I think the mundane rituals of existence are far more common than we like to think. It's easy to forget that most fundamentalists enjoy the same things we do: a good BBQ with friends during the summer, a nice fire and cup of hot cocoa with family in the winter. These are the sinews of life, the fibers that hold it together and give it shape. 

I think most folks just enjoy life, whether they believe in God or not.

It seemed that's the direction you were going. You weren't too muddled; I suspect I was merely addressing the concept a bit more obliquely. Bob and Harley have definitely covered the idea more directly.

I guess I was just expressing the idea that rituals can be found in any aspect of life.

"Mysticism" refers to an ineffable magic. For me, there is nothing more ineffable, and yet universal, than groups of people who enjoy each other's company. This can be family, friends, or even the feeling of belonging you get in forums like this. And while I don't believe in the supernatural, I do believe there are things that are intensely personal that are as close to magic as we'll ever get.

Art is quite important to me. My mom is an artist (as well as a retired science teacher who was a field biologist for a time). I grew up with people creating art. I don't have much talent that way, but I do appreciate it.

Some churches are art. It is impossible not to be awed by Sagrada Familia. The rituals, though, I find hard to consider as art. The idea of art is reflective -- it's a mirror to society, descriptive in nature. Religion attempts to impose itself on society. It is prescriptive. As I see it, that makes it propaganda rather than art.

I'm always interested in other people's perspective. I don't have as much time as I once did, so it might be a couple of days between posts, but I would enjoy a dialog. You appear to be sincere, open, and intelligent. I suspect it would be a fun and engaging discussion.

That is an intriguing proposition. Can you expand on this idea? I think I see where you are going, but I'm not positive.

 

My rhetoric may seem melodramatic, but I am not very excitable.  No less dramatic are my lectures on the superiority of olive oil for cooking.

That said, I am not aware of any point of disagreement I have with Bob (although I often split hairs with him on his particular word use, he hasn't contradicted my clarifications as far as I am aware), so if you in fact do agree completely with him now, then we are probably in agreement as well, and you have misunderstood me.

Relativism and absolutism come in two forms- that of reality, and that of morality.  Reality has a true nature that exists regardless of our ability to fully measure it.  Morality, however, has a large degree of subjectivity to it, and while there are objective axioms/philosophies of morality (like empathy) which could be argued to have more exclusive domain, reality isn't prescriptive of the need to take any of them.  Christians habitually equivocate the two- the nature of reality being one of absolute god-dictated morality- and that is probably where you are confused.  Regardless of the nature of reality, that does not imply any form of prescriptive action we must take on its behalf (which is probably the key point at which the fundamentalist and I part company, apart from the logical fallacies the fundamentalist makes).  Given an understanding of the nature of reality, one is, however, consequentially equipped to make moral judgments based on one's chosen axioms/philosophy on the matter of morality itself.

I would love to hear you lecture on olive oil, I know what you mean - I couldn't live without it

Thanks for your patience during this dialogue, your accuracy with the application of logic has been instructive.

Peace

 

 

I found the morality arguments to be the most interesting.  At this point I've already gone round the circle with Blake once or twice about it, but it still interests me.

I'm a little more than half convinced Blake is just more intelligent than me and I can't follow his overall argument well enough to engage him about this.  I *think* I understand his argument for empathy and pain as the base for a moral system, but I'm still not sure how you take that and translate it into a practical reality without making choices that are essentially arbitrary and the real applications are not any more coherent than alternatives.

For example, the argument that this morality leads to vegetarianism or veganism I appreciate, but the logic for stopping there and not going all the way to cave dwelling primitivism or suicide seems to be an excuse rather than a logical result.

 

I'm not sure what the alternative is.  I used to think it was social contract and I've even argued for that against Blake specifically, however that debate showed me the idea of social contract is not logically coherent as a basis for morality. (Edit: Morality that does not lead to something horrific anyway)

 

My current, as-of-last-night thinking about this is a coherent system of morality isn't really possible, at least not one that is functional at a societal level.  Functional morality seems to involve the inclusions of a general societal morality that is not, as a whole, rational...what you wind up with is a system where social contract, personal comfort and empathy all rotate when necessary.  Or maybe that is the only message I see, that all moral systems eventually face the limit what personal comfort an individual is willing to give up and that limit is just as solid as the limits defined by empathy.  Further, trying to breach that limit and rely on something less arbitrary or complex tends to result in systems that are unworkable.

*shrug*

*Edit: And I would add, the cultural morality that all moral systems must fall under seems to come, eventually, from force of arms which is just social contract and now we're back in the circle again.*

Edit again: So my overall point would be 'comfort' is as valid as empathy when it comes to morality.

Hey, options, just want to let you know I will probably have time to put up some more comments in a bit, but I got some work I really have to get done first.

But I do plan to get back as soon as I can.

And Nikolaj, great to see you back!

It's possible that Optionsgeek might find those arguments interesting too.

Optionsgeek, if you have time, you might want to read through some of one of those discussions.  One starts here in this thread:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/21269?page=1




Suicide doesn't make any more sense than becoming a lion hunter (exhibiting a preference for one animal over another and 'taking sides' arbitrarily)- we are animals too.  The extent would to be to seek the maximum possible morality.  Suicide would just be angsty, and not an accomplishment in that pursuit.

You are right that when taken in isolation, the results are easy to understand as extreme- a single person, if striving for the ultimate ends of empathy, would revert to the more ultimate behavior of hermit in the woods avoiding anything the production of which might have harmed animals to the absolute possible extent.

Of course, primitivism isn't necessitated (one could imagine a society that takes as much care not to harm animals as Orthodox Jews to do be kosher), but only would seem to be the result when considering the modern social option, without consideration for interactions or game theory, as a false dichotomy.

However, when taken as a system in consideration of the memetic environment and the potential propagation of memes for ultimately exponential effect, and the application of game theory, it becomes much more complicated.  No man is an island, entire of itself.

You need to take a view of society like an elaborate batch of chemicals, and the actions of individuals like catalysts.  If you're trying to distill more moral actions, you don't stow the catalysts away in the cabinet across the room.

While we would need to use scientific methodology to determine the ideal moral behavior, it may not be quite as bizarre as PETA's tactics, and may be as simple as being a sane and social person who advocates for a better tomorrow while practicing as much as practical in the context of that society what he or she advocates.

Regardless, we can understand that the end result is not primitivism based on the potential for technology and infrastructure to support a population of humans doing even less harm than we would do in a primitive state, and we can be reasonably assured that primitivism is *not* a means to that eventual end.
 
I hope that helps clarify.




Personal comfort would be the ultimate default- that is, strict hedonism which results from no imposing moral axioms.  We could call that pure amorality (not necessarily immorality- simply a lack of morality) in which the individual practices what is beneficial to his or herself granting consideration for all relevant instincts as well as- given intelligence- the social contract.

What would account for significant and deliberate morality is that which is to some degree a little bit uncomfortable.  That measure is the one by which the person defines his or her existential self as being moral, and the standard to which one must live up in order for it to be a genuine qualification.

In general, the degree to which somebody is willing to sacrifice personal comfort will define the limits of a moral system, but that doesn't so much make the moral system arbitrary as it makes the quantitative morality of an individual variable-- it is a more direct translation of *how* moral a given person is.  

We could, perhaps, say a certain person is 50% moral, because he or she exceeds his or her personal comfort levels 50% the way towards the moral ideal.  If an individual finds it acceptable to admit, "Yeah, that sounds right.  I'm no saint- I'm a 50% moral kinda guy.  It's better than that dude over there though- he's only 47%." then there would seem to be no conflict there.

So, *if* it were determined that PETA was a moral ideal (yeah, very unlikely, but for the sake of argument), then a person who works and uses the bare minimum needed to live while donating the rest of his or her money to PETA and adhering as much as possible to the prescribed lifestyle would be 100% moral (achieving the ideal as much as humanly possible).  Depending on the exact qualities of the resultant metric, somebody who doesn't donate at all but who follows the lifestyle and somebody who donates heavily and doesn't follow the lifestyle might actually come out even. 

 

It's interesting to ponder a meat eater who might even pay other people to be vegan for him or her, and as such have the moral high ground in almost any comparison; "Oh, you're vegan?  Well, I eat meat, but I pay 1,000 Chinese peasants not to eat any meat at all, so the reduction in net suffering for that compensates for the meat I eat by two or three times."

Anyway, the point I am making is that it's not arbitrary.  While it's difficult to qualify precise ideals due to experimental limitations of sociology, we can make our best estimates, and the degree to which people pursue morality is a personal measure of 'goodness' in a sense, which relates to one's existential self-image.

We can ask "How moral of a person are you/do you see yourself as/do you want to be?" and conclude "Then you should behave in a manner consistent with these metrics"- though we can not prescribe a level of morality that an individual must follow "or else", unless we leverage the social contract, defining society as a group of individuals with X degree or higher of morality.

Yes, it is like saying that "this is a society of Muslims.  If you are not Muslim, you are not part of this social contract." Which basically means you're fair game.  However, I would note that such a morality is arbitrary (rather than derived more objectively from more fundamental and morally inherent axioms such as empathy), as well as illegitimate (because it is based on illogical premises which defeat the very purpose of morality itself- genuine reality based efficacy).



I think my overall point is that it isn't   Comfort is the degree to which one is amoral; only exceeding that default is a deliberate moral action- a.k.a. a measure of morality.

 

Well, in that, I don't think that's exactly arbitrary- it may come down to semantics, but empathy pretty much owns "morality" when we exclude the fictional bases (e.g. deities).  It seems to be pretty much all that's left to grasp onto.

 

Now, we could regress empathy to its "evolutionary purposes" (going back one more step), which would come down to not bashing in your children's skulls with rocks (benefit to progeny), and stabilizing the social contract.  That, however, only qualifies empathy to your direct descendants and obedience to the social contract as moral-- which as we're previously explored, allows some pretty unanimously agreeably abominable things to go on in society beyond the scope of one's own progeny.  So, that would be O.K. to go with...

Or:

Capacity to experience pain as a measure of worthiness for empathy? (your phrasing was a bit strange)

I feel like regressing to "evolutionary purpose" really doesn't do us very much better than the pure social contract, and wouldn't reasonably qualify morality based on the nature of the meme (at least, it seems like a usage panel would probably not prefer it), so this (the other extreme) is the only other non-arbitrary option- anything in-between would be very arbitrary.

 

This is practically difficult, but it is not necessary to do this with perfect precision in order to make an estimate.  Does a snail or a minnow have more moral value?  I don't know.  I can ball park it with the best, most objective analysis I can give, and that's the best that can be done.  Using our best judgment, based on the most likely reality, is the most moral course in this regard, rather than giving up due to imperfection, because it's more likely to result in more moral action than giving up would (which would only at best randomly result in correct moral action).

So, yeah; though that would be a "Work in progress" as neuroscience advances, it doesn't mean a working estimate should be discarded in the mean-time; quite the contrary.

 

 

I don't think that's exactly arbitrary.  An adult is generally capable of experiencing more pain than a child, for example- not just physical, but deeper emotional pain, due to more development (whereas the kid is going to be pretty much over whatever 'end of the world' emotional meltdown just happened in something like five minutes and not remember it an hour later).  We do have to guess a bit to determine the value of other living things based on the metric you mentioned before, but that doesn't make it useless, as I've explained.

Even if we were to consider all things equal, I understand the argument you are trying to make, but this is not logically necessary; such a moral system does not prescribe "the ends always justify the means"- that would be an arbitrary ruling (nor does the system say the ends don't justify the means).  Engaging in a non-moral action for the sake of preventing more non-moral actions requires an arbitrary assesment (independent of any logical deduction) that the non-moral means are justified by the ends.  This is the "lion hunter" scenario I mentioned (killing the lion to save the gazelle), and just doesn't follow.  A non-interventionist approach is perfectly consistent.  Going out of one's way to destroy all life on Earth to prevent this 'cycle of pain and suffering' would also be consistent- neither would be required or prescribed.

I'll help you out in that I think what you're looking for here is a question of "what ends justify what means?" (which you almost touch upon in the next point)- and that's one that varies personally within *any* moral framework.  The question doesn't nullify a moral framework, but it does make the... tenacity, a bit variable.

You could say, "Well, it's moral to save somebody from drowning, but it's a little immoral to maybe give somebody a bruise.  So, since the ends don't justify the means *ever*, I'm not willing to give that kid a bruise in saving her from drowning.  Sorry kid."  You could say that, yes.  You could also go with the other extreme and become a mad scientist bent on world destruction to prevent anybody from ever drowning ever again.  Or you could be a sane person, and go with something arbitrarily in the middle, then be consistent about it (instead of letting that slide into the realm of convenient oscillation when you feel like you can't be bothered).  It's much like the determination "O.K., I'm a 50% moral kind of guy" with its respective consistency-- the important operator in both cases being consistency.

Personally, I do scoff at (a minority of) other vegans who say the ends of Bio-reacted beef that would save countless animals from being killed do not justify the means of taking a cell from a cow, who probably won't even feel the prick of the needle.

The "do the ends justify the means" question is no more definitively and prescriptively solved here than it has been elsewhere, but that doesn't change the basis of the moral framework or make the framework itself more arbitrary or unworkable (it contains vast swaths of workability between the extremes).  It's just another variable with which people treat the framework.  Assuming a sanity that *already exists* in most people, this doesn't need to add any new assumptions or behaviors, it just replaces the arbitrary and often illegitimate morality most people use as a foundation.

 

This almost touches on "do the ends justify the means", but I think I covered it pretty well above.

You can think of it like a two dimensional graph, with degree of morality, and extent to which the ends justify the means, plotting out any given person within the moral framework.

 

 

There's nothing prescriptive about reality that says you have to be moral instead of amoral.  Like you mentioned, there's no heaven or hell- it's a legitimately un-coerced choice, providing there isn't any social pressure.  You can imagine it to be something closer to "free-will" than any religion ever devised (as a manner of speaking- though of course "free-will" is an incoherent concept).

 

 

 

Pretty much, but don't under-estimate self actualization.  People like to think of themselves as moral people; show them what that more rationally is, and one might induce some very uncomfortable cognitive dissonance that may ultimately be easier to resolve by switching to tofu rather than rationalizing some exotic justification or accepting an amoral foundation for one's life.  Ultimately, most people don't feel a need to be saints; they just need to one-up the Joneses.

 

As valid as empathy in what regard?  As a basis for morality?  No.  Comfort is amorality, pretty much however you slice it- base hedonism based on comfort is pretty much the definition of amorality.

However, you can say that amorality is as valid as morality- there's nothing prescriptive about the universe that says you must be moral, or that you can't be amoral or even outright evil if you damn well please.

 

Logic?  I hope so.

 

 

 

I think that's pretty well understood to be due to cognitive biases, and alters empirical observations about reality too- is comfort as valid as science?

Comfort is amorality- it's just a default.  That is, of course, not to imply anything prescriptive about it.

 

 

Please elaborate.

 

I see lack of a morality as amoral, not necessarily immoral.  It's a decided absence of morality.  Evil would seem to need to be a force of anti-morality; of negating morality were it stands (not where it is lacking)- I would note that dialetheism is pure dagnasty evil, but it's hard to qualify anything else.  Going about life based on comfort and hedonistic whim instead- that's a lack of morality, rather than a negation of it. 

Evil by this moral metric would be functionally almost impossible to *do*, because it would require you to deliberately cause harm to others and yourself without having anything to gain from it (save perhaps the satisfaction of knowing you are pure dagnasty evil?)- we're talking evil for evil's sake.  The only evil I've seen has been memetic evil that derives from bad logic and unreality found in dialetheism.

Thank you Nikolai for your kind comments! I am interested in using the socratic method to call into question various hypotheses, and my root assumption is that I know nothing. I am here for mutual enlightenment, and good company!

Mellestad and Eloise, thank you also for your contributions.

I´m going to have infrequent access to the computer over the Christmas holidays, but I am here for the long haul. I would be very happy for this dialogue to continue until the day I pop my clogs - a long way off hopefully – it is a delight to be in such intelligent, open and humble company. Before I retreat to my in-laws, I'll just have one quick post to respond to blake, mellestad and eloise:

Blake, thank you for your very coherent line of reasoning on morality. What you said here:

was brilliant. I also have no difficulties with the idea of 'empathy' being the founding axiom of a functioning and logical system of law. I will let you, Mellestad and Eloise thrash that one out in more detail as you please - though it is not something that really interests me. I am very comfortable with the idea that prescriptive morality is arbitrary, and almost always unpleasant for everyone, both non-subscribers AND subscribers, whether the primary axioms are theist or non-theist.

I think to answer the questions that you and Mellestad posed about 'christian atheism / cultural christian', and also your doubts about christianity as 'descriptive' as opposed to 'prescriptive', we need to go back 2 steps, to two of my previous assertions:

1st step back:

"I am very dubious about the utility of the discussion of christian doctrine with people who don't ascribe to the aesthetic, for the 2 reasons i outlined earlier, but worth repeating:

 

i/ it is illogical because you don't accept the first premise of the aesthetic (sort of like trying to discuss the merits of forrest gump when you hate movies by robert zemekis) ***EDIT and I don't think I can tell you what the first premise of the aesthetic is until we have agreed on the 2nd step back outlined below.***

ii/ We are both skewed in our interpretation of the such doctrines due to different experiences and different forms of analysis ***EDIT and your interpretation of the first premise is not mine, and not doctrinally orthodox according to my understanding of biblical hermeneutics.***"

2nd step back: I proposed the following to Nigel:

"I wonder if we need to do some enquiries on art and the aesthetic in general? And preferably beyond the very limiting and provocative theist/atheist dialectic. I am no expert but I'm wondering if an agreed philosophy of art / beauty actually lies at the crux of discussions on this site. Let me know."

I would be very pleased if you re-read my last post through this lense rather than through the lense of what might make an appropriate ethical system. Sorry for the confusion.

Peace, Love and Happy holidays to you all!

Options

 

This is very straight forward Special Pleading, so you can start by pointing that out to them.

Of course this probably won't make much difference, but it's something.

You could try reading up on the "Special Pleading" Falacy, to getter sense of what they are doing wrong, so that you can better rebut them.

 

Also, you can show them how fallacious special pleading is, by taking up a contrary position to theirs, for argument's sake.

 

Like you could say: "if God is unchangeable cause he's God, then how will you object to a Hindu who says Krishna is unchangeable cause he's Brahman? What the Hindu is doing is called Special Pleading, and that's why you, rightfully, reject his claim, but you are doing the same, and that's why I, rightfully, reject your claim. If your God can be outside of Logic, just on your say-so, why can't Brahman be Krishna be Kali be Vishnu, just on some Hindu's say-so? How is your argument special from his?

 

Nikolaj's is a start:

 

 

Generally, however, this will not get you very far, because the theist will claim that all of these religions are ultimately referencing the same god, so when the Hindu says this, he or she is correct, although he or she may have some other details about this deity a bit wrong- e.g. certain ultimate qualities, purity and the need for forgiveness, etc.

The argument isn't useless, because it can make progress.  Like a chizzel on a mountain, you can eventually wear the theism down to a more generic one, rather than a more specific one, which is less morally prescriptive.  E.g. you may be able to get an otherwise homophobic conservative Christian to become a more accepting theist, leaning more towards deism.  Like I said, though, it's a chizzel vs. a mountain.

 

 

 

Or, because logic is the ultimate means of falsification, you can simply thank the theist for proving that their god does not exist- for to be "outside" logic is to be outside reality/existence-- to not exist.  Then just call him or her an atheist until he or she says that "god does exist", to which you respond "Oh, so God is logical?"- to which if he or she responds "No, God is beyond logic" you can agree "Yes, I agree, god is beyond reality and existence, that's what makes us atheists- we don't believe god is part of logical reality".  Continue until he or she asserts that reality itself is not logical/ that logic is not valid in part of reality.

When somebody has then advocated against logic in general, more simply, you can explain the Principle_of_contradiction and the Principle_of_explosion, explaining that the stance that is being taken is a form of dialetheism, which is not a legitimate form of reasoning because it is incoherent (it makes it impossible to say anything coherent about anything at all, as Bob mentioned).  You can then present a form of dialetheists' dilemma that helps illustrate that fact, if you like.

I'll quote myself here, from a couple pages back:

 

I'm also rather partial to Avicenna's stance on the matter:

 

 

Though, obviously we would have difficulty doing that.

 

You can explain to him or her, however, that he or she is being hypocritical and even blasphemous for attempting to use logic to discuss or do anything- because by recognizing the validity of logic in every day life he or she is denying god.

So, as Aristotle put it:

Explain to the person that he or she is a f*cking hypocrite, and blasphemer.

 

If he or she disagrees, and says that logic is true in some parts of reality, but can be violated in another, you can use one of the many logical proofs that demonstrate that from a contradiction *anywhere* anything can be proven.

You could prove, for example "You are evil and it is morally necessary for punch you in the face".

Here's how:

 

God has X quality, and God does not have X quality;

God has X quality;

As such, at least one of these must be true: God has X quality, or you are evil and it is morally necessary for me to punch you in the face;

If God does not have X quality, then you must be evil and it must be morally necessary for me to punch you in the face;

You'll notice from the premise that God also does not have X quality;

Therefore, you are evil and it is morally necessary for me to punch you in the face;

 

 

If he or she then argues that you can't reference the qualities of god (divine) in logic with non-divine elements (never the twain may meet or be compared to each other), explain to him or her that (beyond being special pleading) such a division would make this "god" completely irrelevant, because neither could one prove that non-divine actions have any moral relevance, or that non-divine beings such as ourselves can have any relationship to this deity, be it sin, grace, or immortality.  All that does is compartmentalize this "god" where it can have absolutely no effect on mundane reality *at all*, which makes the question of this "god" completely irrelevant (no souls, no heaven, no hell, no divine morality, and in particular absolutely no Jesus).  That necessitates that we be atheists, because from our perspective it has no effect on reality- it is not part of our compartmentalized reality, and for us does not exist.

 

There are probably only a few thousand people in the world intelligent and educated enough to argue beyond that point, and of those, only a hand-full will be delusional enough to, but...

If he or she does argue that "god" can open windows in that division, and then seal them up again to prevent us from using logic on it, you can point out that any windows of affecting reality create a ripple of causality (an infection of illogic) which can be referenced to -again- prove that said person is evil and it is logically necessary to hit him/her in the face.  If the person then asserts that his or her god can stop those ripples of causality, you can respond that stoping the ripples of causality stops and undoes the effect on reality (e.g. create the world, and then uncreate it to prevent that cause from rippling on), so doing so is the same as doing nothing at all.

 

There is more you can say, but that should get you started.

At a certain point, though, you'll have to accept that this person is an effectively brain-dead p-zombie, having destroyed what semblance of a mind he or she ever may have had by rejecting logic.

Thanks you guys for taking the time to point those fallacies and contradictions out. I feel better prepared for the next theist that tries to keep redefining god to whatever he wishes it to be at the moment.

hahah - I can´t resist - had to sneek away from last minute christmas shopping!!

Very quickly, I understand the confusion! I was initially interested in testing the hypotheses that any heuristic that models the social contract (and I suggested the Golden Rule) might be useful in orientating society and individuals towards behaviour that brings net benefits to the participation in the system adopting such a heuristic. Successively, Bob, Harley and now you Blake have shown that hypotheses to be fraught with challenges.

I need to emphasise the following:

1/ I´m sorry blake if you felt insulted by my last post, that was not my intention at all. I confess that I was interested in pursuing several different hypotheses simultaneously, and I can see that this has caused some difficulties in communication. To clarify, I suggest that the Golden Rule is not the foundation of the Christian aesthetic.

2/ You guys are all very well equipped to discuss the pros and cons of different prescriptive ethical systems. Blake, your application of logic is very impressive.

3/ My primary interest is in pursuing a dialogue regarding the philosophy and importance of art and the aesthetic, beyond the limiting and antagonistic theist/atheist dialectic.

4/ I have a secondary interest in social / evolutionary psychology, the importance of tribe, the function of semiotics, linguistics and dogma, and the challenges that humans face in building constructive dialogue.

If you are not interested in pursuing a dialogue regarding the philosophy and importance of art and the aesthetic, beyond the limiting and antagonist theist/atheist dialectic, I would be interested to know why. I do not consider it a red herring.

I am here because I love using the socratic method to call into question deeply held assumptions and build dialogue and mutual understanding. I assume that I know nothing and am open to all new ideas.

You guys are all fantastic: thank you, Internet, for making this all possible!

Hugs

Options.

A couple of clarifications, options...

Logic is prime.

Even if not consciously acknowledged, it has to be the basis of the starting assumptions of any coherent discussion.

We do not regard Hitchens or Dawkins as 'God' in any even metaphorical sense, but as individuals who are articulate, pretty well researched, esp. with Dawkins, and worth listening to.

 

My pleasure.  Just let me know if you have any more problems, or find an argument you have trouble answering, and I'll do my best to help you out.

 

I think the most essential problem with this- and what I mentioned initially- is that it *can* be very useful, but that such a heuristic is necessarily crude by comparison to those we now have, which are much better and more foundational models that express the inherent logic to it (and which I believe any person so educated is fully capable of understanding).  The core reason I assert that such heuristics are not useful now (and in most situations) is that it would require a better system to be abandoned in their favor.  A reduction in efficiency is not useful.

However I have pondered on the possibility of a kind of religious heuristic which, as one studies more, unfolds itself into science and reason (thus not providing an obstacle to a greater understanding, but a path to it).  That current religions ultimately serve as obstacles to learning and progressing into a more accurate model is the core issue with their inefficiency. 

I suspect that, to some small degree, this may be what the Vedic texts as well as Hebrew scriptures attempted to accomplish- the barriers to entry were a progressive and complete understanding and adherence to prior texts, which gave way to more abstract and philosophical studies.  One would find, in many ancient religious traditions, that the bulk of the unstudied populous would be dogmatic in following rules they didn't understand, where those who had the leisure and access to the information to engage in study would be more open minded (in a sense) and contemplative.

Such a religion, I believe, would have to be "reverse engineered" in a way from science and logic and distilled carefully into more compressed and metaphorical axioms that lend themselves to fluid and barrier free progression back to the core principles at the foundation when education and study allow.

 

 

I consider these aesthetics to be memetic infrastructure- something which is subject to conceptual drift, and great variation from society to society, and person to person; similar to cultural tastes in music.  In any case, memetic infrastructure can be made of use, but Christianity isn't special in this regard- a secular system can also make use of motivating aesthetics.  What it takes is artistic genius to put it into practice in fitting with the environment.

The Christian aesthetic is just as arbitrary as any fad- while you can identify present cultures in which any particular "Christian" memetic infrastructure is strongly rooted, it ultimately waxes and deforms elsewhere.  You can identify similar aesthetics in various religions (some of which were hugely popular) going back to the dawn of civilization.  I think it's worth studying *why* some of these aesthetics work or do not, in an evolutionary sense and regard to the socioeconomic environment, but it would be counter-productive to hinge on the premise that the Christian aesthetic in particular is special or worthy of study on its own (it just happens to be dominant for you), or of particular note (Islam, for example, is growing, as are many once-Christians converting to Buddhism). 

That is, studying the "Christian aesthetic" is useless in itself, but a comparative study of religious aesthetetics over time, culture, and philosophy is very useful.  We can study messiah's, the concepts of guilt and sin, the concept of forgiveness- Christianity does not own these. 

Your suggestion regarding analysing the Christian aesthetic strikes me very much as the suggestion of spending time analyzing the number "3", when indeed we should be doing calculus.  And it is that calculus that is, to me, a foregone conclusion; it's something any meme needs to take into account- whether it's an advertising campaign for a new purse, a new pop-singer, or a comprehensive system of ethical social philosophy.  When speaking of aesthetics, we're ultimately talking about Localization - I'm talking about the product itself, which is a more inherent consideration.

I've never disregarded the power of utilizing existing memetic infrastructure, however, any such consideration of aesthetics is ultimately secondary to the essential goal of establishing foundational principles that will be expressed in terms of those aesthetics.

From my perspective, you want to discuss localization before we've even agreed upon a product.

 

I'll quote myself from be beginning of this post:

The most essential discussion is regarding those core principles, and what they are intended to achieve.  Whether they need to be delivered in an envelope of local aesthetic or not is irrelevant.  Aesthetic is useful metaphor, but it is not the message itself.

What do we strive to do for society?  To equip it to protect itself from tyranny?  To encourage empathy and peace?  To drive intellectual enlightenment and human advancement beyond the singularity?

 

Personality cults are rare among new atheists, but you might find a few.  However, "God" is definitely not logic; the two are not comparable, although some rationalist Christians try to make them seem that way.  Like my earlier description- logic isn't prescriptive, but is something that gives one the means to execute thought and choice. 

Questioning is very important... just so long as we don't get carried away with questioning the basis for thought and conversation (because then we're just chasing our tails).  I think Bob and I both have expounded this sufficiently. 

Empiricism not only should, but *must* be questioned in order to be most reliably kept scientifically objective- that's how science works, and anybody who bows to authoritative answers on empirical matters without thinking about it is probably doing it wrong.

I would also point out, if the 'regular' posters here see someone acting like

.  Blind, 'faith' that you need to treat something as a deity can't really co-exist with the micro-culture that exists here, at least that I've seen.

Even for the most passionate of us, we're still essentially materialists of one kind or another and as such it is hard for us to treat anything with that level of awe or respect.

Most of us would attack that idea as readily as we attack the ideas of a typical theist.  Some of the most scathing things I see here are not theist versus atheist, they are atheist versus atheist.

Again, I really think you are making too much of how we treat a troll.  Jean was a foaming-at-the-mouth hellfire and damn you all type of theist once you get down to it, and you can't really converse with that personality type.

 

Hello,

I had a pretty successful move. I missed you guys too.

Regarding what you call "evolution" of aesthetics via evolution, you are again hypocrites. Beauty and morals are dead in atheism.

Don't you remember the 1960's when they said "God is Dead." They weren't talking about God ontologically speaking, but the idea of the concept of God was dead.

And via this, it was admitted that the death of ethics, and beauty, and being, and knowing as well. And this brought in the Post-modern era in contrast to the modern era. Atheism consistently applied has affected and effected our culture. This is why they say

Be intellectually honest. Where did this quote come from? Who now adopts this thinking most consistently, Chrisitans or Atheists.

Before I even posted on beauty, you all said this and believed this. It is ingrained in our culture due to the 60's and the God is Dead movement.

Regarding evolution within the area of psychology, you cannot just say the term evoloution and call it a day. This is what is known as sloppy thinking. Since evolution is non-empirical, and since you use empiricism for evolution, then your method of argument refutes the thesis argued itself.

Let alone the so called evidence that is used within your system. Even if you didn't have the first two problems, the 3rd problem (among many) would be the area of probability. Since it is equally admittedly probable of the evolution by the notion of a theory, then logically there is a probable "chance" that evolution is wrong by admittion of the Evolutionists. Since this is the case, then there is no way to know for sure anything regarding anything and thus the dead or hands up I give up of post modern speaks to our culture today.

If yet you still deny these historical truths, then explain how and where and by what mode and means did the Post-Modern era come into play? Why do they teach that there is no truth in the Universities across the world? Are they wrong? Would not at least these atheistic professors have to consistently say that knowledge, and beauty, and art and ethics has died?

Compare the art of today to the Dutch Painters, or even the Secular painters. Art usually reflects culture.

Regarding specifics of psychology, it would be an enjoyable discussion since psychology is not even a science via the meaning of science via empiricism (fake science).

Do you agree or disagree? What caused our culture Post-modern? Karl Popper was the last philosohper since philosophy is dead.

An even more enjoyable discussion would be to compare art in retrospect to the time it was painted to the type of culture it was painted in. Perhaps this shall also be are venture. Whether you disagree, the truth is right before you, and perhaps we shall study art in connection to worth. The more one moves away from God, the more dull and flat art has been in the history of art. And we can see this same trend that has happened already happening today in it's most disgusting non-art mode.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

</b>[/b]</strong>

The three or four posts are showing up as bold in firefox (it starts in mellestad's post #279). I think there's an unclosed tag up there somewhere that's causing it.  It's very hard to read (in IE it shows up normally).  I can't seem to get it to unbold...

 

</b>[/b]</strong>

I disagree.  I think I would be in the position to tell him not only that his ideas on ethics are unworkable, but that they are also hypocritical, and are essentially evil.

So, I'll say it:  Theistic views, and in particular these kinds of "Christian" beliefs, are farcical, hypocritical, and objectively evil because they're predicated on lies.  A theist can not be legitimately ethical or moral.  Theists can only be accidentally moral insofar as their world views incidentally overlap with science and reason- but in this regard, and to the extent they accept reality in day to day actions, they are inconsistent and irrational.  Accidental morality is not morality- theism, and particularly Christian theism, is at the best of times arbitrary and amoral, and in general outright immoral.

 

Jean ha demonstrated himself to be unteachable, though, so I don't think there's any point in addressing him directly anymore- Ignoring him would probably be the best solution.

 

EDIT:

 Something is seriously broken here.  Does anybody else see all of this in bold?

Beauty is not in the eyes of the beholder ? Where does the Bible define standards of beauty ? By what standards is beauty defined ? Have Christians not  radically changed alot of their ideas to fit into the more modern world ? Isn't tradition merely an illusion of impermanence ?

The quote "God is Dead" was originally put forth by Nietzsche. Granted, that was on the front cover of a Time Magazine in 1966 and is famous for that scene in the film "Rosemary's Baby" but the notion of such ideas are much older than the 1960's. Wouldn't you agree ?

I am glad that you brought this up. I even posted a question about this in another thread. It was on one of my first posts here. Many times, I have heard several Christian writers and preachers referring to the "Post-Modernist Thinkers". As a matter of fact, there are several Christian websites that are dedicated to debating "Post Modernist Thinkers". The problem is, NONE of them have ever properly defined the term. Are these Christians referring to the late 19th Century Philosophy ? Are they referring to the more existential type movements that came about in the 20th Century ?

Post Modernism seems to be very broad and hard to really classify. From what little I can understand of it, it seems to be one of those types of philosophical schools of thought that would readily accept ALL claims as truth.

Many of the anti-Post Modernist Christian websites that I have seen, are constantly complaining of the fact that all truths can not be true. Well, in that regard, I would have to agree with the Christians on that one. All truths can not be true. That is why I reject religion and all beliefs in god. I reject the belief in god because of all it's inherent self-contradictions and downright absurd claims. (See Blake's posts above about Dialetheism). So if the Christians are referring to Atheism as Post-Modernism and if I understand the term Post-Modernism correctly, then I could not be a Post Modernist nor could most of the Atheists that I know.

Post Modernism, from what I understand, seems to entertain the notion that everyone and all claims could be correct simultaneously and that science is a cultural narrative. Which is not a standpoint  that I would think that most Atheists would take. (Even though there is no real classification of what Atheists think, there are as many opinions on Atheism as there are Atheists).

So could you please define for me what you and other Christians are referring to when speaking about Post-Modernism ?

That is actually a discussion that I would like to see. How can you prove that art is flat ? How can you prove that something as subjective as art is good/bad ? Now granted, I like the medieval and Renaissance art over the more modern pieces, but that is just a matter of personal taste and fascination with history. I  fail to see how it proves anything. Can you enlighten me on that one ? For instance, you mentioned the Dutch painters and the Renaissance era, the period of art that I also happen to like. But, have you ever studied these sculptures and paintings in museums ? Blatant displays of sexuality and nudity are everywhere. Something that could have been risque for that era. Also, how do you account for the heavily Pagan influenced iconography in early Christianity ? Pagan imagery that is still in use today ?

Well hello Jean, and welcome back.

 

I have to say, your persistance fascinates me.

It is, however, particularly ironic that you should come back now to object to Post Modernism, because let's just have a look at in what contexts those two words are most commonly used:

 

Post Modernism as a philosophical school of thought is a fairly well established concept within academia.

Post Modernism as a cultural trend or tendency is discussed back and forth alot in educated society, and often entail things such as Multi-culturalism, Post-colonilism, and the intersection between aesthetics and ethics.

And then there's Post Modernism as a derogatory term, used by many many people, on these boards, on fundy Christian boards, and across many spheres of academia, intended to mean: "A post-modernist is someone who doesn't care about what is true, but only cares about who can state their personal opinion of the truth in the most pompous, elitist, inpenetrable, and pseudo-academic vocabulary"

 

Well dear Jean, could there be a more accurate description of you than that?

 

I have understood all your arguments on this page quite well, and however much you dress it up in your pseudo-academic vocabulary, it still boils down to one very simple premise: "God axiomatically is". All your many many words, still means nothing more than this, and it is quite entertaining that you should now bring up Post Modernism as something you object to, since the only defence of your premise is that you've used alot of fancy words to state it.

 

God is because God is" is quickly and easily refuted as a circular argument, with a little bit of Special Pleading to boot, since you are specific about what you mean by "God", saying: "MY God is because he is, but Hindus, Muslims and all other people's own versions of metaphysics, can't be, even though many people use the same circular reasoning to argue for their metaphysics as I do. But THEIR arguments are circular, mine are Axiomatic"

 

So like Bob, I get what you are arguing, it just doesn't hold up in the real world. Only in your head.

In the same way that it would make sense to me, that somebody who thought they were Napoleon would talk alot about troop movements and taxes and invading Britian, your arguments make sense to me. But that doesn't mean your words map onto reality any more than those of the Napoleon guy in the Asylum does.

 

What you are doing is pure sophistry, and it serves only to show how hypocritical, and opnoxiously self-rightious you are.

 

Why don't we discuss some specific art, and you try and argue why it is beautiful? You have to understand Jean, that you are right in saying that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder.

You see beauty is in the eye of me. What I find beautiful, IS objectively beautiful, and whoever does not agree with me is simply in denial, stubborn, and/or delusional.

How do you intend to show that this is not the case? That I am the ultimate arbiter of truth and beauty in the universe? It is self-evident to me. I know the truth because I know the truth, and I know that I know the truth, so what I believe to be true IS true, and so what I find beautiful is TRULY beautiful"

 

Clearly you can see that this is not a circular argument, but rather a self-contained truth; and axiom.

Don't you agree?

Thanks for fixing the bold Bob.

I think I see what you mean...

The phrasing 'works for you' seems to imply that what works or doesn't is subjective, where is really isn't.  I agree that he *thinks* it works for him, but solely due to his warped perspective- though in matter of fact, it doesn't work for him.  The extent to which his actions are functional is the extent to which he ignores the implications of his world view and carries on as a hypocrite, passively accepting the trappings of science and reality, and blaspheming against his core 'values', which themselves are illegitimate in the most objective sense (being founded on a framework that is inherently false).

Sorry if my scrutiny is irritating, but I do think the exact way we phrase things can be very important.  It's quite easy for morons to get the wrong idea from it all (as Jean obviously has from what he has heard of universities, due in part to poor or inexact phrasing).

I would have loved to have continued the conversation, but the 4 SD event arrived in the form of a resurgent JC, so I think that for the sake of tidiness, we should place our current dialogue on hold.

Jean - put the 'Institutes' down for a minute and answer me this: where is the love? 

Peace

Options

 Fair point! I will address you and harleys comments seperately...

 Thank you for these super book recommendations - I will be sure to look out for them when I'm next in the anglophone world!! Even before reading any of them, I know that I would completely agree with the thrust of their content. My interest, however, is focused on the AFTERMATH of this knowledge. What happens to man when rationality has explained away the transcendentant? This is where I think kierkegaard, nietzsche and Wittgenstein and some members of the pragmatic movement really come into their own...

Really enjoying this conversation Harley, thank you for your time!

 

 

 

Thank you for your thoughts and your candour - what a super response, you are a laugh!

In answer to your question:

of course it doesn't! 

A couple of more questions as a rejoinder:

What about the impulse behind art or behind the artist? Is there any difference between the impulses that set off great faith leaders, and men like beethoven? What are they trying to express?

What about the impulses behind those who respond to art? Is there any difference between the impulses that drive the followers of a religion, or the followers of a composer / author?

Peace

 

Well on some of these, I guess I am going to have to speak from personal experience and how I relate to it. I don't guess I would have any way of generalizing it for everyone.

Hehe, I have never thought of using the above line to a particular woman that I am dating (not sure what the results of that would be).

But, I will say feelings of love and intimacy have not been diminished as a result of looking at love from a more scientific standpoint.

Now this is just pure speculation on my part, but do you think it possible, if people had a better understanding of what causes attraction and such, that some of the more negative aspects of love (i.e. pathological jealousy, feelings of owning another, paranoia about cheating) might somewhat diminish ? Now granted, there are probably psychological causes for any sort of destructive and abusive behavior in any relationship. Alot of those psychological causes might not have one thing to do with the actual relationship itself. But I think about so many things that have such horrid stigmas and such unrealistic expectations in our society. That I have to wonder if some of the more rigidly dogmatic ideas of marriage and relationships were taken away and people had a better understanding of what motivates them, perhaps some of that would diminish ?

In my own personal case, if I am dating someone, I am  a one-woman kind of guy while in that relationship. Single, and casual encounters take place.I am a bit old fashioned on that, but is it reasonable for me to believe that everyone should adopt my ideas of relationships and marriage ? How would I be able to do this ?

In the ancient and medieval times, most of the more wealthy people were arranged into marriages. The whole deal negotiatied by the families for political purposes and not for the purposes of love. Might have somewhat helped the country for the heads of say France/England to marry one another, but that certainly does not sound like a good formula for marriage in my book.

Granted, love is a bit of a subjective concept, sort of like beauty, it's all in the eyes of the beholder in my own personal opinion.

In my opinion, this is one of the reasons why friendship is so important. It is temporary.Although there are alot of "fashionable" looking biker types these days. The crux of the hard core biker types that I run around with show huge amounts of loyalty and going the extra mile for each other. I am using them as an example because being a biker involves alot of miles and alot of long journeys together. It also is a very dangerous and fast life style. Guys are killed in wrecks and every motorcycle run has the potential to become a huge disaster if one bolt or brake goes awry and a major pile up ensues. A guy that you have been laughing and joking around with one day can be dead in a week. Not to make it sound grim, but in my opinion, that is the essential reason why the parties and get togethers are so strongly united. The uncertainty of  it all and the fact that there are only a handful of old graybeards that will have 30 something years of miles underneath them make the desire to enjoy it all to the fullest that much more important.

Don't mean to keep throwing motorcycle culture references at you,hehe. But there is an old biker saying when a friend passes: When we bury one of our friends we bury part of ourselves with them. When we ride we carry a part of them with us.  I have buried close family and friends over the years. It is never easy and always painful. But their influences live on with me. Their memories live on with me. They have a place within my heart and I can take it with me anywhere I ever go.

I am not really sure why I would have to suspend disbelief to enjoy art. As mentioned above, I have a huge fascination with anything medieval or Renaissance related. Just looking at those pieces and trying to imagine the minds that created them, the personalities behind the people of the times they captured, the worlds in which they lived, is enough to keep me mesmerized for hours and hours. Literature does the same thing for me. 

These are just my own personal thoughts and opinions.