How to respond to the "Expedite Heaven" argument from nonbelievers?

[fhansen]

I disagree. I’ve never had the desire to kill an entire race of people (or any class of people) or really, truly, to kill anyone at all. I would think the same of you but I cannot say for sure.

.
I think it goes deeper than that. Our universal revulsion to most major evils points to a universal law of some kind. The fact, OTOH, that any of us would override that law and commit such evils-either as a group or individually- points to the idea that something is amiss in humankind. To put it another way: the fact that we generally agree that certain acts are just plain wrong suggests the existence of an objective human morality. The fact that we’re at all flexible on any of this, that some might possibly be persuaded, for example, that murder/genocide might* not* be wrong, suggests that we don’t know- that a breech in our knowledge exists concerning right and wrong, that we lack the wisdom, or simply the capability, to know for certain if something’s objectively evil or not, regardless of whether it truly is.

If it is commanded because it is (objectively) good then the determiner is ontologically unnecessary as the goodness of the proposition being commanded is regardless of the command or determination. Either horn of this dilemma is problematic in its own way and their union renders god-given morality all but moot as a philosophical justification. More on this question can be read in Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling.

I understand your point but I think truly objective moral evils (to use Catholic terminology for consistency’s sake, I would use the word ‘wrongs’ for reasons not wholly germane here) do not need to be determined. We can come to grasp the reality of these moral answers without reference to any external moral lawgiver. Kant, for example, does this in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics and Mill in his Utilitarianism. In brief, it is possible to be good without gods.

No, an objective good only makes sense coming from a superior that has the right to obedience because of his own goodness and wisdom. This is so because otherwise man, himself, is ipso facto god by default and the idea of a natural law or objective morality of any kind is rendered meaningless, whether we think those laws evolved in us as naturally selected beneficial traits, or by some other naturalistic means, or by our own choice for that matter. There’s absolutely no compelling reason to obey, based on sheer righteousness alone, if there is no One to consciously obey. The free will of man simply precludes it.

Or that we stick to things that are (a) legal, (b) safe and (c) more or less harmless. I would hardly class gossip as an objective moral evil especially when setting up the basic framework of an ethic.

In Catholic theology gossip is a moral evil because it originates from a lack of love which is considered the essence of sin, whether small or large, “venial” or “mortal”.

This principle is expounded in the sermon on the mount where Jesus tells us that we’re guilty of murder merely by having anger in our hearts. The fact that we have anger (the common ol’ caustic, ego-driven stuff, to be distinguished from true righteous indignation) means that our hearts are in the wrong place to begin with whether or not we act on it.

I think that without a literal Eden original sin is a non-starter. Put another way I think Darwinism implies, necessarily, Pelagianism.

.
If by that you mean to say that mankind’s going to get “gooder and gooder”, I’d say, ‘nah, relatively recent history proves that theory false’. Human nature will never, ever, as a whole, raise itself much above eye level without help. And as long as death’s staring us in the face, subtly insisting on the futility of life, there’s little real impetus to change for the better for very long anyway.

How is it just for one man to separate all his progeny from (an all-powerful, all-loving) God?

Because God knows that humans need, like the Prodigal, time and experience to learn of His value.

That would be like saying it was just for me to sit in jail because my great grandfather killed someone; it may be the reality in a (very) backwards legal system–though none I can think of at least in modern times–but it cannot be called ‘just’ in any intelligible meaning of that word.

We’re not in jail. We’re in a place where we can observe and experience, i.e. know good and evil and decide for ourselves which we choose. We get to ask ourselves-do we really want an all-powerful, all loving God around?

 

[ThomasToo]

To put it another way: the fact that we generally agree that certain acts are just plain wrong suggests the existence of an objective human morality.

I agree with you on this. I think moral intuition is important and I am a moral realist.

No, an objective good only makes sense coming from a superior that has the right to obedience because of his own goodness and wisdom.

Then resolve the dilemma… Either good is ontologically prior to God or God is ontologically prior to good. In the first case we don’t need the superior to get to morality and in the second the good exists only due to his/her/its whim but this is nonsense since it denies our supposition of moral realism. An easy example here is the sacrifice of Isaac; assume that God didn’t stay Abraham’s hand and willed Isaac to be sacrifice. Would it then have been a good for Abraham to do so or would God have been morally wrong?

This principle is expounded in the sermon on the mount where Jesus tells us that we’re guilty of murder merely by having anger in our hearts. The fact that we have anger (the common ol’ caustic, ego-driven stuff, to be distinguished from true righteous indignation) means that our hearts are in the wrong place to begin with whether or not we act on it.

You seem to have conflated two parts of the Sermon on the Mount: ‘Ye have heard that it was said by them of old, “Thou shalt not kill,” and “Whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment”’ (Matthew 5.21-22) and ‘Ye have heard that it was said by them of old, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart’ (Matthew 5.27-28). That said, I understand your point but I don’t think gossip–or lust–are morally wrong.

If by that you mean to say that mankind’s going to get “gooder and gooder”, I’d say, ‘nah, relatively recent history proves that theory false’. Human nature will never, ever, as a whole, raise itself much above eye level without help. And as long as death’s staring us in the face, subtly insisting on the futility of life, there’s little real impetus to change for the better for very long anyway.

Not at all. I mean that if the Garden of Eden was not an actual place with an actual tree from which an actual Adam and an actual Eve ate an actual apple/fig/pomegranate/pear/peach/whatever (actual word used is simply ‘fruit’) then the doctrine of original sin–at best–sits on the shakiest of ground.

We’re not in jail. We’re in a place where we can observe and experience, i.e. know good and evil and decide for ourselves which we choose. We get to ask ourselves-do we really want an all-powerful, all loving God around?

It’s far worse than jail; we must work (Genesis 3.17-18), die (Genesis 3.19) and women must have pain in childbirth (Genesis 3.16). One man and one woman have brought toil, pain and death upon every one of us. That is not and cannot be justice in any meaningful sense of the word.

 

[fhansen]

Then resolve the dilemma… Either good is ontologically prior to God or God is ontologically prior to good. In the first case we don’t need the superior to get to morality and in the second the good exists only due to his/her/its whim but this is nonsense since it denies our supposition of moral realism. An easy example here is the sacrifice of Isaac; assume that God didn’t stay Abraham’s hand and willed Isaac to be sacrifice. Would it then have been a good for Abraham to do so or would God have been morally wrong?

It’s both/and if God is goodness itself, the wellspring from which it comes. Then goodness doesn’t come by whim but simply from incontrovertible goodness itself-the goodness that Adam & Eve questioned and we can continue to now, BTW

You seem to have conflated two parts of the Sermon on the Mount: ‘Ye have heard that it was said by them of old, “Thou shalt not kill,” and “Whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment”’ (Matthew 5.21-22) and ‘Ye have heard that it was said by them of old, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart’ (Matthew 5.27-28). That said, I understand your point but I don’t think gossip–or lust–are morally wrong.

It’s more of a conflation of the parts you mentioned and Matt 15:19: **For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
**
In any case He’s telling us of a principle; that our righteousness-or unrighteousness- is not a matter of mere acts but rather the state of the heart, first and foremost.

Not at all. I mean that if the Garden of Eden was not an actual place with an actual tree from which an actual Adam and an actual Eve ate an actual apple/fig/pomegranate/pear/peach/whatever (actual word used is simply ‘fruit’) then the doctrine of original sin–at best–sits on the shakiest of ground.

Well, I’ll let the CCC speak on this:
**390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265
**
The Church affirms that a real act of disobedience occurred committed by two real people who were the parents of all living humans.

It’s far worse than jail; we must work (Genesis 3.17-18), die (Genesis 3.19) and women must have pain in childbirth (Genesis 3.16). One man and one woman have brought toil, pain and death upon every one of us. That is not and cannot be justice in any meaningful sense of the word.

Ah, but it’s still worth it. Even in this life the majority prefer-even cherish- existence to its alternative.

 

[tonyrey]

The fact that we exist–as opposed to not, as was the case before we began life and will be when we die–is positive but is that fact enough to be valuable?

The fact of existence is enough to be valuable, as Ernest Nagel pointed out, because it is a source of opportunities.

The absence of prayer sums up the renunciation of the beauty and value of life to escape from the world as opposed to the appreciation of God’s power and goodness which have given us a foretaste of heaven.

The absence of prayer in Buddhism is a reflective of a radically different ideology than yours. Not necessarily better, not necessarily worse but very different.

Since it seeks to extirpate all desires and thereby denies the value of life it must be inferior.

I understand the theological claims behind the necessity of the crucifixion but I find them lacking.

The point is that He had good reasons not to work miracles which would have defeated the purpose of His mission whereas you think not to work miracles is inconsistent with His power. His aim was not to coerce but to convince by example and - as in the parables - by an appeal to common sense. His miracles were motivated by compassion for the afflicted rather than for His own benefit - which is demonstrated beyond all doubt by His submission to the scourging and crucifixion.

How do they explain the origin, development and authorship of the Gospels?

I have not made extensive study of their writings and have made almost no study of them in several years. Simply because I agree with them and cannot give an appropriate summation of their views is my failing and not theirs.

Then I fear your argument is an appeal to authority - whereas the Lithostros is not.

On what are values based in an amoral universe? They seem to have nothing in common with physical objects.

Sam Harris answers (or rather attempts to answer) this question in his forthcoming book… Again, my failing in description is not indicative of his failings in writing–the book is not yet available for me to read.

What precisely is that data?

In more general terms, values are based on principle of universalization; I side with Kant on that question.

That principle presupposes the principle of equality which itself requires justification.

Is punishment a necessary criterion of a categorical imperative?

I mean only that it is not morally licit though Kant also thought the last murderer in jail ought to be put to death as society was being dissolved as a matter of justice so perhaps punishment is not all that far off.

My respect for Kant is not increased by that information! I am still none the wiser about the secular basis for a categorical imperative. The existence of God provides that basis because His commandments are not arbitrary rules but consequences of His infinite goodness and love. Moral laws are simply the necessary conditions for personal fulfilment and social harmony. If people are not intended to exist there is no obvious reason why personal fulfilment and social harmony are attainable. They become pipe dreams - like Marx’s opium… fictions for manipulating the masses. Morality and religion are in the same boat: they float or sink together!

Then why believe in moral values?

Because there are reasons to believe that actions have natural consequences that cause suffering–or the opposite–in other creatures and I lack any reason to think their experience of such feelings is meaningfully different from mine and as such the goodness or badness of such feelings is objectively available.

You are presupposing that suffering is intrinsically evil for everyone. The devil’s advocate would say it does not matter whether others are suffering because you cannot feel what they feel. There is no self-evident obligation to be concerned about others’ feelings - as the state of the world demonstrates. In fact there are no self-evident obligations at all if there is no reason why we exist.

The evidence is intangible.

No it’s not. I have clear evidence of the existence of my own mind. In fact, its existence is the only thing in which I can have absolute certainty.

That is true but you cannot observe your thoughts with the senses. They cannot be measured or located.

Is the correspondence tangible?

Insofar as language is tangible and reality is the same.

Correspondence is not observable by the senses. It is an abstract reality like similarity or probability.

Does a fact cease to be a fact if no one is aware of it?

If no one is aware of it nor ever can be nor ever will be I think the question of its factualness is meaningless.

Whether anyone is aware of a fact is irrelevant. There must be many facts that will never be known but reality is not thereby diminished. Our ignorance is not a valid criterion of what exists.

The power of choice adheres to physical objects (i.e. people) and the social circumstances that allow people to exercise such a power adhere to societies.

You are equating persons and societies with physical objects but the power of choice is not associated with physical objects nor can it be explained by physical laws. In fact it transcends physical laws. Even social circumstances are not confined to physical bodies. There is a large element of intangible, intellectual and emotional activity.

The principle of supervenience is important and relevant here and elsewhere in this conversation.

I think an abstract term reinforces the inadequacy of physicalism…

 

[ThomasToo]

In any case He’s telling us of a principle; that our righteousness-or unrighteousness- is not a matter of mere acts but rather the state of the heart, first and foremost.

I see what you mean but frankly I always thought a morality centered so much around inward states misses the point. I think it was Kant but I’m not positive who described the merely continent man as better than the virtuous one because he had to try to be good against his inclination otherwise.

Well, I’ll let the CCC speak on this:
**390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
**
The Church affirms that a real act of disobedience occurred committed by two real people who were the parents of all living humans.

I know what the Church teaches but biologically it makes no sense to me and it ruins the whole line of thought that the wages of sin is death (since death predates man–and sin–by at least a billion years at the inside). The appeal to faith, as I’ve covered somewhat in my discussion with BetterAve is one of my biggest problem of religion. It’s like saying ‘don’t worry that it doesn’t make sense, God told us so we’re positive it’s right now stop asking questions about it.’ How could our first parents, again without a situation like the Garden, have any fault without knowledge of morality; they were probably doing little other than trying to survive in an inhospitable world. This doesn’t even get into the biological problem with p(name removed by moderator)ointing where in the line of our ancestors ‘our first parents’ (i.e. the first humans) stand which aren’t really relevant here but are intellectually interesting none the less.

Ah, but it’s still worth it. Even in this life the majority prefer-even cherish- existence to its alternative.

Whether life is worth it isn’t the point. I’m glad to be alive–after some dickering on the point with TonyRey–but the question at hand is whether or not it is just for all men to be sentenced to death because of the failings of our first parents?

 

[ThomasToo]

Since it seeks to extirpate all desires and thereby denies the value of life it must be inferior.

It seeks to eliminate desire because desire leads to suffering but frankly I don’t want to debate why you think your religion is better than everyone else’s.

Then I fear your argument is an appeal to authority - whereas the Lithostros is not.

I fear you misunderstand the fallacy of the appeal to authority. I’m saying that these people have studied a topic far more than I have–and I would wager more than you have–so if you have quarrel with them (a) read their works and (b) take it up with them since I am not a scholar on the topic. I am not saying they are experts in the field so they must be right. The sole reason I brought them up in the first place was to make clear that the consensus you stated existed on the historicity of some events is not true.

What precisely is that data?

His lecture on the topic that I saw is available at ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html and the book will be available in a little over the month. His argument can be found in brief in the first link and at length when the book is available.

That principle presupposes the principle of equality which itself requires justification.

I’m not a moral philosopher and am only a dabbler but I think that as Hobbes laid out, equality is a fact of nature (‘Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he’ [Leviathan XII]).

I need to read more on this but don’t know when I will have the time. There are a couple books in my hopper and I start school again in few weeks.

My respect for Kant is not increased by that information!

Sorry?

You are presupposing that suffering is intrinsically evil for everyone. The devil’s advocate would say it does not matter whether others are suffering because you cannot feel what they feel. There is no self-evident obligation to be concerned about others’ feelings - as the state of the world demonstrates. In fact there are no self-evident obligations at all if there is no reason why we exist.

I feel that the foundation for equality will apply here as well but I need to think about it more. That said, I grant that suffering is intrinsically evil.

That is true but you cannot observe your thoughts with the senses. They cannot be measured or located.

I can experience them. You, however, have implied–intentionally or otherwise–the problem of other minds which is a vexing one.

Correspondence is not observable by the senses. It is an abstract reality like similarity or probability.

You seem like you want to cut mind out of the equation. I can understand other minds but we can sense reality, comprehend comments about them and compare our impression of reality to the comment and see if they correspond. What part of that is difficult?

Whether anyone is aware of a fact is irrelevant. There must be many facts that will never be known but reality is not thereby diminished. Our ignorance is not a valid criterion of what exists.

‘There are more things, in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are drempt of in your philosophy.’ Yes, all well and good but my point is that why are unknown (and more importantly unknowable) truths important, meaningful or useful? I would, however, grant that our ignorance is nor a valid reckoner of reality.

You are equating persons and societies with physical objects but the power of choice is not associated with physical objects nor can it be explained by physical laws. In fact it transcends physical laws. Even social circumstances are not confined to physical bodies. There is a large element of intangible, intellectual and emotional activity.

The power of choice is not associated with physical objects? There is, somewhere out there in the aether, choice that exists independent of any physical object? Every choice we see is performed by a physical body. Similarly, social circumstances are tied (but not confined) to physical bodies. Think of a university; there are buildings, books, students, professors and (lots of) kegs. While none of these physical things is the university (it emerges from the assembled union) if all the physical things dropped away–or even if some of them did, e.g. the students or the professors (unless you’re making the movie Accepted)–the university would too.

think an abstract term reinforces the inadequacy of physicalism…

Cute. Now I could uncharitably read that as ‘I don’t want to learn anything about supervenience and so I won’t look it up and I’ll just write it off as a failing of his theory’ but I shouldn’t and I’m trying not to so I ask again, how is this principle not relevant?

 

[tonyrey]

The fact that we exist–as opposed to not, as was the case before we began life and will be when we die–is positive but is that fact enough to be valuable?

I take it that you agree with him…

It seeks to eliminate desire because desire leads to suffering but frankly I don’t want to debate why you think your religion is better than everyone else’s.

A non sequitur. I have indicated one Buddhist belief which is inferior to the Christian belief in the value of life - which is shared by the other main religions of the world.

The main point is that you claimed that the teaching of Jesus was anticipated by Buddha although there is a vast difference between them.

Then I fear your argument is an appeal to authority - whereas the Lithostros is not.

The sole reason I brought them up in the first place was to make clear that the consensus you stated existed on the historicity of some events is not true.

Consensus does not imply unanimity.

His lecture on the topic that I saw is available at ted.com/talks/sam_harris_…t_s_right.html and the book will be available in a little over the month.

I have already discovered that his argument is as fallacious as Hobbes’s for the same reason >>>

I’m not a moral philosopher and am only a dabbler but I think that as Hobbes laid out, equality is a fact of nature

Physical and mental similarity are quite different from moral equality. Hobbes assumed that a claim to benefit is justifiable on natural grounds but “bene” presupposes a **moral **judgment - unless morality is reduced to expediency.

You are presupposing that suffering is intrinsically evil for everyone. The devil’s advocate would say it does not matter whether others are suffering because you cannot feel what they feel. There is no self-evident obligation to be concerned about others’ feelings - as the state of the world demonstrates. In fact there are no self-evident obligations at all if there is no reason why we exist.

I grant that suffering is intrinsically evil.

That is a moral judgment which has no rational basis in a purposeless universe. If everything exists for no reason nothing is good or evil. If only matter exists nothing matters!Do you believe suffering was evil before human beings existed?

That is true but you cannot observe your thoughts with the senses.

I can experience them. You, however, have implied–intentionally or otherwise–the problem of other minds which is a vexing one.

Regardless of other minds your experience of thoughts is intangible and there is no reason to suppose your experience is unique…

Yes, all well and good but my point is that why are unknown (and more importantly unknowable) truths important, meaningful or useful?

For the physicalist nothing is **intrinsically **important, meaningful or useful. How can it be if everything just happens to exist?

I would, however, grant that our ignorance is nor a valid reckoner of reality.

That is the fact I wish to establish.

You are equating persons and societies with physical objects but the power of choice is not associated with physical objects nor can it be explained by physical laws. In fact it transcends physical laws. Even social circumstances are not confined to physical bodies. There is a large element of intangible, intellectual and emotional activity.

The power of choice is not associated with physical objects? There is, somewhere out there in the aether, choice that exists independent of any physical object? Every choice we see is performed by a physical body.

Every choice is made by a person, not a physical body. It is not self-evident that the two are identical. In fact there are very good reasons to believe one controls the other. For the physicalist it must be the body.

You are equating a choice with a programmed selection. The brain does not make a choice but simply functions mechanistically - like every other physical object. If human beings are reduced to physical objects they have no power of choice because all their activity has physical causes. Free will infringes the law of conservation of energy.

Similarly, social circumstances are tied (but not confined) to physical bodies. Think of a university; there are buildings, books, students, professors and (lots of) kegs. While none of these physical things is the university (it emerges from the assembled union) if all the physical things dropped away–or even if some of them did, e.g. the students or the professors (unless you’re making the movie Accepted)–the university would too.

The significance of a university is that it is composed of persons without whom there would be no choices.

I think an abstract term reinforces the inadequacy of physicalism…

Cute. Now I could uncharitably read that as ‘I don’t want to learn anything about supervenience and so I won’t look it up and I’ll just write it off as a failing of his theory’ but I shouldn’t and I’m trying not to so I ask again, how is this principle not relevant?

Regardless of supervenience in his “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” Q.V.Quine makes it clear that knowledge entails three classes of posits. A glance at an online summary of his argument would convince you that physicalism is epistemologically untenable…

 

[fhansen]

I see what you mean but frankly I always thought a morality centered so much around inward states misses the point. I think it was Kant but I’m not positive who described the merely continent man as better than the virtuous one because he had to try to be good against his inclination otherwise.

I don’t know anyone who can be continent without at least some striving or self-discipline involved. In any case, continence is by no means a certain indicator of righteousness. Some Pharisees, for example, were “continent hypocrites”, outwardly good only. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is really talking about how one is continent. He’s contrasting continence done for show with continence done because one has become ontologically just.

Putting on a show of holiness or righteousness is something only self-conscious beings such as humans are capable of doing-and foolish enough to do-and, normal as this condition may seem to us, it’s actually evil in Gods sight because it points to an internal split-both with Him and within ourselves. It’s to lie-and to believe that lie-about who we are.

Whether life is worth it isn’t the point. I’m glad to be alive–after some dickering on the point with TonyRey–

But it *is *the point, if, by clinging to existence we’re at least tacitly agreeing with God that existence is good. And meanwhile He’s conveying the message that existence is actually fantastic -with Him- but ultimately a living death without Him.

but the question at hand is whether or not it is just for all men to be sentenced to death because of the failings of our first parents?

Well, it ain’t over 'til the fat lady sings. Maybe we’re not sentenced to death but to life and life more abundantly- after having tasted death, both spiritually and physically here on earth, via a life considered to be an exile from God, then ultimately making our choice to turn back to Him, to turn fully to life. So what if the condition of all human beings-for whatever reason- is one of being in basic error, in the disordered state of being separated from their maker and perhaps preferring things that way? What if Adam & Eve’s sin didn’t so much cause mankind to be cursed as it merely served to get the ball rolling for the Potter’s plan to eventually mold us into the beings He’s created us to be? What if this life is a gestation period –to a new life? What if the whole purpose of this life is not punitive-but formative-God only desiring us to get with the program, choosing life and faith and love, with His help-recognizing our error so we can proceed to correct it? That’s a lot of “what ifs” but I think they all square with Catholic teaching.

One last “what if”. I mean, what if, there’s something “bigger” than mere evolution- an end, a telos, the purpose of which is to draw/allow creation to willfully align itself with the order inherent in creation-with goodness, with love?

 

[ThomasToo]

I don’t know anyone who can be continent without at least some striving or self-discipline involved. In any case, continence is by no means a certain indicator of righteousness. Some Pharisees, for example, were “continent hypocrites”, outwardly good only. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is really talking about how one is continent. He’s contrasting continence done for show with continence done because one has become ontologically just.

But Jesus is clearly saying continence isn’t enough. It’s not good enough, according to the Sermon on the Mount, to want to sleep with the woman down the block and not; you have to not even want to do so.

Well, it ain’t over 'til the fat lady sings. Maybe we’re not sentenced to death but to life and life more abundantly- after having tasted death, both spiritually and physically here on earth, via a life considered to be an exile from God, then ultimately making our choice to turn back to Him, to turn fully to life. So what if the condition of all human beings-for whatever reason- is one of being in basic error, in the disordered state of being separated from their maker and perhaps preferring things that way? **What if Adam & Eve’s sin didn’t so much cause mankind to be cursed as it merely served to get the ball rolling for the Potter’s plan to eventually mold us into the beings He’s created us to be? **What if this life is a gestation period –to a new life? What if the whole purpose of this life is not punitive-but formative-God only desiring us to get with the program, choosing life and faith and love, with His help-recognizing our error so we can proceed to correct it? That’s a lot of “what ifs” but I think they all square with Catholic teaching.

I bolded the claim that seems the most convincing–though frankly that’s still not very convincing at all. Why can’t the all-powerful creator make us the beings he/she/it wants us to be in the first place?

If, however, all your what ifs hold true then God wanted us to fall so that all that stuff you said could be the case but that runs contrary to the very notion of original sin.

One last “what if”. I mean, what if, there’s something “bigger” than mere evolution- an end, a telos, the purpose of which is to draw/allow creation to willfully align itself with the order inherent in creation-with goodness, with love?

Then it’s doing a very bad job. Nature, that is to say creation, is neither loving nor good but it built, necessarily, on pain, suffering and death. One ready example show this point. There is a species of parasitic wasp that, in order to procreate, must paralyze a caterpillar and lay its eggs inside it. The eggs hatch and eat their way out of the still living–at least for a time–caterpillar. That is not good in any sense of the word and I am unable (or perhaps you could say I refuse) to believe that there is any sort of love behind that scheme.

 

[ThomasToo]

I take it that you agree with him…

I don’t know that I would put in those terms but frankly I don’t know that it’s worth bickering over terminology.

A non sequitur. I have indicated one Buddhist belief which is inferior to the Christian belief in the value of life - which is shared by the other main religions of the world.

It’s not a non sequitor; it has a radically different conception of the good life, of suffering and of the afterlife than your religion does and because Buddhists think differently than they did in the little church on the corner when you were growing up you are prepared to label their belief ‘inferior.’

The main point is that you claimed that the teaching of Jesus was anticipated by Buddha although there is a vast difference between them.

I claimed, as I recall, that four or five key precepts you indicated were in the teachings of Guatama Buddha (n.b. there is more than one Buddha) and while there is what you call ‘a vast difference’ between their beliefs on many points there is not really one on the points you’d indicated.

Consensus does not imply unanimity.

I have the voting system definition of ‘consensus’ stuck in my head which does require unanimity.

I have already discovered that his argument is as fallacious as Hobbes’s for the same reason

As I said, I need to read and think more about this.

That is a moral judgment which has no rational basis in a purposeless universe. If everything exists for no reason nothing is good or evil. If only matter exists nothing matters! Do you believe suffering was evil before human beings existed?

Not quite. ‘Intrinsically evil’ is, in this instance, semantically equivalent to ‘bad’ without the moral judgment and more as an aesthetic–for want of a better term. I think the mental state of suffering is undesirable (i.e. bad) regardless of the species experiencing it.

Regardless of other minds your experience of thoughts is intangible and there is no reason to suppose your experience is unique…

I lack explicit evidence of anyone else’s intangible thoughts but certainly not my own. In either case, the claims of solipsists hold little appeal to me.

For the physicalist nothing is **intrinsically **important, meaningful or useful. How can it be if everything just happens to exist?

Because things have emergent properties. If you mean intrinsically important &c by virtue of the lack of some outside importance-giver that’s fine and I’d be forced to agree but absent such a restriction this argument clearly rings hollow. We strive to make meaning in the universe–much to Camus’s chagrin–and the usefulness of things (e.g tools) is self-evident. Importance is a slippery concept and I’m not quite clear what you mean by it.

You are equating persons and societies with physical objects but the power of choice is not associated with physical objects nor can it be explained by physical laws. In fact it transcends physical laws. Even social circumstances are not confined to physical bodies. There is a large element of intangible, intellectual and emotional activity.

As I illustrated above, choice and social circumstances are certainly bound to physical bodies as there can be neither without them.

You are equating a choice with a programmed selection. The brain does not make a choice but simply functions mechanistically - like every other physical object. If human beings are reduced to physical objects they have no power of choice because all their activity has physical causes. Free will infringes the law of conservation of energy.

I can assume then that you have made extensive study of neuroanatomy? Free will does no such thing and, to be frank, if you understood the law of conservation of energy you would know that. The human body is not a closed system and for that matter neither is the earth.

The significance of a university is that it is composed of persons without whom there would be no choices.

The point of my example was that physical beings–including, as you’ve cited, people–are necessary for the existence of the university.

Regardless of supervenience in his “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” Q.V.Quine makes it clear that knowledge entails three classes of posits. A glance at an online summary of his argument would convince you that physicalism is epistemologically untenable…

You really do love online summaries don’t you. There is always more to read than that, whole books even… Also it’s W.V. Quine and you decided to forgo any talk of metaphysics and try to defeat reductionism with philosophy of language? An interesting argument but hardly convincing.

 

[fhansen]

But Jesus is clearly saying continence isn’t enough. It’s not good enough, according to the Sermon on the Mount, to want to sleep with the woman down the block and not; you have to not even want to do so.

Continence has to do with balance for humans. Too much of an appetite and we suffer from gluttony-not good for us. Too little and we’re anorexic. The applicable term, concupiscence, means, basically, “disordered desire”.

I bolded the claim that seems the most convincing–though frankly that’s still not very convincing at all. Why can’t the all-powerful creator make us the beings he/she/it wants us to be in the first place?

Maybe because even He can’t make us Him. We lack His perfection, we need His continued presence in our lives in order to live as we should-to live at all for that matter. But in order to be like Him, in order to be the beings He wants in the first place, it’s imperative that we choose to be-actually to want to exist in accordance with His will and to admit we can’t do so without His help.

If, however, all your what ifs hold true then God wanted us to fall so that all that stuff you said could be the case but that runs contrary to the very notion of original sin.

I’d say He knew it was inevitable but also knew it was worth it. To create and give the gift of free will or not to, that was the question-in human terms at least.

Then it’s doing a very bad job. Nature, that is to say creation, is neither loving nor good but it built, necessarily, on pain, suffering and death. One ready example show this point. There is a species of parasitic wasp that, in order to procreate, must paralyze a caterpillar and lay its eggs inside it. The eggs hatch and eat their way out of the still living–at least for a time–caterpillar. That is not good in any sense of the word and I am unable (or perhaps you could say I refuse) to believe that there is any sort of love behind that scheme.

Yes, I admit to struggling with similar issues at times. I’ve also experienced the love of God and cannot deny or escape from that knowledge either.

 

[ThomasToo]

Continence has to do with balance for humans. Too much of an appetite and we suffer from gluttony-not good for us. Too little and we’re anorexic. The applicable term, concupiscence, means, basically, “disordered desire”.

Continence has less to do, as I recall, with balance then the crossing of desire and action. While the virtuous want to do the right thing and do the right thing, the continent want to do the wrong one–regardless of the level of this desire–but still do the right thing.

Maybe because even He can’t make us Him. We lack His perfection, we need His continued presence in our lives in order to live as we should-to live at all for that matter. But in order to be like Him, in order to be the beings He wants in the first place, it’s imperative that we choose to be-actually to want to exist in accordance with His will and to admit we can’t do so without His help.

Sounds like we were made broken. Remember, this is an omnipotent being and frankly I would expect better.

I’d say He knew it was inevitable but also knew it was worth it. To create and give the gift of free will or not to, that was the question-in human terms at least.

As you wish but it still does not square with a solid understanding of justice in my opinion.

Yes, I admit to struggling with similar issues at times. I’ve also experienced the love of God and cannot deny or escape from that knowledge either.

There is where we are markedly different. I’ve never felt any god nor love from anyone whom I cannot see and touch and have never really been able to believe.

 

[fhansen]

There is where we are markedly different. I’ve never felt any god nor love from anyone whom I cannot see and touch and have never really been able to believe.

Well, that on’s not possible to explain-at least not to anyones’ satisfaction who hasn’t experienced it. And unless you can get past your objections enough to give God the benefit of the doubt and pursue Him wherever that pursuit might lead, I doubt you’ll have an avenue to come to the knowledge I’m speaking of.

 

[Betterave]

I would deny that the reality of religious people ‘does not always reflect this-world reality of what religion in fact can be.’ The reality of religious people are the very definition of what religion can in fact be (and more importantly, actually is). A Christian bombing an abortion clinic is a religious person showing the reality of religion, as is the Christian doctor who saves the life of the abortionist afterward.

So is your view that all ‘religiously motivated’ acts are equally compatible/consistent with the religious ideals inspiring them?? (Sounds like complete nonsense to me - please explain.)

How cutesy.

Maybe. In any case, are you suggesting that you would deny what I asserted?

It is intellectual laziness. It is semantically equivalent to ‘don’t worry thinking about it, just think it’s true and it’ll be good.’

No, it’s obviously not (further proof of my previous claim). It’s semantically equivalent to ‘it was good in this case to trust those who are trustworthy, to have a loving generosity of spirit rather than a narrow-minded cynicism.’

I would say that in context ‘see’ implies far more than seeing with one’s eyes. It’s about having proof (which is more than a reason).

‘Proof’ does not imply ‘more than a reason,’ so I don’t know what you’re trying to say here.

Tertullian put it better than I can, rather he is part of my intellectual milieu so I don’t know that I could put it other than in his terms and it’s always best to cite sources. Besides, I’d probably raise ire if I called it absurd without naming the origin of my use of the phrase. I meant it less as an ad homenem than the implicit claim that Christians who deny the absurdity of some of their beliefs (which dostoyevskyfan–the OP–acknowledges and like Tertullian it strengthens its belief) at best don’t understand the fullness of Christian doctrine and at worst are being dishonest either with themselves or others (or both).

Your charge of absurdity is not an ad hominem, it is question-begging. Your insinuation about dishonesty was your ad hominem, although as you have used it here it is probably better understood as simply another case of question-begging.

 

[ThomasToo]

So is your view that all ‘religiously motivated’ acts are equally compatible/consistent with the religious ideals inspiring them?? (Sounds like complete nonsense to me - please explain.)

More or less. The Muslims who flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were acting according to the dictates of their religion. The man who shot Paul Tiller in a church on a Sunday morning was acting according to the dictates of his. So too are Christian missionaries who bring food, clean water and the ability to read to countless peoples around the world. I think they’re all founded on an understating (on the individual level) of the dictates of a religious ideal.

Maybe. In any case, are you suggesting that you would deny what I asserted?

I would. You never really said what assertions I advance without proof.

No, it’s obviously not (further proof of my previous claim). It’s semantically equivalent to ‘it was good in this case to trust those who are trustworthy, to have a loving generosity of spirit rather than a narrow-minded cynicism.’

But that’s not what faith means at least in may circumstances. When it is tied also to reasoning that’s one thing but there are circumstances where questions are only answered with ‘it’s a mystery,’ ‘God works in mysterious ways’ and ‘ours is not to question.’ This is, at best, intellectual laziness. Further, having a spirit of love is not the opposite of being cynical; a skeptic can be as or more loving than a believer.

‘Proof’ does not imply ‘more than a reason,’ so I don’t know what you’re trying to say here.

I think of proof as more of a justification than a reason. If I’m out in the woods and saw one deer track in my four hour hike and then much later heard rustling in a bush I would have a reason to think it was a deer but not proof of the same.

 

[Betterave]

I see what you mean but frankly I always thought a morality centered so much around inward states misses the point. I think it was Kant but I’m not positive who described the merely continent man as better than the virtuous one because he had to try to be good against his inclination otherwise.

What you are inaccurately referring to here (apparently) is Kant’s claim that the only thing that is good without qualification is a good will. Kant does not claim what you suggest, his point is only that the notion of the merely continent man expresses a good will more unambiguously than that of a naturally ‘virtuous’ one who merely acts according to his inclinations.

p.s.: This is another counter-example to your claim that you “cannot follow except where there is present some firm rational basis backed by evidence” (i.e., proof). It will be an easy matter to multiply such counter-examples.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know that I would put in those terms but frankly I don’t know that it’s worth bickering over terminology.

The question arose because you denied that the positive nature of goodness is insignificant whereas I have given reasons why it is fundamental.

Buddhism has a radically different conception of the good life, of suffering and of the afterlife than your religion does…

Buddhism has a negative conception of life on earth which has the religious features of belief in an afterlife, spiritual values and cosmic justice. It is opposed to your appreciation of the value of life - which implies that it is inferior in that respect.

I claimed, as I recall, that four or five key precepts you indicated were in the teachings of Guatama Buddha (n.b. there is more than one Buddha) and while there is what you call ‘a vast difference’ between their beliefs on many points there is not really one on the points you’d indicated.

Precepts are not identical if they have different motives and goals. Guatama’s primary intention was detachment from desires whereas Jesus’s concern was for the well-being of others. So the precept of forgiveness of one’s enemies takes on an entirely different meaning. For the Buddhist it is for his own benefit. The irony is that the Buddhist is introverted in order to lose himself absolutely whereas the Christian is extraverted in order to lose himself in others. Buddhist compassion is for one’s own benefit whereas Christian love is for that of others. The deaths of Guatama and Jesus sum up the differences between their passive and active attitudes to life.

‘Intrinsically evil’ is, in this instance, semantically equivalent to ‘bad’ without the moral judgment and more as an aesthetic–for want of a better term. I think the mental state of suffering is undesirable (i.e. bad) regardless of the species experiencing it.

Then you are following Bertrand Russell who regarded evil as that which is undesirable - which is difficult to reconcile with moral realism unless you believe an aesthetic judgment is not entirely subjective.

I lack explicit evidence of anyone else’s intangible thoughts but certainly not my own.

But your sole certainty is your own…

If you mean intrinsically important &c by virtue of the lack of some outside importance-giver that’s fine and I’d be forced to agree but absent such a restriction this argument clearly rings hollow. We strive to make meaning in the universe–much to Camus’s chagrin–and the usefulness of things (e.g tools) is self-evident.

Tools are useful because they are designed for a purpose. If life is not designed for a purpose its only value is that which is arbitrarily imposed on it. Camus was right…

Importance is a slippery concept and I’m not quite clear what you mean by it.

In this context it means objective value and significance.

You are equating persons and societies with physical objects but the power of choice is not associated with physical objects nor can it be explained by physical laws. In fact it transcends physical laws. Even social circumstances are not confined to physical bodies.

As I illustrated above, choice and social circumstances are certainly bound to physical bodies as there can be neither without them.

That is a physicalist assumption that needs justification - and implies “not only bound to physical bodies” but also “caused by physical bodies”…

The human body is not a closed system and for that matter neither is the earth.

Indeterminacy does not alter the fact that physical objects - even if they happen to be human - cannot defy the laws of nature.

The point of my example was that physical beings–including, as you’ve cited, people–are necessary for the existence of the university.

And my point is that the activity of persons with the power of choice cannot be entirely due to physical events - even if there is an element of indeterminacy - because no other physical object can.

Regardless of supervenience in his “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” Q.V.Quine makes it clear that knowledge entails three classes of posits. A glance at an online summary of his argument would convince you that physicalism is epistemologically untenable…

You really do love online summaries don’t you. There is always more to read than that, whole books even…

But I know you have neither the time nor the inclination to read the ones to which I refer.

Also it’s W.V. Quine and you decided to forgo any talk of metaphysics and try to defeat reductionism with philosophy of language?

I have already presented the metaphysical inadequacy of physicalism and thought you might be interested in an eminent empiricist’s view on the nature of knowledge which is regarded as authoritative by many philosophers.

An interesting argument but hardly convincing.

The onus is on you to explain why…

 

[ThomasToo]

Buddhism has a negative conception of life on earth which has the religious features of belief in an afterlife, spiritual values and cosmic justice. It is opposed to your appreciation of the value of life - which implies that it is inferior in that respect.

Define negative in this situation? Would you disagree with the Buddhist supposition that in this world (and not the Christian next) life is suffering? You both want that suffering to end for yourselves and others (cf. Bodhisattvas) but what circumstance allows for the removal of that suffering is markedly different in the Buddhist (nirvana) and Christianity (Heaven).

The irony is that the Buddhist is introverted in order to lose himself absolutely whereas the Christian is extraverted in order to lose himself in others. Buddhist compassion is for one’s own benefit whereas Christian love is for that of others. The deaths of Guatama and Jesus sum up the differences between their passive and active attitudes to life.

I’d encourage you to read more about the life of Guatama Buddha. The food poisoning story is not really canonical and in fact in the canon Guatama encourages his friend to tell the man who gave him his last alms meal that it was not the cause of his death. Jesus too, as I recall, is said ate a final meal before he died but just because it came before his death doesn’t mean it was the proximate cause of his death.

Then you are following Bertrand Russell who regarded evil as that which is undesirable - which is difficult to reconcile with moral realism unless you believe an aesthetic judgment is not entirely subjective.

I would agree that some aesthetic judgments are objective (e.g. suffering is–to use aesthetic terms–always and everywhere ugly).

Tools are useful because they are designed for a purpose. If life is not designed for a purpose its only value is that which is arbitrarily imposed on it. Camus was right…

Life’s value only comes from our knowing of and living it. As in many things, I think Camus is right. He never said our life is not enjoyable or valuable for our pleasures in living with it only that we cannot reconcile this with our recognition of the fact that it is all ultimately meaningless in that all our works will be brought to naught.

In this context it means objective value and significance.

So positive in some way? Then again I deny the intrinsic nature of the usefulness, purposefulness or importance (value and significance) of things absent someone to use, purpose, value or signify them (i.e. people).

That is a physicalist assumption that needs justification - and implies “not only bound to physical bodies” but also “caused by physical bodies”…

And back to philosophy of mind…

Indeterminacy does not alter the fact that physical objects - even if they happen to be human - cannot defy the laws of nature.

Indetermincy? The laws of thermodynamics are only valid in a closed system so your claim that free will violates them is not valid because we are not a closed system.

And my point is that the activity of persons with the power of choice cannot be entirely due to physical events - even if there is an element of indeterminacy - because no other physical object can.

Clearly there is some level of causation since brain activity is tied to mental processes. The question is, assuming a non-physical mind, how can it interact with a physical brain and body?

But I know you have neither the time nor the inclination to read the ones to which I refer.

Fair enough and I do appreciate the thought but a glance at anything, especially a brief summation of a philosophically rigorous work, ought not to be unconvincing.

I have already presented the metaphysical inadequacy of physicalism and thought you might be interested in an eminent empiricist’s view on the nature of knowledge which is regarded as authoritative by many philosophers.

Interesting, it is.

The onus is on you to explain why…

Because I don’t find it convincing? I’ve only read, as you’ve suggested, an online summary but to claim that there is no physical referent for ‘is at’ is, frankly, silly. To expound on why I think his thinking is faulty I would need to read through the whole work which I don’t have time for at the moment.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Whether life is worth it isn’t the point. I’m glad to be alive–after some dickering on the point with TonyRey–but the question at hand is whether or not it is just for all men to be sentenced to death because of the failings of our first parents?

This I often ask myself, and this I never seem to know in my heart or “mind”

 

[tonyrey]

Whether life is worth it isn’t the point. I’m glad to be alive–after some dickering on the point with TonyRey–but the question at hand is whether or not it is just for all men to be sentenced to death because of the failings of our first parents?

This I often ask myself, and this I never seem to know in my heart or “mind”

SJ, we are not sentenced to death because of the failings of our first parents! That would obviously be unjust. The account of the Fall in Genesis is a myth not to be taken literally but it conveys a** vital** truth about human nature:

1. At some point in history our ancestors recognized the difference between good and evil.
2. They chose to do evil, perhaps murder, in a society dominated by the law of the jungle.
3. That choice has deeply affected our moral environment as we can see from our blood-stained history.
4. Arthur Koestler reckoned there is a streak of insanity in the human race but that does not take into account our responsibility for our actions.
5. We inherit not only physical but mental and moral traits which have been carried down from one generation to the next.
6. Being subjected to evil influences and tendencies we are the victims of the original sin but** through no fault of our own.**
7. Even though we are not responsible for all the suffering we cause we are caught up in the vortex of evil which leads to physical death and moral corruption.
8. We are not isolated individuals but members of a family who are collectively guilty for the misery and suffering in the world on account of our neglect.
9. None of us is worthy to be in the presence of God because of our moral imperfection.
10. Before Jesus came into the world we were spiritually dead because we were separated from the Source of life.
11. He has liberated from ignorance and moral weakness by infusing us with His love and giving us the knowledge and strength to overcome the temptation to put ourselves first.
12. That is why He is the Way, the Truth and the Life.