Life After Death

SexMachine · October 22, 2014, 12:03pm

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
To summarise - DoubleDuce and I have clearly demonstrated that atheist/rationalist ethics is not an authentic ethical system at all but rather rational egoism. This should be obvious from the way such an argument is phrased - it is in our interests to nurture/encourage virtuous/ethical behaviour. Our interests being the motivation for ethical conduct.

Authentic ethics is irrational because our interests are not relevant. So why should we act ethically? What is the motivation? In short, because that is what God has commanded us to do. The motivation for behaving ethically is to do God’s will - to obey God. That is the only authentic ethical position.

[/quote]

Except that, you got your ethics from Aristotle, not God. :D[/quote]

You’ve said this before. Aristotle’s ethics are grounded in two questions that Socrates asked:

What is good for man? - What is “the good life?”
What is good for the city?

From there follows a normative ethical system aimed at understanding what is in our interests to do. And I’ve already explained why an ethical system based upon these motivations cannot be authentic. All of the conundrums associated with ethical philosophy stem from these inappropriate motivations. I’ve given examples of where ethical systems based on such motivations can lead. One could rationally argue that it’s in the interests of the city to kill disabled babies because they will become a burden upon the city. In fact, this is exactly what the Spartans used to do.

What’s interesting is that even though this argument could be said to make sense and is rational, nonetheless everyone instinctively knows that it is not ethical. But you can’t explain why it’s not ethical. You just know it’s not. This is the concept of a universal objective transcendental moral order that I’ve described previously. It’s the “spiritual eye” that Friedrich Jacobi discussed where ethical truths are revealed or uncovered to man. This is divine law. It’s authentic ethics.

DoubleDuce · October 22, 2014, 1:45pm

[quote]Severiano wrote:
… others, we know in our hardwiring and the way we process that it is wrong…
[/quote]
No, absolutely not. There isn’t even a scientific method to define right or wrong, much less prove it. At best you are saying our hard wiring could cause you to feel some semblance of neural activation we give the label “pain” when we see others experiencing similar neural activation. There is no scientific physical quantification of wrong, when you use it, you violate your own principals. There is no scientific reason to call the neural activation we label as “pain” bad or wrong. There is no reason to scientifically ascribe it as wrong and the absence or the activations of other neurons we might label “pleasure” as good or right. And even if you were to rely on your own revelation (which is exactly what religion does) and assert that as true, there are a million counter examples. My legs hurt after a good squat session, but I consider that both good and right. All value judgments are outside the scope of science.

[quote]
Empathy is responsible for, or at least contributed to just about everything worthwhile we have ever done as a species. Society, artwork, music/various entertainment, our sociability as animals, even much of our intelligence is a result of our empathy/ how we are wired, and how we recognize and learn from other people. [/quote]

But without anything but rationality and science, there is no empathy, there is just a chemical reaction that generally explains a mode of behavior. There is also no such thing as “worthwhile” scientifically speaking. There is no reason to value any one state of matter of any other because there is no such thing as value in science. The mona lisa and unprocessed pigments in the plants they come from are equally scientifically “valuable” because scientifically, there is no value.

What this really gets down to is not that you are against god, it’s that you think of yourself as your own God. You claim to create and evaluate what you consider are real property of the universe. The only real difference between you and most main stream religions is that you think your revelations about truth come from yourself.

Go ahead and try. Pick any value judgment. It could be beauty, right, wrong, evil, good, whatever. Explain and define it using ONLY scientific quantization (it would be testable and measurable) and then apply exclusively that definition to your beliefs. It cannot be done rationally. It is necessary by definition both of science and of value that the 2 things are incompatible.

SexMachine · October 22, 2014, 2:09pm

I just want to point out something here most people probably aren’t aware of. One of our posters here is spewing out the ideology of a cult leader(Stefan Molyneux). Molyneux believes in radical individual sovereignty; he rejects the idea that anyone should be allowed to exercise any authority whatsoever, including parents. In fact, like the most extreme Marxists Molyneux rejects the idea of the family unit altogether. Like Marx and Engels, Molyneux openly states his goal of dismantling not only the state but the very foundation of civil society; of life itself - the family unit. The family is Molyneux’s primary target. And it’s not just theoretical with him. He’s actively involved in encouraging children to “divorce” their parents so to speak.

This is worth examining because this is the kind of moral nihilism that atheist/rationalist ethics can lead to. Our Mokyneux fan here is pushing the party line about “child abuse” - essentially for Molyneux any authority a parent exercises over their child is “child abuse”.

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
You’re missing the parts about what they did do and what methods they used to set rules and create structure.

How specifically did they enforce rules with you?[/quote]

My response to this question is quite simple and should put an end to it. Obviously I don’t condone cruelty or malicious behaviour towards children however, my father physically punished me at times and I’m glad he did. Physical punishment meted out to me was beneficial and helped to instil self discipline.

Again, I’m aware that many children suffer from horrendous physical abuse and I obviously don’t condone that. However, judicious, fair and restrained physical punishment is necessary and beneficial when done for the right reasons by a loving parent. I loved and respected my father immensely and his authority gave our family the stability and strength that was lacking in many other families I know.

countingbeans · October 22, 2014, 2:43pm

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:

Instead of asking questions to be answered, question your beliefs you already have. [/quote]

Why?

We’re pretty self centered species and this thread has an awful lot of evidence of people who think they have all the answers, talking down to others. (I’m pretty sure I can quote an example from every page.)

Maybe taking time to actually question things outside himself is actually want he needs right now, and would actually benefit him and those around him?

I just don’t understand why you would give this advice, and maybe I’m reading a tone that isn’t there, but your post comes of sanctimonious and possibly stifling in its direction.

SexMachine · October 22, 2014, 4:22pm

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I thought this particularly applicable here. Einstein wrote it, and he commonly referred to himself as an agnostic or believer in Spinoza’s god. And he didn’t believe in an afterlife, but he did seem to believe in God - even though they seem to sort of oppose each other.

–

In response to be asked if God exists:

“Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.[20]”[/quote]

If you’re interested I recommend you take a look at the “other side” of the argument so to speak - specifically the “Counter-Enlightenment” movement and the “pantheism controversy”. Essentially Jacobi asserted that rationalism and theology cannot be reconciled; that rationalism can only lead to nihilism. Rather than read Jacobi’s writings I’d recommend reading some of Leo Strauss’s writings and lectures on the subject as he breaks it down and goes over the different responses to Jacobi and critically analyses them. I disagree with Strauss but he provides a good overview of Spinozism, Jacobi, Neo-Kantianism and pantheism.

Tyler23 · October 22, 2014, 10:36pm

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I’ve also (skipping around a bit here to save time) watched three people die, and two of them behaved in ways that were suggestive to me of otherworldly experiences.

[/quote]

Emily, I recommended the book “Opening Heaven’s Door” to a couple posters earlier (on page 6). Considering your experiences, I would think you would enjoy the read (as I originally stated, free of the new-agey BS you’d usually find with the topic).

SexMachine · October 22, 2014, 11:20pm

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

…What this really gets down to is not that you are against god, it’s that you think of yourself as your own God…

[/quote]

Ahhhh…the oldest lie in the book. I worked then. It works now. There is nothing new under the sun.

Genesis 3:5 “and you will be like God”

Isaiah 14:14 “I will make myself like the Most High”

Ezekiel 28:2 “I am a god”
[/quote]

There’s a spiritual and political conundrum here too. The state should have no authority over the individual? Maybe. And the church no authority over the individual either? Maybe. It could be argued that the individual is sovereign. But man is essentially evil and so he needs dominion - but how can men claim authority over men if man is essentially evil? Perhaps not expressed well but I think my point is clear. Man needs to be under authority because he is evil but because he is evil he will abuse his authority. Damned if you do; damned if you don’t.

jjackkrash · October 23, 2014, 12:14am

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I only know that if there is no divine power, there is no reason to put effort into anything, because all your thoughts are pre-determined chemical reactions devoid of meaning. [/quote]

This is the fallacy of the “consequences of the alternative are too hideous to imagine.” Merely because you believe that the consequences of a lack of a divine power is hideous, that doesn’t make the it any more or less likely that there is, in fact, a divine power.

I am also not sure why you assert that without a divine power all the “chemical reactions” that occur in a human are more “pre-determined” than if an all-powerful divine creator designed all of our attributes and then set things in motion, especially if you take the next step and posit that we are are living out a life that is part of a grand divine plan that is subject to ongoing, divine intervention.

jjackkrash · October 23, 2014, 12:25am

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Exactly. If empathy merely serves a biological purpose then it is largely obsolete. The rational thing to do would be to suppress empathy when it gets in the way of rational decisions. In a purely rational world we should have no concern at all about the suffering of other human beings. The rational thing to do would be to overcome feelings of empathy and restrictive and irrational moral precepts. [/quote]

I don’t believe that you have demonstrated that empathy and rationality are mutally exclusive attributes or that humans should only have the capacity for one attribute and not the other. Explain to me how it is by definition irrational to empathize with another human being.

jjackkrash · October 23, 2014, 12:23am

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Empathy and actions from empathy are entirely irrational. I thought you wanted to abandon irrationality and leave only the rational.

If, as you desire, we stick only to what is known, do you claim to know that murder is wrong?[/quote]

Why is empathy by definition irrational?

jjackkrash · October 23, 2014, 12:31am

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But without anything but rationality and science, there is no empathy, there is just a chemical reaction that generally explains a mode of behavior. There is also no such thing as “worthwhile” scientifically speaking. There is no reason to value any one state of matter of any other because there is no such thing as value in science. The mona lisa and unprocessed pigments in the plants they come from are equally scientifically “valuable” because scientifically, there is no value.
[/quote]

I don’t understand this argument. Science is a process or a tool that is really good at explaining some things and not so useful at explaining others. Why do you assert we can only have “science and rationality” or “empathy” but not both, or am I missing your point?

jjackkrash · October 23, 2014, 12:38am

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Essentially Jacobi asserted that rationalism and theology cannot be reconciled; that rationalism can only lead to nihilism.
[/quote]

Again, this seems like arguing for a fact based on the alternative consequences are too hideous to imagine. “If there is no divine power, we are left with nihilism. Therefore, we should believe in a divine power.”

SexMachine · October 23, 2014, 1:41am

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

I don’t believe that you have demonstrated that empathy and rationality are mutally exclusive attributes
[/quote]

That’s not what I’m arguing. What I’m saying is pretty straight forward. I’ll try to put it another way:

Severiano asserts that empathy is merely a biological function designed to allow people to cooperate and create mutually beneficial arrangements.

Okay, think about that for a moment. The sole purpose of empathy is to benefit the group

So if empathy only serves the function of benefiting the group then it is obsolete whenever it is not benefiting the group. For example, there’s an elderly man with no family or friends left alive. He has a great deal of money. It would be in the interests of the group to take his money, distribute it amongst the group. In fact, this elderly man is really a burden on the group. It would be in the interests of the group to kill him.

But this empathy thing is in the way. Remember the sole purpose of empathy is to benefit the group. But right now empathy is in the way of the group interests. The logical thing to do would be to suppress empathy in order to allow us to rob and kill the old man right?

Further, it would immoral to allow this guy to keep his money and continue living. It would not be in the interests of the group to do so. What possible reason could there be for allowing him to keep his money and his life? After all, morality = what’s best for the group right? So it would rational and moral to kill and rob him right? At least, according to Severiano’s ethical system it would.

However, I’m pointing out the obvious. The authentically ethical thing to do is the irrational thing - ie, to let him keep his money and his life.

This seems pretty simple to me. Authentic morality is irrational.

Nope. See above. I’m only saying that authentic morality is irrational. I’m not saying that all rational thought must be abandoned. It goes without saying that 99% of the decisions we make should be based on rational thought processes. However when it comes to things like human life we must attribute an irrational level of value to it.

[quote]

Explain to me how it is by definition irrational to empathize with another human being. [/quote]

It’s only rational to empathise with another human being if doing so is in our interests. If I see a child drowning, what rational reason could I possibly have for trying to save them? It’s not in my interests to do so. I don’t gain anything from saving them. That’s why authentic morality is irrational. I would save them from drowning even though I gain nothing by doing so. Surely you can see this?

It’s expressed in the common phrase “doing good for the sake of it.” That’s an irrational statement. It doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying “jumping up and down for the sake of it.”

Further, “good” is a value judgement. Where does the preference for doing “good” come from? Severiano claims that the preference for “good” is hardwired and that its purpose or function is to benefit the group. But I’ve explained above how such a rational basis for preferring “good” leads to preferences that we all know instinctively aren’t authentically “good.”

Again, authentic morality is irrational. Authentic morality gives the individual an irrational value above and beyond what any rational ethical system could give him.

Apologies if I haven’t explained myself well. It’s actually a very simple concept but it’s difficult to explain. I think people understand it intuitively but atheists and empiricists have difficulty accepting it. DoubleDuce highlighted the exact same conundrum.

So do you understand the argument? Agree/disagree?

SexMachine · October 23, 2014, 2:12am

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Essentially Jacobi asserted that rationalism and theology cannot be reconciled; that rationalism can only lead to nihilism.
[/quote]

Again, this seems like arguing for a fact based on the alternative consequences are too hideous to imagine. “If there is no divine power, we are left with nihilism. Therefore, we should believe in a divine power.”
[/quote]

I’d put it this way: If you base your ethical system on pure rationality it leads to outcomes that we instinctively know are “not right” for want of a better word. You can see this in practice everywhere. I gave an example earlier in the thread of where Stefan Molyneux’s ethical system leads. Another example is Immanuel Kant’s ethical system and the absurd outcomes he gets. Kant’s deontological ethics are well known for their absurdity. Example:

According to Kant lying is always unethical. It’s universally unethical to lie. Therefore, according to Kant if an axe murderer knocks on your door and says he wants to murder some children and asks if there are any children in the house, Kant would say the only ethical thing to do would be to tell the truth and say yes, my children are in the house.

Now you could argue that this absurd outcome is due to the deontological nature of his ethical system. But the same kinds of absurd outcomes actually arise from any ethical system that is based on rationality. There are many other examples. A consequentialist ethical system for example will still run up against problems and lead to absurd or at least problematic outcomes because, amongst other things human life will have to be given a rational value and values themselves will need to have some kind of rational basis. This is where it gets a bit more complicated however - you have to understand the philosophical concept of “preferences”:

http://www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/preferences/

However, I don’t really need to go into the philosophy of values/preferences to make the case I’m making. One could attempt to refute my argument but you haven’t attempted to do so yet.

jjackkrash · October 23, 2014, 2:22am