Creation and Causality

[redleghunter]

1 Corinthians 4:6
6Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.

That has nothing to do with studying other disciplines. It's about people making themselves more than they are and others looking to others as more than they are. Read the chapters leading up to this verse and after and it will become abundantly clear.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

1 Corinthians 4:6
6Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.

.........................you do know what the word "context" means, don't you? If so, I suggest you apply it to this tiny bit if Scripture that you've decided to just rip out and misapply.

 

[Project Panda]

.........................you do know what the word "context" means, don't you? If so, I suggest you apply it to this tiny bit if Scripture that you've decided to just rip out and misapply.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

All Paul meant in that verse (i.e. 1 Corinthians 4:6) is for the Christians in Corinth to not assume things about other people other than what was written. In other words, he was admonishing them to not judge or gossip about others, particularly as they attempted to assess the person of Paul and maybe some of the other apostles or early church leaders of their area. That's all that Paul was referring to.

So, if you came from some church where the pastor/preacher said something to the effect that "no Christian should read anything but the Bible and should not research anything further outside of the Bible," thus implying by this that Christians should be anti-intellectual and remain ignorant, then I'm sorry that you have come from that background. Any church leader who would try to use this verse from Paul for that use is simply ignorant of biblical hermeneutics and should be called to account for it.

 

[Project Panda]

All Paul meant in that verse (i.e. 1 Corinthians 4:6) is for the Christians in Corinth to not assume things about other people other than what was written. In other words, he was admonishing them to not judge or gossip about others, particularly as they attempted to assess the person of Paul and maybe some of the other apostles or early church leaders of their area. That's all that Paul was referring to.

So, if you came from some church where the pastor/preacher said something to the effect that "no Christian should read anything but the Bible and should not research anything further outside of the Bible," thus implying by this that Christians should be anti-intellectual and remain ignorant, then I'm sorry that you have come from that background. Any church leader who would try to use this verse from Paul for that use is simply ignorant of biblical hermeneutics and should be called to account for it.

Don't worry, the guy who told me that is going to die!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Don't worry, the guy who told me that is going to die!

Well, at least we know now that there was someone who influenced your thinking about the Bible in ways that were less than accurate. However, I'm not going to chortle over the news that the guy is dying.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I've seen enough frankly.

My thoughts exactly. Bye!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Let me throw this out, and you tell me whether it's an opinion (subjective) or fact (objective):
Pleasure is intrinsically desirable to humans.

I can grant this premise. I do not see how it will support your case.

I'm beginning to think you're more arguing about the label of "objective morality" than whether what I'm saying is factual or not.

Then let's drop the label for now.

I don't think it's "nonsense". I think it's nonsense to say a person is "goodness itself" or something like that. But it makes sense to say, "this is the factually correct action to take".

X is the factually correct action to take *if* you want to actualize a certain outcome. This is necessarily conditional.

 

[redleghunter]

Don't worry, the guy who told me that is going to die!

Well let's not go that far.

 

[redleghunter]

My thoughts exactly. Bye!

Have a blessed day!

 

[Moral Orel]

X is the factually correct action to take *if* you want to actualize a certain outcome. This is necessarily conditional.

Right. But with my model for morality, it isn't an "if" statement anymore. Pleasure is intrinsically desirable to humans, so you do want a specific outcome. Now the statement becomes, "X is the factually correct action to take *because* you want to experience as much pleasure as possible."

Now the question to ask is if there is anything we can replace X with. Is psychological health a factual thing that has proven methods of achieving contentedness? Is it a fact that we have evolved in ways that dictate where we derive pleasure from, at least in a general sense (i.e. empathy, socialization, survival, etc.)?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Right. But with my model for morality, it isn't an "if" statement anymore. Pleasure is intrinsically desirable to humans, so you do want a specific outcome. Now the statement becomes, "X is the factually correct action to take *because* you want to experience as much pleasure as possible."

But do humans really want to maximize pleasure? Christianity abhors pleasure and glorifies suffering.

Now the question to ask is if there is anything we can replace X with. Is psychological health a factual thing that has proven methods of achieving contentedness? Is it a fact that we have evolved in ways that dictate where we derive pleasure from, at least in a general sense (i.e. empathy, socialization, survival, etc.)?

I'm not qualified to analyze this.

 

[Moral Orel]

But do humans really want to maximize pleasure? Christianity abhors pleasure and glorifies suffering.

You have to be careful to distinguish between disliking pleasure, and disliking specific sources of pleasure. Does God's love make Christians happy? Does pleasing God make Christians happy? "Delight in the Lord" and all that.

I'm not qualified to analyze this.

Before I go looking up articles to support the notion that humans have evolved one way or another, let's see if the model can work first. If there is something to the idea of psychological well being, can I build a moral framework that is based solely on facts, and employs only rational decision making?

I think that at a most basic level, this is obvious given that pleasure is desirable. There are actions that are factually more likely to result in pleasure than others, right? I could set myself on fire, or I could try a new flavor of ice cream. It's more likely that I'll enjoy the ice cream than I will enjoy being burnt alive. There's proof of concept right there.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You have to be careful to distinguish between disliking pleasure, and disliking specific sources of pleasure. Does God's love make Christians happy? Does pleasing God make Christians happy? "Delight in the Lord" and all that.

Meh... I always got the impression that suffering for God is a higher honor than being blessed by God.

Before I go looking up articles to support the notion that humans have evolved one way or another, let's see if the model can work first. If there is something to the idea of psychological well being, can I build a moral framework that is based solely on facts, and employs only rational decision making?

I think that at a most basic level, this is obvious given that pleasure is desirable. There are actions that are factually more likely to result in pleasure than others, right? I could set myself on fire, or I could try a new flavor of ice cream. It's more likely that I'll enjoy the ice cream than I will enjoy being burnt alive. There's proof of concept right there.

Pleasure is desirable to humans... ok... ignoring my counter example, we are still left with the fact that it is a subject doing the desiring. That's what makes it subjective by definition.

 

[Moral Orel]

Meh... I always got the impression that suffering for God is a higher honor than being blessed by God.

And you're supposed to rejoice in your suffering. Philippians 2:17 And you're promised rewards in the next life. Matthew 6:20 You really think Christianity is about abject suffering? Frankly, that's weird.

Pleasure is desirable to humans... ok... ignoring my counter example, we are still left with the fact that it is a subject doing the desiring. That's what makes it subjective by definition.

That's all you got? Semantics? Okay, since this model is based on making pleasure the goal... or the "objective"... I'm going to call it "objective morality" .

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And you're supposed to rejoice in your suffering. Philippians 2:17 And you're promised rewards in the next life. Matthew 6:20 You really think Christianity is about abject suffering? Frankly, that's weird.

I agree, it is quite weird. But it's not a weird inference of their value system.

The Buddha was never obese. But he was depicted that way because, at the time, obesity corresponded to prosperity. By making the Buddha obese, they were flattering his memory.

Similarly, many of the disciples of Jesus are depicted as having suffered and died as martyrs. For Peter, there is good historical evidence that he was executed (although I don't think the reason for the execution is known). For someone obscure like Bartholomew, the martyr story was a way of honoring his memory to the greatest degree possible in the eyes of Christianity. Because Christianity is a religion that glorifies misery.

That's all you got? Semantics? Okay, since this model is based on making pleasure the goal... or the "objective"... I'm going to call it "objective morality" .

Are you implying that I'm equivocating?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For someone obscure like Bartholomew, the martyr story was a way of honoring his memory to the greatest degree possible in the eyes of Christianity. Because Christianity is a religion that glorifies misery.

 

[Moral Orel]

I agree, it is quite weird. But it's not a weird inference of their value system.

The Buddha was never obese. But he was depicted that way because, at the time, obesity corresponded to prosperity. By making the Buddha obese, they were flattering his memory.

Similarly, many of the disciples of Jesus are depicted as having suffered and died as martyrs. For Peter, there is good historical evidence that he was executed (although I don't think the reason for the execution is known). For someone obscure like Bartholomew, the martyr story was a way of honoring his memory to the greatest degree possible in the eyes of Christianity. Because Christianity is a religion that glorifies misery.

And why did people martyr themselves? Because it brought them pleasure. That's the point. Martyrs are considered great people because they were happy to die for their cause. If they died begrudgingly then they wouldn't be held in high esteem. And if it didn't bring them pleasure, they wouldn't have done it.

Are you implying that I'm equivocating?

I presented a model of morality that is based solely on facts that utilizes rational decision making about human behavior which allows me to make factual moral statements, and you want to argue about what to call it... Okay, now that I'm using the word "objective" to mean "goal" do you have an argument about how I label it, or are there no arguments left?

I don't think "subjective" is an appropriate word to use about something that is devoid of opinions, and I think that you're confusing the issue that my model is about personal feelings with it being influenced by personal feelings. But if we're just bickering over labels at this point, I don't really care how I go about it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And why did people martyr themselves? Because it brought them pleasure. That's the point. Martyrs are considered great people because they were happy to die for their cause. If they died begrudgingly then they wouldn't be held in high esteem. And if it didn't bring them pleasure, they wouldn't have done it.

I would agree that they had some kind of drive toward those outcomes, but I won't agree that they were necessarily done out of pleasure.

Lots of battered women continue to live their lives and refuse to seek help. Is it because they're finding the lifestyle pleasurable, or can we say we've found an issue where pleasure is not driving motivation but rather that more complex psychological issues are at play?

I presented a model of morality that is based solely on facts that utilizes rational decision making about human behavior which allows me to make factual moral statements, and you want to argue about what to call it...

People aren't always rational though. Have you taken away nothing from your conversations with Christians here?

Okay, now that I'm using the word "objective" to mean "goal" do you have an argument about how I label it, or are there no arguments left?

That label is either deliberately cute or deliberately deceptive. Probably both.

I don't think "subjective" is an appropriate word to use about something that is devoid of opinions, and I think that you're confusing the issue that my model is about personal feelings with it being influenced by personal feelings. But if we're just bickering over labels at this point, I don't really care how I go about it.

Let me try to characterize what I think it is that you're saying in another way.

Chocolate fudge brownie ice cream with cookie dough chunks, which we'll call Flavor X, is my favorite kind of ice cream. It would be my opinion if I said that Flavor X is the best ice cream, but it is an objective statement of reality to say that I prefer Flavor X over all other flavors.

Does that accurately reflect your position?

 

[Moral Orel]

I would agree that they had some kind of drive toward those outcomes, but I won't agree that they were necessarily done out of pleasure.

Lots of battered women continue to live their lives and refuse to seek help. Is it because they're finding the lifestyle pleasurable, or can we say we've found an issue where pleasure is not driving motivation but rather that more complex psychological issues are at play?

A battered woman finds herself in a difficult situation. But she's still aiming for the most pleasurable outcome in a bad situation. If she tries to flee, she might be killed. If she stays, she'll be hit, but she'll live.

I thought about working suffering into my model as a sort of anti-value, but I think it works, and is simpler, to just think of things in terms of positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement. Punishment just creates a situation for negative reinforcement to occur.

People aren't always rational though. Have you taken away nothing from your conversations with Christians here?

Of course not. This isn't a model to describe how people act, it's a model to describe how people should act. People should act rationally because it leads to more value.

That label is either deliberately cute or deliberately deceptive. Probably both.

Gee whiz! You think I'm cute? Not deceptive though, I clearly stated how I was using "objective" and it's a common usage of the word. Probably more common than the objective v subjective definition, actually. The point is that how you label my model doesn't matter. Let's talk about whether it is how I describe it, not whether it deserves one label or another.

Let me try to characterize what I think it is that you're saying in another way.

Chocolate fudge brownie ice cream with cookie dough chunks, which we'll call Flavor X, is my favorite kind of ice cream. It would be my opinion if I said that Flavor X is the best ice cream, but it is an objective statement of reality to say that I prefer Flavor X over all other flavors.

Does that accurately reflect your position?

Not even close. Have I stated that pleasure is valuable in my opinion? Nope, it's a fact. No opinions necessary. Now up at the start of your response you are trying to make an argument that pleasure isn't by it's very nature desirable, that's valid. But if you accept that it is a fact, even tacitly, you can't then call it opinion.