, that necessary objects do not exist, or even that reality itself does not exist."
Nihilism - Wikipedia

Definitely does not describe me. Care to try again? Again; please explain how Atheism leads to nihilism.

in post 638 I believe you wrote,
"My life has meaning. But the meaning I bring to my life is subjective, not objective."
Atheism and nihilism

it sounded to me like you were saying there that life doesn't have an objective meaning and purpose.

Correct! It has SUBJECTIVE meaning and purpose, not objective.

if you assert that you control your thoughts, I think you have to base that on faith.

Faith is defined as “belief without empirical evidence”. I personally have lots of empirical evidence that I control my thoughts. I may not be able to prove it to your satisfaction, but I don’t need to; as long as it is proven to my satisfaction, it is not faith.

I am not aware of any objective evidence that we control our thoughts.

I have lots of evidence that I control my own thoughts; I don't know if it could be called objective evidence, but it is evidence.

I don't know, it's possible.

You don’t know? How did you come to know nobody ends up in Hell for eternity, but you don't know if they end up in Heaven for eternity? And how did you come to believe there is an afterlife anyway?

are you certain that I, Leaf473, am conscious?

Yes.

do you have objective evidence that I am?

The fact that you logged onto a computer to communicate with me is all the evidence I need that you are aware of your surroundings (conscious)

if you believe that I am conscious, what led you to believe that matter and energy is not conscious?

Some of it is conscious, some of it is not.

 

[Sammy-San]

Some religious people claim that atheism, which is defined as a lack of belief in deity or deities, is inherently nihilistic. Since atheists come from all nationalities, races, socio-economic backgrounds, and indeed all walks of life, it is reasonable to say that making such a sweeping generalization of all atheists isn’t fair.

However, many atheists spend an inordinate amount of time criticizing religion. Visit any atheist blog on the internet, and there you won’t find one positive article on faith. It seems like everything they post is hostile towards religion. You’ll never see them post a link to a news story about Christians feeding the poor or being good people in general. The same can be said about atheist books: read any book from renowned atheists such as Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, and all they have to say about religion is bad. In fact, the world's most famous blasphemy advocate Christopher Hitchens even wrote a book called How Religion Poisons Everything.

Since it seems like almost all atheists are hostile towards religion, particularly Christianity, which is an inherently peaceful faith that improves morals and provides eternal salvation for all believers, wouldn’t it make sense to think that atheism is inherently nihilistic? It’s not like you ever see atheists praising religion and talking about how good it is. If that is what they believed, they probably wouldn’t be atheists in the first place.

Atheism is a self defeating concept because God is a God of order and morals.

 

[Kylie]

Atheism is a self defeating concept because God is a God of order and morals.

Nice slogan, but a nifty sound bite doesn't mean it's true.