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

[Moral Orel]

...well, according to Paul the Apostle, one of the sins worse than being gay is to be a 'hater of God.' So, since you said that there are also secular reasons by which to consider the worse sins as wrong, I was just wondering which of the various secular ethical viewpoints would describe that state of mind in that way.

Okay, you got me. I assumed you were talking about some sin that a person who doesn't believe in God might commit. My mistake.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, you got me. I assumed you were talking about some sin that a person who doesn't believe in God might commit. My mistake.

I don't think you made a mistake. I probably should have attempted to better clarify what I was trying to get at ...

 

[Silmarien]

It all just sounds like finding happiness in the here and now. I agree that being generally morally good leads to being happier than being an awful person, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with some ultimate good. It sounds like you keep saying to pick the religion that feels good to you, so it seems to me that if no religion at all feels good, then that's just as good of a pick.

That is really the opposite of what I am saying. Pascal's Wager is always about one side of the equation having potentially infinite rewards and punishments, and the other side being basically neutral with no real reward or punishment at all. There's no reason why infinite rewards shouldn't encompass finding happiness in the here and now, but that is a secondary aspect of it. Picking whatever feels good without factoring in the possibility of eternity would be a poor wager.

My wife suffers from all three. There's a difference between a person that is generally always bummed out or grumpy that makes them snappier than normal, and rude folk. I said "mean folk" not "anyone who dares forget their manners around me once". I know what its like to live with a person who very regularly snaps for no good reason, and that isn't a mean person.

But how do you know that a stranger is genuinely "mean" rather than lashing out because of some sort of personal circumstance? I don't know how you could possibly determine that someone is a "mean person" and therefore worthy of being treated poorly without actually being inside their head.

Yeah, it still just sounds like do what makes you feel good as long as you're doing good.

I haven't mentioned "doing good" at all, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from. I suspect that you're reinterpreting everything I say through some sort of subjectivist, consequentialist framework, which doesn't work because this is at heart an argument for rejecting subjectivism. You're not going to understand it unless you can really grasp the possibility that subjectivism is false.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It all just sounds like finding happiness in the here and now. I agree that being generally morally good leads to being happier than being an awful person, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with some ultimate good. It sounds like you keep saying to pick the religion that feels good to you, so it seems to me that if no religion at all feels good, then that's just as good of a pick.

I know these comments were directed at @Silmarien, so I won't try to speak for her, but I will echo her responses by saying that I know it can 'sound' as if Pascal is implying that we should pick a feel good religion, but this isn't the case and instead implies the presence of Axiological qualifiers within the conceptual structure of our religious outlook-on-life.

Regardless of what appears to be the weakness of my own personal, existential perspective, this is part of the reason I offered up an Aesthetic Argument here not too long ago. It's an auxiliary aspect of my subscription to Philosophical Hermeneutics. My position, however seemingly irrelevant it may be to some people, isn't reducible to a simplistic attempt on my part to delude myself into thinking there's truly hope and pie-in-the-sky, most especially not because the idea of a loving Jesus makes me feel good, even though it does. Truthfully, there also are parts of the Christian Faith that, to me, feel like a huge hurdle to jump over.

My wife suffers from all three. There's a difference between a person that is generally always bummed out or grumpy that makes them snappier than normal, and rude folk. I said "mean folk" not "anyone who dares forget their manners around me once". I know what its like to live with a person who very regularly snaps for no good reason, and that isn't a mean person.

I'm sorry to hear that your wife has severe emotional struggles to deal with. That is a hard situation to deal with. I'm also sorry if I've come across as callous, mean, rude, or generally apathetic at various times, but I'm me, even if the reality outside of CF is that I try not to be this way if I can keep from it, but I do provisionally run by the principle of meeting tough criticism with tough criticism. As you know, I like a lot of fictional characters, not the least of which are Ghost Rider or Daredevil or Spider-man, and most importantly I try to follow Christ, but I'll admit that I do so in a qualified, existentially defined human way as any typical human could do, and for me, that further translates into trying to express my disposition in a semblance of Samwise Gamgee or Foggy Nelson. Why? Because Stoics are boring ...

Yeah, it still just sounds like do what makes you feel good as long as you're doing good.

Sure. It can sound that way ...

 

[Moral Orel]

That is really the opposite of what I am saying. Pascal's Wager is always about one side of the equation having potentially infinite rewards and punishments, and the other side being basically neutral with no real reward or punishment at all. There's no reason why infinite rewards shouldn't encompass finding happiness in the here and now, but that is a secondary aspect of it. Picking whatever feels good without factoring in the possibility of eternity would be a poor wager.

Sure, the eternity bit is the goal, but it seems like you're saying that you pick which path just based on what feels good. There's no objective way to know what could be right.

But how do you know that a stranger is genuinely "mean" rather than lashing out because of some sort of personal circumstance? I don't know how you could possibly determine that someone is a "mean person" and therefore worthy of being treated poorly without actually being inside their head.

People are diagnosed with antisocial personalities all the time. You can doubt that I, personally, am any good at it, but it isn't controversial to believe that it's entirely possible.

I haven't mentioned "doing good" at all, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from. I suspect that you're reinterpreting everything I say through some sort of subjectivist, consequentialist framework, which doesn't work because this is at heart an argument for rejecting subjectivism. You're not going to understand it unless you can really grasp the possibility that subjectivism is false.

Note that I said, "doing good" and not "doing well". I meant it in the way that Superman "does good". And you have talked about how being morally good is objectively better than being morally bad. Which I agree with to an extent. And you can't argue to reject subjectivism if you're picking your religion based on what feels right to you.

 

[zippy2006]

Sure, the eternity bit is the goal, but it seems like you're saying that you pick which path just based on what feels good. There's no objective way to know what could be right.

If you are choosing based on anticipated rewards, then how are you at the same time choosing on the basis of "what feels good"? You seem to be extending the concept of choice on the basis of feeling far beyond its normal meaning. Further, choosing based on objective certainty and choosing based on what feels good are not the only two options.

 

[Moral Orel]

@zippy2006 @2PhiloVoid @Silmarien
I haven't been clear. I've been speaking too casually and my meaning isn't coming across accurately. Clearly it's my mistake since all of you are interpreting what I've said the same way. So let me try to be more precise.

When I say "what makes you feel good" I don't mean "whatever concept of Heaven sounds the nicest". I mean whatever lines up with your own personal view of how people should act because that will make you feel like you're a good person to do what you already feel like you should be doing and what you already try to do.

 

[gaara4158]

That said, it's not necessarily about feeling bad. It's about the wager. If life is meaningless, then you don't really "win" anything by deciding that it's meaningless, since there's no harm in pretending that it isn't. On the other hand, operating as if it's meaningless when it actually is not is the sort of thing that could be potentially disastrous. That's the underlying theme of the wager: you're either betting that things matter or that they don't, and only one side of that bet really has consequences, for better or for worse.

I don’t mean to butt in, but I’d like to hear more about what you think operating as though life is ultimately meaningless should actually entail. To me, it seems you’re saying that if there is no objective meaning to life, then there’s some objective reason to just do nothing and die, otherwise you’re pretending objectivism is true. But that can’t be right, obviously, because without objectivism there’s no objective reason to do anything, including sit catatonically until you wither. Care to sort me out?

 

[Silmarien]

Sure, the eternity bit is the goal, but it seems like you're saying that you pick which path just based on what feels good. There's no objective way to know what could be right.

Again, the problem is that you're viewing everything from within a subjectivist framework. I don't think that's very coherent, particularly for something like Pascal's Wager. Even if we're just looking at the secular version about being moral, if the only difference between helping an injured man on the street and shooting him is whichever one feels better, both answers are equally correct and the wager collapses.

The wager is always about accepting one half of the equation as objectively true. Obviously there is a subjective element, because we are necessarily subjective beings, but the whole point is overcoming that problem.

People are diagnosed with antisocial personalities all the time. You can doubt that I, personally, am any good at it, but it isn't controversial to believe that it's entirely possible.

Now I am just confused. You think we should be mean to people with personality disorders?

Note that I said, "doing good" and not "doing well". I meant it in the way that Superman "does good". And you have talked about how being morally good is objectively better than being morally bad. Which I agree with to an extent. And you can't argue to reject subjectivism if you're picking your religion based on what feels right to you.

Yes, you absolutely can. In fact, that is the entire point! Even if you are choosing a religion based on what intuitively seems the most true to you, in the very act of choosing that religion, you are placing a wager that your intuitions inherently match up to reality. This is by definition the rejection of subjectivism.

 

[Silmarien]

I don’t mean to butt in, but I’d like to hear more about what you think operating as though life is ultimately meaningless should actually entail. To me, it seems you’re saying that if there is no objective meaning to life, then there’s some objective reason to just do nothing and die, otherwise you’re pretending objectivism is true. But that can’t be right, obviously, because without objectivism there’s no objective reason to do anything, including sit catatonically until you wither. Care to sort me out?

No, that isn't what I'm saying. I think it was the French existentialists who really worked out what it would mean for reality to be ultimately meaningless, and the answers that they gave are generally good (if a bit paradoxical).

Sartre advocated accepting ultimate responsibility for one's own life and for finding meaning therein, though was pretty pessimistic about the ways in which we lie to ourselves to relieve ourselves of this burden. Camus, in contrast, embraced the paradox in a more complete fashion, viewing the human need for meaning as ultimately unfulfillable, but holding that the only genuine option was to persist in trying anyway, in full awareness of the impossibility of the goal.

I think these particular thinkers hit on something very true--even if reality is ultimately meaningless, as a species we are basically programmed to seek it out. You see this time and again, most recently I think with the advent of secular progressivism. People don't want some sort of cold utilitarian calculus about why it's usually in our best interests to treat one another decently. They want absolutes. They want things to matter for real. And therein lies the absurdity, since caring so much is a little bit laughable in a meaningless reality.

Is there an objective reason to lie down and die in a meaningless world? I mean, suicide is definitely a valid option, and there are no objective reasons to reject it, but that wasn't actually what I had in mind when I mentioned potential disaster. I'm specifically looking at the scenario in which life actually does have some ultimate meaning, and someone has chosen to shut that door forever and either try to content themselves with lesser things or take the fullblown route of philosophical rebellion.

As always with a Pascalian Wager, there are 4 possibilities here:

1. Life is ultimately meaningful, and one treats it as if it were meaningful.

2. Life is ultimately meaningless, but one treats it as if it were meaningful.

3. Life is ultimately meaningful, but one treats it as if it were meaningless.

4. Life is ultimately meaningless, and one treats it as if it were meaningless.

Nothing really matters in either #2 or #4, since they both lead to a reality where all is permitted and no one choice is objectively better than any other. It's #3 where the real danger lies.

 

[Moral Orel]

Again, the problem is that you're viewing everything from within a subjectivist framework. I don't think that's very coherent, particularly for something like Pascal's Wager. Even if we're just looking at the secular version about being moral, if the only difference between helping an injured man on the street and shooting him is whichever one feels better, both answers are equally correct and the wager collapses.

The wager is always about accepting one half of the equation as objectively true. Obviously there is a subjective element, because we are necessarily subjective beings, but the whole point is overcoming that problem.

What if there's a god, but there's no afterlife? Or what if it's perpetual and eternal reincarnation? Or what if there is no god, but humans discover a way to escape the eventual heat death of the universe and continue to exist as a species infinitely into the future. What I'm getting at is, what if there is no reward for you personally in the future? Can things in these scenarios still be objectively good?

Now I am just confused. You think we should be mean to people with personality disorders?

I never said anything about what other people should do. And there are a lot of personality disorders that wouldn't cause a person to be mean at all, let alone be something anyone would call a "mean person".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@zippy2006 @2PhiloVoid @Silmarien
I haven't been clear. I've been speaking too casually and my meaning isn't coming across accurately. Clearly it's my mistake since all of you are interpreting what I've said the same way. So let me try to be more precise.

When I say "what makes you feel good" I don't mean "whatever concept of Heaven sounds the nicest". I mean whatever lines up with your own personal view of how people should act because that will make you feel like you're a good person to do what you already feel like you should be doing and what you already try to do.

Thank you for rearticulating your intended meaning for us, Nick. However, I'm pretty sure that when I was 14 and I responded to the bullying I experienced in Jr. High, the council that my own father gave to me about "IF someone starts a fight with you, don't worry if the school thinks it's wrong; you just be damn sure you're the one who finishes it!" ...... wasn't quite the thing that Jesus would have had me do. In fact, I was kind of surprised when I turned 17, read the New Testament for the first time, and soon realized that some of the significant instructions for life given to me by my immediate and extended family didn't comport with the commands of Christ.

So, I no longer literally slam my opponents into the wall like I did before ... ... now I just "turn the other cheek" (as I interpret this latter course of action through Jewishly laden, scholarly help). I guess it's a good thing that I try to not figure it all out for myself, because if I did, I'd just be another Radical Republican or Leftist Democrat.

 

[Moral Orel]

I know these comments were directed at @Silmarien, so I won't try to speak for her, but I will echo her responses by saying that I know it can 'sound' as if Pascal is implying that we should pick a feel good religion, but this isn't the case and instead implies the presence of Axiological qualifiers within the conceptual structure of our religious outlook-on-life.

Regardless of what appears to be the weakness of my own personal, existential perspective, this is part of the reason I offered up an Aesthetic Argument here not too long ago. It's an auxiliary aspect of my subscription to Philosophical Hermeneutics. My position, however seemingly irrelevant it may be to some people, isn't reducible to a simplistic attempt on my part to delude myself into thinking there's truly hope and pie-in-the-sky, most especially not because the idea of a loving Jesus makes me feel good, even though it does. Truthfully, there also are parts of the Christian Faith that, to me, feel like a huge hurdle to jump over.

I looked into your Aesthetic Argument thread, but it wasn't really about arguing for God's existence, so I sort of blew it off and forgot about it. I only followed it for a page or so to see what it was about.

I'm sorry to hear that your wife has severe emotional struggles to deal with. That is a hard situation to deal with.

It's not really. We had a rough patch a long time ago when our marriage was new, sure. She's got an unusual cocktail of misfortune that manifests itself randomly. But you know what? I probably enjoy being with her so much because all the grumpiness that comes along with her troubles is just more opportunity for me to shift her mood more dramatically. It isn't so much of a challenge to keep a happy person happy. Just don't be too boring. Getting her to giggle when she wants to burst into tears because her chronic back pain has been keeping her up all night for a week is a real challenge. It may sound like I'm bragging about what a super nice guy I am, but I'm not. Remember I'm open about why I do it. I'm bragging about what a skilled manipulator I am . I won't divulge her other issues since that's a lot more personal than her back pain. I only mentioned them to show that I know what I'm talking about, not to invoke sympathy.

I'm also sorry if I've come across as callous, mean, rude, or generally apathetic at various times, but I'm me, even if the reality outside of CF is that I try not to be this way if I can keep from it, but I do provisionally run by the principle of meeting tough criticism with tough criticism. As you know, I like a lot of fictional characters, not the least of which are Ghost Rider or Daredevil or Spider-man, and most importantly I try to follow Christ, but I'll admit that I do so in a qualified, existentially defined human way as any typical human could do, and for me, that further translates into trying to express my disposition in a semblance of Samwise Gamgee or Foggy Nelson. Why? Because Stoics are boring ...

If you're worried that I think you might be a rude fellow, don't be. We've had some heated discussions in the past, but I know the difference between tensions flaring and a generally negative disposition towards other people. You're a nicer guy than I am. You've seen me post to all sorts of people around here. How many people am I consistently rude to? Like three guys. And for one of them, it's sort of a game for both of us to see how close we can come to outright flaming without crossing that line. I'm on the ignore list of the other two.

I revealed my twisted view on emotional manipulation to my wife only after being married for years, because I know people get paranoid about it, and she did. She started questioning what I really thought about her and whether I was honest about it. So I had to tell her, "Baby, if I thought you were an awful person, you'd know it."

 

[Moral Orel]

Thank you for rearticulating your intended meaning for us, Nick. However, I'm pretty sure that when I was 14 and I responded to the bullying I experienced in Jr. High, the council that my own father gave to me about "IF someone starts a fight with you, don't worry if the school thinks it's wrong; you just be damn sure you're the one who finishes it!" ...... wasn't quite the thing that Jesus would have had me do. In fact, I was kind of surprised when I turned 17, read the New Testament for the first time, and soon realized that some of the significant instructions for life given to me by my immediate and extended family didn't comport with the commands of Christ.

This is going to sound like I'm trying to psychoanalyze you, so I'm sorry because that's not why I'm asking, but how did it make you feel when you learned that? Did it make you feel like Christianity might be wrong because it didn't comport with those previous instructions? Or did it make you feel like Christianity might be right because you never really liked those previous instructions to begin with?

If it's the former, then your anecdote is evidence against my hypothesis. If it's the latter, then you're confirming my suspicions. I've been building that idea based mostly on some of the things that Silmarian has said, not entirely out of my own experiences in the world, but not entirely without them either.

 

[Moral Orel]

Sure, it would be generally reasonable for me to agree with you on some level, IF we were chatting about the conceptual ins and outs of Flatland. I do think the article you've provided me forces me to reaffirm my own position for Critical Realism and reassess how Putnam's reliance upon Internal Realism may only take us part of the way in the analysis of Brain-In-A-Vat type scenarios.

At the same time, I'd like to try ('try' ) to keep us on the path I've set up in the OP. However, if you'd rather talk about the related epistemic issues we're on at the moment, we can do so. If we do, I'll just say that I think your assertion, while moderately applicable, will suffer from a kind of 'conceptual parallax' in the end, Nick.

I've been neglecting this and I want to get back to it. Remember I was saying that our ability to perceive anything had to be created. I know you don't get into the "how" of creation and all, but I don't think that matters. It's just about the fact that our ability to experience things is granted by the being that created us, and that's inevitable. Now add to that the idea that God can and does supernaturally influence the way we perceive the world. Think of the visions and dreams granted to people throughout the Bible. Again, still not inherently deceptive. Would you agree that altering perception of reality in that manner is on topic? Even if it still hasn't quite addressed the moral aspect of it.

 

[Silmarien]

This is going to sound like I'm trying to psychoanalyze you, so I'm sorry because that's not why I'm asking, but how did it make you feel when you learned that? Did it make you feel like Christianity might be wrong because it didn't comport with those previous instructions? Or did it make you feel like Christianity might be right because you never really liked those previous instructions to begin with?

If it's the former, then your anecdote is evidence against my hypothesis. If it's the latter, then you're confirming my suspicions. I've been building that idea based mostly on some of the things that Silmarian has said, not entirely out of my own experiences in the world, but not entirely without them either.

Much of what I've said really only applies to the type of Pascalian reasoning that can come into play when you're struggling with uncertainty. I never meant to imply that conversion is all about doing whatever "feels" right, since it's often a lot more complicated than that.

I have a really difficult relationship with Christianity. It was not entirely in sync with my secular liberal understanding of morality, but it was that understanding that eventually got overwritten. I do take a pretty Pascalian approach to the religion these days, but not because it just so happens to match up to my beliefs. I got too close and it rewrote those beliefs. At least in part--I'm still a liberal feminist, and as such am not thrilled with complementarianism, but if I'm wrong about that, so be it. The possibility doesn't really bother me, and that used to be the core of my identity.

 

[Moral Orel]

Much of what I've said really only applies to the type of Pascalian reasoning that can come into play when you're struggling with uncertainty. I never meant to imply that conversion is all about doing whatever "feels" right, since it's often a lot more complicated than that.

I have a really difficult relationship with Christianity. It was not entirely in sync with my secular liberal understanding of morality, but it was that understanding that eventually got overwritten. I do take a pretty Pascalian approach to the religion these days, but not because it just so happens to match up to my beliefs. I got too close and it rewrote those beliefs. At least in part--I'm still a liberal feminist, and as such am not thrilled with complementarianism, but if I'm wrong about that, so be it. The possibility doesn't really bother me, and that used to be the core of my identity.

You say that you take a Pascalian approach these days. So I'm wondering about the order of events. Did you bet on Christianity, and then you got too close and it rewrote your beliefs? Or did you start exploring Christianity and after it rewrote your beliefs you took the Pascalian approach?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I looked into your Aesthetic Argument thread, but it wasn't really about arguing for God's existence, so I sort of blew it off and forgot about it. I only followed it for a page or so to see what it was about.

Thanks for at least taking a look at it. Just keep in mind, it's not meant to be an argument "for" believing. Rather, it's an auxiliary argument for religious conceiving, one that (I think) puts a damper on the accusation that some of us Christians take up things like Pascal's Wager or just plain ol' doing Christianity without considering also the "Other gods" argument or the "Outsider Test for Faith" argument (as given by atheist John Loftus, for instance). Of course, it's not like Pascal assumed his Wager without already moving the other religions off of his playing field. No, he assumed they (except for aspects of Judaism) were bunk as a part of his overall philosophy and that played into his Wager.

It's not really. We had a rough patch a long time ago when our marriage was new, sure. She's got an unusual cocktail of misfortune that manifests itself randomly. But you know what? I probably enjoy being with her so much because all the grumpiness that comes along with her troubles is just more opportunity for me to shift her mood more dramatically. It isn't so much of a challenge to keep a happy person happy. Just don't be too boring. Getting her to giggle when she wants to burst into tears because her chronic back pain has been keeping her up all night for a week is a real challenge. It may sound like I'm bragging about what a super nice guy I am, but I'm not. Remember I'm open about why I do it. I'm bragging about what a skilled manipulator I am . I won't divulge her other issues since that's a lot more personal than her back pain. I only mentioned them to show that I know what I'm talking about, not to invoke sympathy.

If you're worried that I think you might be a rude fellow, don't be. We've had some heated discussions in the past, but I know the difference between tensions flaring and a generally negative disposition towards other people. You're a nicer guy than I am. You've seen me post to all sorts of people around here. How many people am I consistently rude to? Like three guys. And for one of them, it's sort of a game for both of us to see how close we can come to outright flaming without crossing that line. I'm on the ignore list of the other two.

I revealed my twisted view on emotional manipulation to my wife only after being married for years, because I know people get paranoid about it, and she did. She started questioning what I really thought about her and whether I was honest about it. So I had to tell her, "Baby, if I thought you were an awful person, you'd know it."

... yikes! Maybe the term 'manipulator' isn't the one you should really be using. You might want to use another one, perhaps ... ? Like 'encourager' or something?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is going to sound like I'm trying to psychoanalyze you, so I'm sorry because that's not why I'm asking, but how did it make you feel when you learned that?

Uh.....it made me feel "cognitive dissonance," and it made me realize that my families' social outlook on the world and how to achieve peace was somewhat akin to that of Darth Vader.

Did it make you feel like Christianity might be wrong because it didn't comport with those previous instructions?

When I first engaged Christianity in a very serious way, I had all kinds of strange feelings, some positive, some negative, some confused.

Or did it make you feel like Christianity might be right because you never really liked those previous instructions to begin with?

Well, let's see. [....hold on just a moment while I break out my Winnie-the-Pooh thinking cap and try to remember back to that time!]

....I'd have to say there were some thing in the bible I found to comport with my already existing notions of right and wrong AND some things that didn't.

If it's the former, then your anecdote is evidence against my hypothesis. If it's the latter, then you're confirming my suspicions. I've been building that idea based mostly on some of the things that Silmarian has said, not entirely out of my own experiences in the world, but not entirely without them either.

Alright, but I don't think there's a clear cut analysis that can be made of all of this and then applied across the board. I think it is more or less unique for each individual person.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've been neglecting this and I want to get back to it. Remember I was saying that our ability to perceive anything had to be created. I know you don't get into the "how" of creation and all, but I don't think that matters. It's just about the fact that our ability to experience things is granted by the being that created us, and that's inevitable. Now add to that the idea that God can and does supernaturally influence the way we perceive the world. Think of the visions and dreams granted to people throughout the Bible. Again, still not inherently deceptive. Would you agree that altering perception of reality in that manner is on topic? Even if it still hasn't quite addressed the moral aspect of it.

No, I wouldn't agree because there is the issue of intent embedded within all of this: in other words, there is a qualifiable moral difference between A) someone who chooses to reveal some extra input into our noggins for our ultimate benefit versus B) someone who chooses to deceive us (or manipulate us) out of malice for the purpose of leading us to some kind of destructive end.

And obviously, B) has something to do with this thread.