If there Is no God, Heaven, or objective moral value, Why survive?

[ThinkingSapien]

Your reason for choosing not to accept rational analyses of your emotional behavior (this is to ask if your behavior or feelings are rationally consistent with the true nature of objective reality)

Actually in post #13 in my first sentence I’ve expressed an entangled relationship between rational and irrational thought and motivations. If you had asked me to explain celestial mechanics without invoking gravity, I would make known that gravity is a part of celestial mechanics and then provide an explanation based on gravity. You are asking me to provide an explanation of a human behaviour free of emotional motivations. But emotional motivations are a part of what drives human behaviour. After stating this I provided explanations for some survival related behaviours that include some of the motivations that motivate them.

It’s a position that is influenced by the work of a few neural scientist (including Antonio Damasio) that have studied changes in behaviour when ones ability to feel emotion has been damaged and/or reduced; something I’ve been studying for reasons unrelated to this thread. It is also based on concepts that can be found in many books on the studies of human behaviour.

is based purely on the arbitrary claim that rational analyses is not applicable to that area of human activity which involve emotional responses.

That’s not a claim that I’ve made. See previous paragraph.

At the moment it just seem as if you are having an emotional problem with accepting the conclusions of my analyses.

I also get the feeling that you’ve not read or ignored parts of my statements. For example, after I stated I had not evaluated any utility value my friend may have you asked if I was afraid of loosing the utility of my friend. There’s also been some other aspects that I’ve stated that were followed by questions or statements that suggest that my previous words were not read or were ignored. You’ve also asked me to defend claims that I have never made.

When I’ve disagreed with what you’ve said I’ve either provided an explanation for the disagreement or refer to previous messages in which it was addressed.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The question becomes, what exactly is a survival dynamic?

Good question. I did some searching and while I could not find any definition I found some publications that look at the survival dynamics of some organism. It looks like I have to be willing to part with some USD to actually read the articles and there’s not enough information in the abstract to infer a definition with confidence.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You are asking me to provide an explanation of a human behaviour free of emotional motivations.

I am asking you to provide a rational basis for acting on those emotions. You refuse to do so on the grounds that you do not think that it is applicable or necessary for there to be a rational explanation. You have given no argument to support that position rationally.

 

[Sair]

I am asking you to provide a rational basis for acting on those emotions. You refuse to do so on the grounds that you do not think that it is applicable or necessary for there to be a rational explanation. You have given no argument to support that position rationally.

Surely the rational explanation for acting on emotional motivations is that such motivations in and of themselves compel action. One could perhaps go further and infer a rational explanation based upon the survival value of certain emotions, such as fear - but that would only lead back to your original question of why bother surviving in a world devoid of objective value. Perhaps the only possible response is that instinct and emotion are in and of themselves compelling - there is, in this case, no need of any further rational purpose for survival other than survival itself.

Perhaps you might find it illuminating to study case histories of psychopaths and sociopaths, those who lack empathy of the kind that motivates much human social and moral behaviour; such people are generally not lacking in rational intelligence - what would be their reasons for staying alive, in the absence of emotional attachment to their communities?

 

[Nec5]

Is there any rational basis for survival?

No.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Surely the rational explanation for acting on emotional motivations is that such motivations in and of themselves compel action.

Sounds like you are describing what I know of as the “Direct Causal Theory” for the relationship between emotion and behaviour. There’s another theory that I think does a better cause of covering the relationship between emotions and actions (Feedback theory). The concept behind it isn’t difficult to understand, but it’s application is more difficult because there are some other attributes about the person that must be taken into account such as impulse control and their sense of delayed gratification. I dare not detail it here, but if you are interested here is a PDF that talks about it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I am asking you to provide a rational basis for acting on those emotions. You refuse to do so on the grounds that you do not think that it is applicable or necessary for there to be a rational explanation. You have given no argument to support that position rationally.

Let’s try to nail down some definitions to get rid of some ambiguities. I reviewed the previous messages to see what definitions I can infer from them, but from what I see there have been others that have questions for clarity that were never addressed.

For example:

By “rational” do you mean “logical”? Does “rational” necessarily exclude “emotional”?

Would you mind illuminating what you mean when you say “rational” and “rational basis”? I think it would tremendously contribute to closing the gap between the intended question and the interpreted question.

 

[ASimon]

Would you mind illuminating what you mean when you say “rational” and “rational basis”? I think it would tremendously contribute to closing the gap between the intended question and the interpreted question.

It is the “rational” bit that’s tripping everyone up.

I would say it’s rational to act in such a way that it will improve one’s conscious experience. But if something would improve my conscious experience, but undermine someone else’s, that doesn’t invalidate its rationality.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is the “rational” bit that’s tripping everyone up.

I agree. And from reading through the earlier messages it is not clear to what the word “rational” should be applied. It could be applied to the explanation or to the behaviour being explained (ex: it is possible to provide a rational explanation for an irrational/emotional behaviour.

I would say it’s rational to act in such a way that it will improve one’s conscious experience. But if something would improve my conscious experience, but undermine someone else’s, that doesn’t invalidate its rationality.

In consulting a dictionary the word “rational” can mean many things.consistent with some logic, based on reasoning, intelligent, produced from thought, intellectual, so on. Many of the definitions I found don’t exclude emotions from being involved in a thought. So some one can use a rational means to satisfy some emotional motivation.

For example, say a pedestrian notices a driver at a red light that appears to be having a heart attack early on a Sunday morning. The pedestrian could act motivated by concern and fear for the driver through a number of actions that would be rational by the “involving thought” definition. Here are a few examples the may be considered rational depending on the specifics of the scenario:

• Break the car window so that the car door can be unlocked
• Turn off the car and activate the parking break
• If the pedestrian has no phone she might take the drivers phone to call emergency services
• Push the driver over, jump in the driving seat, and drive to the nearest known emergency responder
• Flag down a passing driver and ask that drive to call emergency services

When I took a stab at answering the question I was using meanings consistent with involving thought or using reason. Apparently that’s not the definition to be used for providing a satisfying answer and currently I have no idea of what the intended definition is for the question

 

[ASimon]

When I took a stab at answering the question I was using meanings consistent with involving thought or using reason. Apparently that’s not the definition to be used for providing a satisfying answer and currently I have no idea of what the intended definition is for the question

I would also suggest that I don’t think the original question was asked in good faith. :sad_yes:

 

[tonyrey]

If I believed there was no God, sure.

However, I DO believe in God, and on the “strength” of that belief, I have not given in to the temptations that would cause me to end it all.

Do you know Hamlet? “To die; to sleep; perchance to dream. Ay, there’s the rub… For in that sleep of death what dreams may come…”

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Do you know Hamlet? “To die; to sleep; perchance to dream. Ay, there’s the rub… For in that sleep of death what dreams may come…”

Yes, I know that line from Hamlet. What is your question to me, then?

 

[Sair]

Why is it rational to feel sorrow for the death of anything if all we are talking about is the rearrangement of atoms?

And once again, although late in the thread, why do you feel that rationality is the be-all and end-all? Reason is not our only faculty.

My dog died yesterday, from heart failure induced by cancer. Rationally, I know that he no longer exists and can no longer suffer; also that he did not suffer at the end. This knowledge is a source of comfort, but does nothing to diminish my grief at his loss, at the empty space in my life which he once occupied. If I were merely a rational being, I would feel no sorrow now - but that, I believe, would diminish me as a real, living person. All our experience enriches us, even that which we would rather avoid. I would not forego the sadness I now feel if that meant I would never experience the joy of canine companionship…

 

[Sair]

A delightful and challenging analysis of the implications of deriving persons from impersonal objects.

Delightful? Isn’t that a subjective and irrational judgement?

We are not impersonal objects, but objects with the capacity for personhood. Understand this distinction and you won’t have any further trouble with the claimed gulf between subjective and objective. The only reason you have such trouble is because you believe that personhood is distinct from - and somehow superior to - any form of physicality, only you have never demonstrated how this could be the case…

 

[Sair]

As I mentioned in my first post rational thought can be motivated by irrational motivations (rational thought has more dependencies on irrational motivations than I’ve seen acknowledged in these forums). In both situations we let the suffering ladies know about how much we cared about them, how they would be missed, and the feelings and impacts that their demises would have on those to which there was an emotional attachment. That’s the part that one could label as irrational. The desire to avoid these consequences motivated the thoughts for actions that should (contingency) be followed to avoid these consequences.

With that being said, I don’t think the will to survive can be completely divorced from the motivating irrational factors. I don’t expect there to be much success among those that try to support a completely rational foundation for survival; with a little bit of digging I expect an irrational motivation for the rational reason to be found which will provide a way to invalidate and claims that basis provided is completely rational.

Thank you, ThinkingSapien, for this contribution. It is all very well to claim that emotion is illusory, but try to tell that to anyone who feels it! We are not merely rational beings, and I think that those who preference rationality over instinct and emotion are deceiving themselves.

This is all part of physical reality. We feel because we are physical beings. Any purely rational being must be detached from human emotion, and would, presumably, act in ways that would not be understood by emotive beings. If the God of Classical Theism is purely rational, why would this being create emotive beings such as ourselves? Perhaps in order to love Him - which He would not need, being a purely rational being; or perhaps because He didn’t care - which would seem likely, if He has no emotion. In either case, why does the insistence upon a loving god matter to anyone?

 

[Sair]

Why should it be terrible that people only care about the people they receive comfort from?

It’s not terrible at all that humans should care only about those who give them comfort and acceptance - what is terrible, horrifying and depressing to me, as a subjective being, is that so few people exercise any sense of value for their fellows - precisely because it is no longer the norm to seek comfort in others, but only competition and enmity.

They don’t owe me anything if my objective nature has no value. What meaningful value is their beyond a subjective utility-value? You are only social because you need to be; like needing medicine for your own survival? Or our you social because you recognize that it is truly good to comfort others and truly wrong to reject them on the basis of utility.

Moral beliefs have meaning only in their expression - if I seek the comfort of companions because I need to, emotionally, how is this worth less than if I seek it because I somehow rationally decide that it’s the “right” thing to do? If I give comfort to others because I feel empathy for them and because I recognise that this is what I would want from them were I in their circumstances, is this worth more or less, in your view, than some rational calculation of their objective value? If others value you because you make them feel good, isn’t that cause for you to feel happy and satisfied in their companionship?

I don’t want people to care about me because of my utility to them. Emotionally speaking, for me, thats not a world worth living in. I want people to recognize my true moral value as a living person; and the only way they can do that is by recognizing my value in relation to God’s nature and God’s creative act. And every-time i am denied that true value i am deeply hurt and demoralized.

Personally, I don’t want people to simply recognise that I am valuable - I want them to feel that I value them also - that they get from me what they give. Such recognition can’t be a one-way street. Reciprocity is deeply ingrained in human morality - I recognise your value in return for you recognising mine. We all subjectively value ourselves, and we assume therefore that others experience this same sense of personal value; if we want our sense of personal value to be respected by others, we respect theirs in turn. Surely you couldn’t want others to recognise your value without your recognising theirs. Your sense of hurt and demoralisation, I would suggest, comes less from your belief in any objective value you suppose in relation to your god, and more from the subjective value you feel for yourself, and from the subjective desire you have - as we all have - for acceptance from your fellows.

The real issue here is that a lot of people refuse to recognize the objective value of my life and thus only perceive a humans utility value or lack there of.

How do you discern the difference between a refusal to recognise objective value and a refusal to recognise mutually subjective value?

 

[Sair]

Yes, but people can be/are quite deluded. I mean, I don’t think most atheists are totally without faith-they just don’t have -or they reject-formal descriptions of it. The basis for our faith is already there-it’s built into us by God and we act on automatic pilot-we just don’t recognize the source so we lack the full benefit of knowledge that revelation gives us.

Um…you do realise that this works both ways, right?

The basis of what we believe to be moral behaviour is built into us from biological predisposition and cultural conditioning from before the time we are able to rationalise any of it; then some people recognise a desire to externalise all this and connect it to a god.

 

[fhansen]

Um…you do realise that this works both ways, right?

The basis of what we believe to be moral behaviour is built into us from biological predisposition and cultural conditioning from before the time we are able to rationalise any of it; then some people recognise a desire to externalise all this and connect it to a god.

In any case we’d agree its built into us-theologians call it the “Natural Law”. So I could modify your statement and say that some people simply come to recognize the source of it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Personally, I don’t want people to simply recognise that I am valuable - I want them to feel that I value them also - that they get from me what they give. Such recognition can’t be a one-way street. Reciprocity is deeply ingrained in human morality - I recognise your value in return for you recognising mine.

So this is purely a matter of utility for you. You prefer to be the giver of value according to what you see fit. If so you cannot expect other people not to do the same, and everybody’s subjective idea of value need not conform to yours.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Moral beliefs have meaning only in their expression

They only have meaning to you in terms of expression.