So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Steve3007 »

Spectrum:
Thus it is noticeable, 'nature' has a two prong strategy to ensure survival of the individual[s] and therefrom the species,...
Strategy = a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim.


Maybe more metaphors, but you really do give the impression that this nature guy makes plans for the future.

-- Updated Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:40 am to add the following --
...Have a read of the book 'Metaphors we live by' or read the various reviews, it is definitely a new philosophical vista and as usual has its share of critics.
I will do so.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Belindi »

Spectrum wrote:
My point is there is an inherent and natural moral drive within humanity to establish absolute moral standards and improve on its moral values as explained above. This is to counter the theistic's view ONLY a God can install moral standards for believers in holy texts to adhere to.
Thus non-theism is not aimless nor purposeful but actually is more ideal than theism [relying on an illusory God].

Yes, but " there is an inherent and natural moral drive within humanity to establish absolute moral standards" is what I am saying is not enough and may even lead to complacency.
I wrote regarding the Devil's being alive and well . What the religious have and what atheists often lack is this useful personification of evil. Evil is easier to define than good, which is sadly hard to define. One aspect of evil is slavery. Modern slavery is a fact. Historic slavery has ramifications to this day, which is why American policemen can feel it's okay to oppress black people. And historic slavery is why Americans who voted for Trump did so because they want to defend white supremacy.

So historic slavery has not gone away and it won't go away until and unless Americans and the rest of us recognise that slave consciousness is now and active. The inherent and moral drive within humanity I don't deny : but I do deny that its ultimate triumph is inevitable. It needs a lot of work.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Ranvier »

Spectrum
Spectrum wrote: Again this is merely your opinion from a shallow base.

As I had claimed the central force is individual's survival and therefrom preservation of the species [as inferred from the empirical] and the basic approach to this is based on the the higher probabilities of large numbers, in the case of humans we have 7 billion and increasing. At present, it is those with lower education levels that supply the numbers. As far as the species is concerned, 'wise' or 'smart' are not the priority but rather evolutionary forces ensure there is the critical number to sustain the species.
Ok, I "know" for a "fact" that you're not a Biologist and that you'll most likely search the meaning of MVP (Minimum Viable Population), which makes your "authoritative" claims about evolution or population dynamics even more curious.

This leads to another interesting "claim" in the following quote:
Another feature of evolution for humanity is that of 'progress' [as evident] from its present stage. This is supported by the increasing capacity of intelligence, reason, other competences and higher self-awareness within a certain percentile of human beings.
Can you please demarcate the "visible" evolutionary "progress" for us, where I presume that "you" are a member of the "elite" of the "clearly evident" increase in "capacity of intelligence" and "higher self-awareness". You seem to suggest that "nature" has "a two prong strategy" of breeding "slaves" and the "guidance" of the few "Chosen people" graced by nature with a superior intellect...
  • 1. The lower educated to support a greater base of numbers
    2. A percentile of intelligent, rational and self-awareness to expedite progress forward to deal the greater range of threats to humanity.
Isn't this similar to Hitler's claims of the Nordic superiority?
Note another point related to above.
'Nature is such that the majority will be risk-adverse while a small % will be naturally risk- takers. These risk takers are not so sensitive to fear of premature death and thus has the courage to explore for new land and whatever opportunities for humanity to be more secure.
Are these "brave" explorers the "slaves" or the "chosen people"?
Spectrum
You will note, you always focus on two variables rhetorically or some straw-man and conclude 'end of story.'


In reply to:

Ranvier
This of course becomes a much longer polemic about the human "omnivorous" nature and the evolutionary "drive" towards "numbers" vs "quality" as a mode of survival but in essence humanity hasn't achieved yet the evolutionary stage for a much wider "intellectual" capacity for "empathy" beyond kinship of small groups...
Let me use the "straw-man" argument with the "trolley dilemma", where you have an option to save your family member or 10 strangers... go!
Please tell us what the "chosen one" would do?
Ranvier
As for the very thing you argue "against", religion, namely Christianity was a prominent "force" involved in the abolition of slavery.
Spectrum
Is is inherent in Christianity, i.e. where the New Testament condone slavery. If any Christians were involved in the abolishment of slavery they were driven by generic human values?? and not by the NT.
If Christianity, i.e. the NT stated unequivocally "Slavery is not permissible - no ifs and no buts" then I agree, Christianity is anti-slavery.
The human laws and the Justice system must have a basis in something "fundamental", otherwise it's arbitrary and meaningless.
As far as I know, the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights was based on "traditions" of the Christian religion, with covenant in the separation of the "Church" and the "State" to reflect the "freedom" to practice any religion. This is one of the major reasons that people from Europe and elsewhere were arriving to America by the "ship load" in pursuit of that religious freedom from persecution. It wasn't the "secular ideology" but Religion (in reality other factors) that was used as a rational for the equal rights and the XIIIth Amendment to the Constitution.

OTOH, it is the secular community that establish the absolute moral standard;
'Slavery is not permissible - no ifs and no buts"
Where is this imaginary "absolute moral standard"? Which "absolute" is it based upon? Is it the "superior" reasoning of the "chosen people" to produce the "ocean" of 7 billion modern slaves in the financial debt?
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Steve3007 wrote:Spectrum:
Thus it is noticeable, 'nature' has a two prong strategy to ensure survival of the individual[s] and therefrom the species,...
Strategy = a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim.
Maybe more metaphors, but you really do give the impression that this nature guy makes plans for the future.
Agree the use of 'strategy' can be misleading if not qualified.
Somehow most of the similar words used is this discussion, e.g. purpose, things, direction, 'strategy' and the likes imply some kind of agency. I believe this is due to habit [Hume] and not related to reality.
My default is there is no ontological agency in reality, i.e. no absolute creator nor planner.

-- Updated Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:27 pm to add the following --
[b]Belindi[/b] wrote:So historic slavery has not gone away and it won't go away until and unless Americans and the rest of us recognise that slave consciousness is now and active. The inherent and moral drive within humanity I don't deny : but I do deny that its ultimate triumph is inevitable. It needs a lot of work.
As I had stated there are many forms of slavery apart from slavery in the strictest sense.
I believe the world is giving a LOT of attention to contemporary modern slavery, i.e. human trafficking, child labor, etc.
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-tod ... n-slavery/
It took baby steps to achieve what we have today with slavery-proper, but with an inbuilt progressive moral drive, humanity is at present striving to get rid of such contemporary modern slavery in phases.
As for evil, I had define what is evil and I asserted ALL human has the potential to commit evil and we need to look into the details.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Atreyu »

Steve3007 wrote:
That's right. And the practical (or rather, impractical) result of this is that Man has way more knowledge than he can assimilate pragmatically. His knowledge (we "evolved"....) has run way ahead of his being (our genetic evolution).
Perhaps a good example of the fact that evolution is not forward-looking? Traits evolve because they are beneficial to survival there and then. They're not created in anticipation of solving a future problem. Our mental abilities have clearly been spectacularly successful in propagating our species all over the planet - in spreading our genes - but, combined with our tribal instincts, they may lead to our downfall. Although, in practice, I suspect they won't lead to our absolute extinction. Just cycles of boom and bust.
That's an excellent way of seeing it from the perspective of ordinary science. Quite right. Our being (genetic makeup), which is what it is based (at least in part) on the principles of the theory of evolution, is designed only to keep the species existing in the present. Only the knowledge we acquire could help us face an unknown future.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

[b]Ranvier[/b] wrote:Ok, I "know" for a "fact" that you're not a Biologist and that you'll most likely search the meaning of MVP (Minimum Viable Population), which makes your "authoritative" claims about evolution or population dynamics even more curious.
My approach is empirical and where the evidence lead.
The human trends [btw not 100% certain] that I extrapolated is based on empirical facts.
This leads to another interesting "claim" in the following quote:
Another feature of evolution for humanity is that of 'progress' [as evident] from its present stage. This is supported by the increasing capacity of intelligence, reason, other competences and higher self-awareness within a certain percentile of human beings.
Can you please demarcate the "visible" evolutionary "progress" for us, where I presume that "you" are a member of the "elite" of the "clearly evident" increase in "capacity of intelligence" and "higher self-awareness". You seem to suggest that "nature" has "a two prong strategy" of breeding "slaves" and the "guidance" of the few "Chosen people" graced by nature with a superior intellect...
"slaves" ??? this is your rhetorical invention.

As for the trend 'progress' this is so obvious when we compare human activities from say 3000 years ago, or even 100 years ago to the present. I mentioned the the increase in knowledge in every field of knowledge, the various technological progress, etc. Show me humanity's state of progress is stagnant overall since 1,000 or even 200 years ago till the present.

With 7 billion, the Bell Curve is effective to predict a distribution of human traits and behaviors.

From the Bell Curve we can easily infer there will a small percentile who are very intelligent [Mensa] while the rest more-than-average, average, below-average, the lowest.
This pattern can be applied to education level and most human variables.
Spectrum wrote:
  • 1. The lower educated to support a greater base of numbers
    2. A percentile of intelligent, rational and self-awareness to expedite progress forward to deal the greater range of threats to humanity.
Isn't this similar to Hitler's claims of the Nordic superiority?
The above is a natural pattern as can be demonstrated by inferring from the principles of the Bell Curve.

I did not claim those in the higher percentile will naturally claim immutable superiority over the others. With a drive for higher moral values, no one will claim superiority over others, except the deviants.

In addition the whole pattern is dynamic.
Those of lower intelligence and education within the lower percentile will increase in 100 years' time, in comparison to those at the same percentile at present 2017. For example 100 years ago, those in the lower 25% percentile never attend any school at all, but at present it is likely only 10% of the lowest percentile do not attend school.

You may question, if in 100 years all of humanity are well educated, does that meant there will be a change in the number of people. This is likely but with better education and higher intelligence, wisdom, etc. humanity will find ways to ensure the preservation of the species.
Are these "brave" explorers the "slaves" or the "chosen people"?
This is typical of your rhetoric. You deceptively squeezed in 'slave' and 'chosen people' somewhere and attack your own straw-man.
Let me use the "straw-man" argument with the "trolley dilemma", where you have an option to save your family member or 10 strangers... go!
Please tell us what the "chosen one" would do?
The casuistry model [trolley] to morality and ethics is a cheapskate approach as there is no way one can think of all the possible scenarios and has time to think when reality hit.
I have always advocated the Kantian Framework and System Approach to morality and ethics which enable a feedback and control basis to facilitate continuous improvements.
The human laws and the Justice system must have a basis in something "fundamental", otherwise it's arbitrary and meaningless.
The fundamentals of laws and the judiciary are adapted from on the inherent absolute moral standards within humanity.
'Thou Shall Not Kill' is not God given but based on the inherent absolute moral standards within humanity. The ground is linked to survival and preservation of the species. If this 'Thou Shall Not Kill' is NOT made universal then in theory the human species will go extinct thus contrary to its implicit 'purpose' [not ontological].
As far as I know, the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights was based on "traditions" of the Christian religion, with covenant in the separation of the "Church" and the "State" to reflect the "freedom" to practice any religion. This is one of the major reasons that people from Europe and elsewhere were arriving to America by the "ship load" in pursuit of that religious freedom from persecution. It wasn't the "secular ideology" but Religion (in reality other factors) that was used as a rational for the equal rights and the XIIIth Amendment to the Constitution.
Nah, the religious maxims are derived from the inherent and implicit absolute moral standards within humanity. Christianity has adopted a partial aspect of this inherent morality and claim it is from an illusory God. I agree some aspect of these adopted morality by Christianity are positive but overall Christianity will be net-negative for humanity.

OTOH, it is the secular community that establish the absolute moral standard;
'Slavery is not permissible - no ifs and no buts"
Where is this imaginary "absolute moral standard"? Which "absolute" is it based upon? Is it the "superior" reasoning of the "chosen people" to produce the "ocean" of 7 billion modern slaves in the financial debt?
Another of your rhetorical diatribe to be a spoiler and thus to thwarf any attempt by others toward the progress for humanity.

As I had stated, the drive for moral absolutes is inherent within humanity and the inherent absolute moral standard for slavery was made explicit in the United Nations Slavery Convention.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInt ... ntion.aspx
  • Slavery Convention
    Signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926
    Entry into force: 9 March 1927, in accordance with article 12
Note my use of 'absolute' is not one with a capital "A."
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Belindi »

Spectrum wrote:
humanity is at present striving to get rid of such contemporary modern slavery in phases.
Yes, but humanity is also striving to increase slavery. Humanity aspires to Good but humanity also aspires to Bad. Humanity is a mixed bag of good and bad. Spectrum, you are too biased too optimistic.

Even if in the term of our lifetimes humanity dispels slavery (or any other evil) this is not an indication that humanity will not revert to former Bad.

There is no end of history where humanity will have evolved to Good.

Some Christians believe in the New Jerusalem on Earth. I don't.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Steve3007 »

Areyu:
...Our being (genetic makeup), which is what it is based (at least in part) on the principles of the theory of evolution, is designed only to keep the species existing in the present...
Or rather, our genetic makeup, expressed in our physical and mental characteristics, either does or does not keep us existing in the present depending on how well they allow us to survive in the present environment and thereby pass them forward. It's not designed with the intention of doing so. Or so the evidence appears to suggest.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Ranvier »

Spectrum

You seem to “confuse” multiple concepts in your own rhetoric to claim “empirical evidence”. You like to use these scientific terms: “empirical”, “evidence”, “facts”, “proofs”, “evolution”, “bell curve”…etc. All these words have a specific meaning in a proper context but in a literary style anyone can use such words for “artistic” purpose to add “flavor” to own rhetoric, similar to using a medical term “myopic” to designate a narrow point of view. However, you seem to be serious in non-metaphorical use of such words to “confabulate” your own context as facts. You also seem to take bits and pieces of knowledge of other people from all over the place, which are out of context from the intellectual achievement of these individuals, to “stitch” these pieces into your own “concoction”.

One moment you’re talking about the biological evolution, and then move to the increase in “self-awareness” and the development of the “inherent moral standard”. This is “stitching” of a scientific concept of evolution with philosophical concepts of “mind” and a sociological (cultural) concept of “morality”. Obviously, the human “reality” is not isolated in anyone field of study but it requires an extraordinary mind to “merge” all these fields of knowledge into an “organic” full perspective. The absence of such mind can be easily recognized when one field of knowledge is used to “undermine” or “discredit” another field of knowledge. Take Lawrence Krauss for instance, a well-known theoretical physicist that “ridicules” theists at any opportunity to express his opinions. Sometimes I wonder how such people can “do science” without a clear understanding of the “purview” of the scientific method to investigate the material reality but has nothing to do with the philosophical question of “being” or “God”, since science simply isn’t charged with answering such questions. The best scientific answer is “I don’t know” or there is no scientific method to disprove “God” theory. To claim “evidence” to the contrary is neither science nor wisdom.

As for your claim for the “evolutionary” visible “progress” in “self-awareness”, first you must define what “progress” means. Aside from the fact that “evolution” is observed as the genetic changes over an extended period of time that are marked by a significant “adaptation” that demarcate a “new species”. There is no reason to “believe” that any “clone” of the human genetic material within Homo sapiens species, even from 70K years ago, would grow up any differently from any modern child. There isn’t any indication of significant changes in the human brain that would support your “theory” of increase in “self-awareness”. What you’re talking about are the cultural and social changes that describe a civilization, where “progress” is relative to such definition. Just because I can’t “imagine” living without the antibiotics or pain medication 10K years ago, this doesn’t mean that we made a significant progress that someone from that time period wouldn’t be “disgusted” or terrified by our modern way of life, where people from that time period didn’t kill each other with cruel efficiency of the nerve gas or nuclear weapons.

Your link to the UN accord on Slavery Convention is an accurate description of our modern prison system. Times change, our technology advances, yet our human nature is quite similar to the early Homo sapiens.
"slaves" ??? this is your rhetorical invention.
Slavery is not my invention; it’s a reality that stems from minds of the “chosen people” with a “superior intellect” and “reasoning”, as per your “twisted” bell curve of 1% vs the rest. The greatest threat to humanity is the humanity itself, where my claim is that we grew too fast for the intellectual level of Homo sapiens. You bypassed the answer to the “trolley dilemma” with your “Kantian” approach, whatever that means, which is no different to a group mentality from 3,000 years ago and what any individual would do in protecting one’s family today. So please stop talking about the universal morality, especially since you make some “wild” claims about the “inherent absolute moral standards” as the basis for human law and the judicial system.
The fundamentals of laws and the judiciary are adapted from on the inherent absolute moral standards within humanity. 'Thou Shall Not Kill' is not God given but based on the inherent absolute moral standards within humanity. The ground is linked to survival and preservation of the species. If this 'Thou Shall Not Kill' is NOT made universal then in theory the human species will go extinct thus contrary to its implicit 'purpose' [not ontological].
That absolutely makes no sense to the "trolley dilemma" nor the fact that we kill each other by millions and the fact that human life becomes even more "cheap" as the population grows.

I ask again… where does this “absolute moral standard” come from? Is it Genetics, with “morality” being coded in our DNA? Or is it the secular superior reasoning, where you want to “tweak” human brains to remove the “zombie parasite”. Why bother, “infected” is infected and if “it” poses a threat to the greater good, let us just “nuke them”... sarcastic, of course :wink:
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Atreyu »

I agree more with Belindi and Ranvier vs Spectrum. You really have to be idealistic to think we're "making progress" as a species, and even more idealistic to tie that progress exclusively to the concepts of natural selection and genetic drift.

My view is that this "new age" idealism is based on being mesmerized by all our wonderful technology and its augmentation and "progress" over time, the end result of which will be the quick, efficient, and complete obliteration of our species.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Ranvier wrote:Spectrum
You seem to “confuse” multiple concepts in your own rhetoric to claim “empirical evidence”. You like to use these scientific terms: “empirical”, “evidence”, “facts”, “proofs”, “evolution”, “bell curve”…etc. All these words have a specific meaning in a proper context but in a literary style anyone can use such words for “artistic” purpose to add “flavor” to own rhetoric, similar to using a medical term “myopic” to designate a narrow point of view. However, you seem to be serious in non-metaphorical use of such words to “confabulate” your own context as facts. You also seem to take bits and pieces of knowledge of other people from all over the place, which are out of context from the intellectual achievement of these individuals, to “stitch” these pieces into your own “concoction”.

One moment you’re talking about the biological evolution, and then move to the increase in “self-awareness” and the development of the “inherent moral standard”. This is “stitching” of a scientific concept of evolution with philosophical concepts of “mind” and a sociological (cultural) concept of “morality”. Obviously, the human “reality” is not isolated in anyone field of study but it requires an extraordinary mind to “merge” all these fields of knowledge into an “organic” full perspective. The absence of such mind can be easily recognized when one field of knowledge is used to “undermine” or “discredit” another field of knowledge.
I note you are making a lot of noises.

Progress is only effective from a multi-disciplinary approach. Point is, as I had always said your thinking is too shallow and narrow and you don't have the mental capacity to deal with problems from a multi-facets approach.
If you have the capacity and patience you will be able to reconcile and align all the various elements I have introduced into a common theme.
Take Lawrence Krauss for instance, a well-known theoretical physicist that “ridicules” theists at any opportunity to express his opinions. Sometimes I wonder how such people can “do science” without a clear understanding of the “purview” of the scientific method to investigate the material reality but has nothing to do with the philosophical question of “being” or “God”, since science simply isn’t charged with answering such questions. The best scientific answer is “I don’t know” or there is no scientific method to disprove “God” theory. To claim “evidence” to the contrary is neither science nor wisdom.
Don't compare me with Lawrence Krauss as I don't share his views on the finer nuances of reality.
As for your claim for the “evolutionary” visible “progress” in “self-awareness”, first you must define what “progress” means. Aside from the fact that “evolution” is observed as the genetic changes over an extended period of time that are marked by a significant “adaptation” that demarcate a “new species”. There is no reason to “believe” that any “clone” of the human genetic material within Homo sapiens species, even from 70K years ago, would grow up any differently from any modern child. There isn’t any indication of significant changes in the human brain that would support your “theory” of increase in “self-awareness”. What you’re talking about are the cultural and social changes that describe a civilization, where “progress” is relative to such definition. Just because I can’t “imagine” living without the antibiotics or pain medication 10K years ago, this doesn’t mean that we made a significant progress that someone from that time period wouldn’t be “disgusted” or terrified by our modern way of life, where people from that time period didn’t kill each other with cruel efficiency of the nerve gas or nuclear weapons.
Progress in general mean improvement from a previous state.
Evolution: any process of formation or growth; development:
I did not confine the above to only the biological perspective.

Note I mentioned:
"the increase in knowledge in every field of knowledge, the various technological progress, etc" from 100, 200 or 2000 years ago.
I presume this is so obvious. You want me to provide examples??
Your link to the UN accord on Slavery Convention is an accurate description of our modern prison system. Times change, our technology advances, yet our human nature is quite similar to the early Homo sapiens.
Again you are thinking too shallowly.
Note Maclean's Triune Brain [has its critics] is representative of the state of the human brain which is stacked progressively from one phase of evolution to another. According to the Triune Brain theory the human brain is stacked upon the animal [limbic] and the reptilian brain.
So the point is while we advance, the reptilian and animal nature remain permanently in the basement of the brain and their impulses are merely modulated by neural inhibitors. At our present state the neural inhibitors [being newer] are not strong enough to modulate the primal impulses effective but we are progressing.

Our thinking brain can conceive of the highest ideals while our current state of actions cannot match any ideal intentions. But humanity is striving to closer and closer toward the ideals. What wrong with forward looking and planning for the better and progress? This is exactly what humanity is doing with slavery, i.e. we are progressing and it is considered fast.

Note Kant critique [Critique of Pure Reason] the thinking brain in thinking [using Pure and Primal reason] too far ahead to the extent it jump beyond the empirical and its related elements to an illusory God.

OTOH, Kant's morality do think of absolute moral values only as a guide to the practical and not insisting such absolute exists independently like Plato's universals.
"slaves" ??? this is your rhetorical invention.
Slavery is not my invention; it’s a reality that stems from minds of the “chosen people” with a “superior intellect” and “reasoning”, as per your “twisted” bell curve of 1% vs the rest. The greatest threat to humanity is the humanity itself, where my claim is that we grew too fast for the intellectual level of Homo sapiens. You bypassed the answer to the “trolley dilemma” with your “Kantian” approach, whatever that means, which is no different to a group mentality from 3,000 years ago and what any individual would do in protecting one’s family today. So please stop talking about the universal morality, especially since you make some “wild” claims about the “inherent absolute moral standards” as the basis for human law and the judicial system.
It is a tedious debate, my view is the 'casuistry' approach is a cheapskate model. I suggest you research into all the known morality & ethical models and compare them.

Yes, humanity with its self-awareness and reasoning power has grew too fast but humanity is catching up. Humanity's inherent propensity to progress and deal with problems will catch up.
The fundamentals of laws and the judiciary are adapted from on the inherent absolute moral standards within humanity. 'Thou Shall Not Kill' is not God given but based on the inherent absolute moral standards within humanity. The ground is linked to survival and preservation of the species. If this 'Thou Shall Not Kill' is NOT made universal then in theory the human species will go extinct thus contrary to its implicit 'purpose' [not ontological].
That absolutely makes no sense to the "trolley dilemma" nor the fact that we kill each other by millions and the fact that human life becomes even more "cheap" as the population grows.
Has humanity killed more than the number killed since WWII? This show humanity is continuously learning from the past and to progress into the future.
You keep ignoring our inherent propensity for greater and greater moral values to prevail and I have given the example of the mission on the elimination of slavery.
I ask again… where does this “absolute moral standard” come from? Is it Genetics, with “morality” being coded in our DNA? Or is it the secular superior reasoning, where you want to “tweak” human brains to remove the “zombie parasite”. Why bother, “infected” is infected and if “it” poses a threat to the greater good, let us just “nuke them”... sarcastic, of course :wink:
At present, the claim is the 'absolute moral standards' come from God [do not exists btw] via holy books. This is useful relatively but ultimately it is a sham.

The "absolute moral standard" will come from secular reasoning at the highest level and will be shared via consensus by all of humanity. There is no relative superiority when the majority has high average reasoning powers. At that point in the future the average reasoning power of humanity could be something like 100 times the present average.

As for "zombie parasite" which is inherent and unavoidable humanity will improve the strength of the neural inhibitors for the majority [hopefully all] so that one can modulate the primal impulse that enable to the "zombie parasite" to be active.

For those who are theists, pantheists and has elements of theism, unfortunately for them the 'zombie parasite' are still active and is subliminally compelling them towards the ideal of theism as driven by Pure or Primal reasoning.

-- Updated Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:49 pm to add the following --
[b]Atreyu[/b] wrote:I agree more with Belindi and Ranvier vs Spectrum. You really have to be idealistic to think we're "making progress" as a species, and even more idealistic to tie that progress exclusively to the concepts of natural selection and genetic drift.

My view is that this "new age" idealism is based on being mesmerized by all our wonderful technology and its augmentation and "progress" over time, the end result of which will be the quick, efficient, and complete obliteration of our species.
Birds of feathers, that is only natural.
Note my definition of 'progress' and 'evolution' above which is not tie solely to biological related evolution.

I suggest you strip your brain naked for some instances and think from outside the box instead of being compelled by that inherent and unavoidable "zombie parasite."
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Belindi »

Spectrum wrote:
Progress in general mean improvement from a previous state.

But progress does not imply and end point when history will end.

When the speaker about progress is talking about progress in a specified area, such as e.g. controlling emissions for engines, hypothetically he can invisage an end point when ideally all emissions from engines will cease.

The end point of progress does not exist unless the idea of progress transits to a specifiable end point .

Nobody knows what this end point would be. Is there Utopia? I doubt it.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Atreyu »

It's easy to be idealistic about general progress when we can see progress being made in individual areas. We're making progress in technology, no doubt. And you can rationalize that we're making progress in things like "ending slavery", "ending hunger", "ending poverty", etc. But if we're falling behind in other areas, the general end result may be that we're slowly degenerating.

I think that if you view the human situation from a broad perspective, we're pretty much in the same situation as men of the Stone Age. We haven't really evolved since then. We still are what we are. The only difference is that now we have the knowledge of how to exterminate the entire species very efficiently, quickly, and effectively.

The recent Vegas shooting is a quite apropos backdrop to all I've said above....
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Belindi wrote:Spectrum wrote:
Progress in general mean improvement from a previous state.


But progress does not imply and end point when history will end.

When the speaker about progress is talking about progress in a specified area, such as e.g. controlling emissions for engines, hypothetically he can invisage an end point when ideally all emissions from engines will cease.

The end point of progress does not exist unless the idea of progress transits to a specifiable end point .

Nobody knows what this end point would be. Is there Utopia? I doubt it.
I stated in-general where 'progress' do not imply an end point at all, unless one deliberately specify a defined end point which can be;
  • (1) achievable -e.g. reaching a destination or finishing a task, or
    (2) an impossible to achieve ideal - absolute moral standards, perfect circle, etc.
In the discussion of progress in terms of morality, I was presenting a striving for progress toward an impossible-to-achieve-ideal. For example in the case of slavery, humanity has been doing that for years and has shown progress over the last 100 ++ years on a secular basis.

-- Updated Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:00 pm to add the following --
Atreyu wrote:It's easy to be idealistic about general progress when we can see progress being made in individual areas. We're making progress in technology, no doubt. And you can rationalize that we're making progress in things like "ending slavery", "ending hunger", "ending poverty", etc. But if we're falling behind in other areas, the general end result may be that we're slowly degenerating.
To be reasonable and objective we have to review ALL aspects of humanity and analyze them and arrive at a net result.
I have taken that into account [as least mentally] but there is a limitation in such a forum to discuss the many elements, thus it is seemingly that I had only thought of individual areas.
It may appear [merely an opinion] to you that we're slowly degenerating, but I believe you have not taken into account ALL [or the critical ones] elements and variables involved.

One critical point with humanity is, there is an inherent propensity by humanity to progress continuously and that the good will prevail over evil. Whatever is done by humans at present is not immutable and thus can be changed and improved for the better. Note the attempt by the global community to tackle 'global warming' and pollution.

OTOH, where it is theistic dominated, the doctrines by a God is usually immutable and non-compliance meant HELL. This is especially the case with Islam towards world domination or potential extermination of the human species as inspired by Allah in the Quran. One cannot change or improve upon God's [the all powerful] command.
I think that if you view the human situation from a broad perspective, we're pretty much in the same situation as men of the Stone Age. We haven't really evolved since then. We still are what we are. The only difference is that now we have the knowledge of how to exterminate the entire species very efficiently, quickly, and effectively.

The recent Vegas shooting is a quite apropos backdrop to all I've said above....
Nope, you are wrong.
I believe humanity has improved since the Stone Age in all critical areas from the perspective of neural connectivity in terms of knowledge, technology, intelligence, wisdom, morality, etc.

Had humanity not progressed at all, humanity could have been wiped off by some epidemic disease like flu, smallpox, ebola, plague, etc. Bateria and viruses has a greater cycle of mutations to adapt to threats and we have to be one step ahead.

At present we do have the 'nuke' technology with the potential to exterminate the whole human species, but where it is secular, there are no immutable secular ideologies to made them permanent. Despite the threats of nuclear war, Cuba, North Korea, there is still MAD to deter an actual all out war.

But it is different with theistic ideologies which are immutable. Islam with its command by Allah in the Quran could lead SOME Muslims [when they have the nuclear materials] to exterminate the human species for they have nothing to loose, either way, they will end up in Paradise while non-Muslims are destined to Hell.

The above is the danger of keeping theistic ideologies active.
If we do away with theistic ideologies, then there is no potential at all for a nuclear war based on immutable commands from an illusory God.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Speedyj1992
Posts: 30
Joined: September 20th, 2017, 3:42 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Speedyj1992 »

Hereandnow wrote:Atheists enjoy their, what shall i call it, pride in being able to look unflinchingly at the hard truths of the world. But really, atheism is at least just as indefensible as theism. I mean, if you're thinking that theism is just a joke about an old man ina cloud, then you don't understand theism, or any defensible form of it. If your atheism is just the justified denial of a medieval anthropomorphism, then so what. Try arguing a against a more respectable thesis: that of ethical objectivism. Anti-objectivists here deny that ethical values need for their theoretical underpinning something absolute, like god or Plato's FOG (Form of the Good). Objectivists, like myself, think they do need this. In order to make sense of this world there must be something that, and I will use a fragile word, redeems it. We do not live in a stand-alone world, meaning that the ideas that constitute all that we can bring to bear on the problem of being here qua being here, just plain being here and all that it possesses, are wholly incommensurate with what they purport to explain. In other words, atheism explains nothing. It simply walks away on a cloud of value nihilism, you know, like Jesus walking on water (both absurd).

If you can't argue well an anti-objectivist view, then you are a lot closer to theism then you think, for you have to admit that the world needs redemption.
Well put. The AV Club did an article about Bill Maher and mentioned how he had issues tying his atheism to anything meaningful beyond rejection of religious dogma. As a former atheist, I can say that this was how I felt as an atheist, and now as a Christian, I have much more meaning because I have things I am for as much as I have things I am against. Granted, Christians struggle with this, and I want to do more to help my fellow Christians in that, but we are given those tools even if we don't always use them perfectly. Or even as well as we could.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021