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

[Moral Orel]

I don't think that works. For one thing, it runs into the same problem that much of the Abrahamic tradition does--could a God that would condemn anyone to eternal torment be anything but an evil God? The Abrahamic traditions can potentially get around this problem by positing an existential version of hell, where damnation is something one ultimately does to oneself by failing to pursue higher meaning in life (or worse), but I see no way to reframe Blerg's arbitrary rules in a way that makes sense existentially.

Actually, I do see one way out. If worship of Blerg for whatever reason turns people into vicious mockeries of themselves, or otherwise destroys them, then it would make sense for such worship to end in damnation. But that would also make Blerg an evil God.

The first thing you would need to do for any Pascalian Wager is to frame salvation and damnation in a way that doesn't look like a caricature. Once you do that, though, the objections stop working.

A long while back I made a thread about The Evil God Challenge. It wasn't really an exercise to show that God is evil, moreso it was an argument that what God likes is inscrutable. You participated, briefly. Most of the arguments consisted of people telling me that "whatever god likes is good, that's the definition of 'good' and the definition of 'evil' is whatever god doesn't like". I think that's a silly semantic argument to bypass the actual challenge, but we can still conceive of an infinite number of gods that value an infinite variety of things. So for every concept of a higher being that can grant eternal happiness or cause/allow eternal torment, good or evil, how do you know the thing you value is valued by that higher being? Maybe that higher being values physical prowess, maybe that higher being values intellect, maybe that higher being values sexual pleasure. Who knows?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You know nothing, Jon Snow...

Oh no! I'm afraid that your allusion is unfortunately lost on me since I'm one of the hold outs who............................................................

...can I say this here? Is it permitted?​

.....................................I've never watched 'Game of Thrones'! ((And the crowd gasped in shock!))

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It doesn’t seem to take into consideration an uncountable number of “gray-area” god’s that could be testing you, and would send you to an equally uncountable number of tortuous afterlives if you fail the test.

I mean just look at the god Blerg, who sends you to an unbearable afterlife for believing in any gods at all because he would never be in a club that would have him as a member.

You don’t want to make Blerg mad, do you?

And here I thought you said you had read all of Pascal's Pensees. What would Pascal likely have said about these supposed "alternatives" (assuming they were even viable options)?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not exactly, I thought it was cogent enough. I’ve never felt the evil god hypothetical was a particularly strong argument against a good god, nor particularly convincing on its own, and she laid out some pretty good reasons not to go down that road. Even the Atheist’s Wager settles at us being better off living moral lives no matter who’s at the wheel up in Heaven.

I agree with you, but keep in mind that for the purposes of this thread, there are Epistemological issues at stake and not simply Axiological ones.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We've been chatting about B-Theory of time and she's been helping me cook up a concept of the universe that allows for infinite regression.

Oh, ok. I think I've seen a few comments exchanged elsewhere between the two of you on this, but I'll refrain from joining you both in that kitchen. I've got other fish to fry.

Uh....What? I need to accept that the brains-in-vats have sentience? Sure. What else?

No, Putnam's argument is specifically proffered to epistemologically disembowel the Matrix/Brains-In-A-Vat type scenario through a semantic disambiguation of misguided notions about human "reference."

Putnam, through his utilization of Analytic Philosophy, would say that you guys (i.e. overly skeptical dudes who resort to fictional hypotheses of the Matrix kind) are making a conceptual mistake by relying upon "Magical Theories of Reference." So, all that the Matrix type stuff ends up being is ... pure fiction, with a veneer of "science-i-ness" about it.

 

[gaara4158]

I agree with you, but keep in mind that for the purposes of this thread, there are Epistemological issues at stake and not simply Axiological ones.

I don’t think it makes much of a difference what else is at stake if ultimately we are forced to proceed in a specific direction. We can agonize over epistemic problems on the evil-god model, but to what end?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don’t think it makes much of a difference what else is at stake if ultimately we are forced to proceed in a specific direction. We can agonize over epistemic problems on the evil-god model, but to what end?

For Descartes, the "end" of entertaining Evil-Demon, Brain-In-A-Vat, Matrix scenarios was to come to a point where excessive skepticism could be mediated or, more hopefully, removed from our perceptual and conceptual mental grids.

However, I'd go with Pascal in saying that when it comes to the idea of the biblical god, then 'doubt' can still be on, BUT that doesn't mean we should languish in some kind of uber-skepticism that also affects how 'real' we see our world. It also shouldn't make cynics out of us; no, for Pascal, it would make more sense to align ourselves with conceptual structures of "hope," like that which we have in Jesus.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Great video, but what's your assessment of it?

 

[gaara4158]

Great video, but what's your assessment of it?

I like the movie better on this theory. It reminds me of a Rick and Morty scene:

 

[Silmarien]

A long while back I made a thread about The Evil God Challenge. It wasn't really an exercise to show that God is evil, moreso it was an argument that what God likes is inscrutable. You participated, briefly. Most of the arguments consisted of people telling me that "whatever god likes is good, that's the definition of 'good' and the definition of 'evil' is whatever god doesn't like". I think that's a silly semantic argument to bypass the actual challenge, but we can still conceive of an infinite number of gods that value an infinite variety of things. So for every concept of a higher being that can grant eternal happiness or cause/allow eternal torment, good or evil, how do you know the thing you value is valued by that higher being? Maybe that higher being values physical prowess, maybe that higher being values intellect, maybe that higher being values sexual pleasure. Who knows?

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

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

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

 

[Moral Orel]

No, Putnam's argument is specifically proffered to epistemologically disembowel the Matrix/Brains-In-A-Vat type scenario through a semantic disambiguation of misguided notions about human "reference."

Putnam, through his utilization of Analytic Philosophy, would say that you guys (i.e. overly skeptical dudes who resort to fictional hypotheses of the Matrix kind) are making a conceptual mistake by relying upon "Magical Theories of Reference." So, all that the Matrix type stuff ends up being is ... pure fiction, with a veneer of "science-i-ness" about it.

I'm only using The Matrix as an analogy to the belief you hold that everything about the physical world and how we perceive things is crafted and designed. I'm not hypothesizing that the matrix might be real, I'm stating that if God created our physical reality to be the way it is, then that is a matrix. I'm taking your hypothesis and running with it. So if I can't say that I'm a brain-in-a-vat, I think that I also can't say I'm a spirit in a physical body for the same reasons.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm only using The Matrix as an analogy to the belief you hold that everything about the physical world and how we perceive things is crafted and designed. I'm not hypothesizing that the matrix might be real, I'm stating that if God created our physical reality to be the way it is, then that is a matrix. I'm taking your hypothesis and running with it. So if I can't say that I'm a brain-in-a-vat, I think that I also can't say I'm a spirit in a physical body for the same reasons.

...Good call, Nick! Someone--somewhere--just got their apologetic efforts shot to pieces!

 

[FireDragon76]

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

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

 

[Moral Orel]

...Good call, Nick! Someone--somewhere--just got their apologetic efforts shot to pieces!

Um... what?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm only using The Matrix as an analogy to the belief you hold that everything about the physical world and how we perceive things is crafted and designed. I'm not hypothesizing that the matrix might be real, I'm stating that if God created our physical reality to be the way it is, then that is a matrix. I'm taking your hypothesis and running with it. So if I can't say that I'm a brain-in-a-vat, I think that I also can't say I'm a spirit in a physical body for the same reasons.

Nick, all of that could sound cogent to those who truly entertain constant, unrealistic hypothetical thinking, but for those who do so think we're all stuck in a Matrix type of scenario of one kind or another, I usually just try to suggest to them that they "go outside and get some fresh air!"

As a friend, I'm also going to suggest that you do so as well. The reason I offer this suggestion is because, essentially, your comparison above is, in and of itself, also like saying that the movie Inception, and the movie Dark Phoenix, both have the same plot and same film qualities simply because they both happen to have musical scores composed by Hans Zimmerman.

I might also suggest you put the Kryptonite away. It's not going to work here ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I like the movie better on this theory. It reminds me of a Rick and Morty scene:

Funny clip! I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but I had more in mind something like this, something a little less cynical:

 

[Moral Orel]

Nick, all of that could sound cogent to those who truly entertain constant hypothetical thinking, but for those who think we're all stuck in a Matrix type of scenario of one kind or another, I usually just try to suggest to them that they "go outside and get some fresh air!"

See, you're still strawmanning me. I don't like that. I don't believe we're in a matrix.

As a friend, I'm also going to suggest that you do so as well. The reason I offer this suggestion is because, essentially, your comparison above is, in and of itself, also like saying that the movie Inception, and the movie Dark Phoenix, both have the same plot and same film qualities simply because they both happen to have musical scores composed by Hans Zimmerman.

That may be how it seems to you. How about we restrict our conversation for the moment to explore just what makes a matrix a matrix. What are the necessary elements? I'd say right off the bat we don't have to imagine it's implemented with computer code or with people in pods of goo, right? What elements do you think I'm implying are necessary just by invoking the analogy?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

See, you're still strawmanning me. I don't like that. I don't believe we're in a matrix.

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

That may be how it seems to you. How about we restrict our conversation for the moment to explore just what makes a matrix a matrix. What are the necessary elements? I'd say right off the bat we don't have to imagine it's implemented with computer code or with people in pods of goo, right? What elements do you think I'm implying are necessary just by invoking the analogy?

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

 

[gaara4158]

Funny clip! I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but I had more in mind something like this, something a little less cynical:

View attachment 258042

Yeah, I think it’s fine to languish in existential horror every once in a while. It’s a phase for some people. But even without some theistic life-saver to pull me out of it, ultimately there's no point wallowing in self-pity. At some point you're either going to sink or swim.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, I think it’s fine to languish in existential horror every once in a while. It’s a phase for some people. But even without some theistic life-saver to pull me out of it, ultimately there's no point wallowing in self-pity. At some point you're either going to sink or swim.

True enough, but personally, I'd rather hope to see all of us swim ...