Morally justifiable pain, suffering and torture

[minkymurph]

And, prey tell, what is wrong with Utopia?

The free will “defense” is not correct. It only accounts for the possibility of willful misdeeds, not for their actuality. Obviously you have free will, and would never dream of “abusing” it, to willfully cause harm to others. I would venture to say that most people are nice, benevolent, helpful. What is the point to have the “deviants”?

As long as they use it and not abuse it.

Actually we are even less. The difference between an adult and a toddler is infinitely smaller than the difference between God and the smartest genius - and here I am talking about the wisdom and power.

To give the ability to act freely would be irresponsible if given to child. One does not give a loaded weapon to a child and rely on a command: “but don’t use it!”.

But it is woefully inadequate in many cases.

That is not the only option. A much easier approach would be to give the free will and also the wisdom of how to use it, and the inclination of listening to the voice of wisdom. Most people would only commit something “improper” out of ignorance.

And you do it quite nicely and well. What I really value in your posts is the modesty of admitting that you don’t have the answers and do not pretend the opposite.

What’s wrong with Utopia? Nothing; other than that it is unrealistic. We will never create Utopia. Why does God not create Utopia? He has, we just have not experienced it yet. What is the point of deviants? I don’t know, but I believe it goes beyond a ‘point.’ We are currently experiencing the seperation from God which means we experience what is under discussion here and I believe, it is only when we are united with God we will know what it is all about. I would say we are all guilty of abusing our free will, though we don’t like to admit it. You are right to say that any answers I could give you will always be inadequate. I believe it is a mistake to approach faith from the perspective of providing irrevocable answers. If we could provide irrevocable answers to every question, we would have no need of faith. You come across as someone who is ‘well read.’ Therefore, you are probably familiar with the reasoning Aquinas uses regarding faith and reason so I won’t quote it to you. I remember when I was studying biochemistry I had a lot of difficulty and I approach a Professor of biochemistry I worked with. He smiled and said to me, ‘that’s the thing about learning, the more you learn, the more you realise you don’t know’ which is why I don’t get too upset when people disagree with me. It’s only realistic to accept you can’t answer everything. It’s the same with faith. The more we go into it, the more we realise any answers we have are inadequate. That is how we grow in faith. On a personal note, about 10 years ago I went through a very black time in my life. I felt God could have sorted it all out and didn’t. When I look back, with hindsight which is a wonderful thing, in a sense I’m glad it happened because I would not be where I am in life today if it had not. I appreciate your comment as the end. If you don’t mind me saying so, give glory to the creator and not the creating thing. Any modesty I have, or reasoning I use is due to the fact that God has bestowed that ability on me. I take no credit for myself but it’s nice to hear it.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
The ego inflation of the so-called atheist is truly profound.

This is pointless. So let me tell you a joke instead.

Quite true. The nonresponsiveness of the so-called atheist is ALWAYS utterly pointless, and responding TO so-called atheists is ALWAYS feeding pointlessness.

There is a trial and the doctor is on the witness stand. The lawyer conducts a cross-examination.

Lawyer: So, doctor, did you examine the person in question?
Doctor: Yes, I did.
Lawyer: What was your conclusion?
Doctor: I discovered that he was dead.
Lawyer: How did you conduct the examination?
Doctor: I checked the heart and found it stopped, I checked the respiration and there was none.
Lawyer: But doctor, is it possible that the person was still alive?
Doctor: During the autopsy I removed his intenstines and placed them into formaldehyde.
Lawyer: Still, is it conceivable that the person was still alive?
Doctor: I had his brain in a jar on my desk.
Lawyer: But doctor, you are not omnisicent. Is there any chance, however remote that the person was still alive?
Doctor: Well, I guess, it is possible that he was still alive and practicing law somewhere!

A perfect description of the atheist as lawyer. He didn’t do the work of testing for life or death, and therfore, of course, can’t give up the “high ground” to his opponent who HAS done the testing that his (the lawyer’s) unreal conclusion is actually unreal because to him (the lawyer) it isn’t unreal but only “untested” and “undesirable” and “uncomforable”, and therefore worthy of faithful belief. Which belief IS his religion.

 

[OTavern]

Higher animals also exhibit behavior which indicate “choices”. They can learn, not only from their own “misfortune”, but also from others. Consider rats. Rats will learn very fast that poisoned food must be avoided - by observing their “peers” who die after consuming such food. That is why the fast-killing poisons were abandoned for the sake of slow-acting ones.

So we can conclude that animals are also “primary causative agents”, albeit on a lower level than humans.

I am not convinced that simply because rats “learn” to avoid poisons that they are exhibiting some form of “free will.” They may in fact be pre-programmed to “anticipate” certain patterns in events and avoid those which have links to harm. This is not very different from a computer playing chess when it “tracks a certain pattern” of moves to anticipate where its opponent is headed and subsequently forestalls the danger. Consciousness is not required in “abstracting” patterns from events. Computers, the non-conscious constructs they are, can demonstrate similar processes, but I would “bet the farm” that they are not conscious.

I am sorry, but there is absolutely no indication of this* [the ability to abstract concepts]* in animals. Abstraction is the process of eliminating incidental features and keeping the important ones. We can recognize a tree to be a tree even with no branches or leaves.

I thought in a previous post that you were arguing there is an ability to abstract concepts in animals, maybe not in all animals, but certainly in a number of them. In fact, bees “symbolize” directions and navigational details into “dance moves.” I would argue this is even a higher form of abstracting than merely recognizing a tree to be such without leaves. Honeybees must correlate specific movements to directions and details such as distance and even, perhaps, relevant landmarks along the way. This certainly means that they must distinguish between what are important and relevant pieces of data, and those which are not.

Thinking a tree without leaves really only entails stripping away some details and ignoring them in some instances while holding onto shared details. This still a largely concrete process requiring that same ability to distinguish what is relevant to the idea of tree, but bees must do the same when they communicate relative distance based upon landmarks along the way, since specific landmarks have the distinction of being important and others do not. Further, symbolizing information into a “language” of movements requires some heavy duty processing, but not conscious awareness, since even you would be hard-pressed to hold that bees are conscious, but they are definitely abstracting information and symbolizing it into specific movement, each representing specific, critical information to other bees. Even this level of processing is pre-programmed, however.

We may have to revisit the definition of consciousness. My definition is: the recognition of the difference between “I” and “not I”. What is yours? Without clarifying this issue we may very well speak and not get understood by each other.

My sense is that consciousness is even more primary than making a distinction between “i” and “not I,” since a sense of “I” would be assumed in making that distinction. Also, even to make that distinction requires “abstraction” – what are the characteristics that make “I” and who or what do those not characteristics not apply.

The point I am trying to make is that consciousness is precisely a “binary” characteristic, you either have it or you don’t. However, in humans that binary capacity is married to the abilities to think abstractly and build memories of experiences and abstract concepts with which to compare new ones. What I have been arguing is that some beings, some animals, like bees, gorillas, orcas, etc. some which obviously do NOT have consciousness , i.e., bees, can abstractly process information in ways that outperform some humans,

Therefore, consciousness is not required to think abstractly, only to know that one is actually able to do so; but that does not make consciousness either a necessary nor sufficient condition for the capacity to process information abstractly.

As to the possibility of animals being “primary causitive agents” I would argue that simply being able to process data in abstract forms such as language, does not entail that the creature so capable is a primary causitive agent, since this capacity may in fact be pre-programmed and not transcendent to the circumstances. Again, I suspect the capacity to be “aware” of being aware is a “binary” capacity, it “happens” in humans because of what we are, not because of how we think or what we think about.

Again the capacity for “processing” information is different from the capacity to “be aware.” The former may or may not be present in conscious beings and it can be found in creatures that are definitely not conscious, like bees and perhaps even ants.

 

[ateista]

I am not convinced that simply because rats “learn” to avoid poisons that they are exhibiting some form of “free will.”

Free will is simply exercising a choice, which is not predetermined by external factors. Maybe your definition is different.

They may in fact be pre-programmed to “anticipate” certain patterns in events and avoid those which have links to harm. This is not very different from a computer playing chess when it “tracks a certain pattern” of moves to anticipate where its opponent is headed and subsequently forestalls the danger. Consciousness is not required in “abstracting” patterns from events. Computers, the non-conscious constructs they are, can demonstrate similar processes, but I would “bet the farm” that they are not conscious.

Not today. Do you believe that a computer, which passes the Turing-test, is also just a high level simulation of human thought process? Even if one cannot decide that the being on the other end of a telephone line is a human, or a computer? How would you differentiate?

The point I am trying to make is that consciousness is precisely a “binary” characteristic, you either have it or you don’t.

It looks like to me that you use the concept of consciousness as a synonym for the concept of “soul”. If that is case, we cannot agree on the basic definiton.

 

[ateista]

What’s wrong with Utopia? Nothing; other than that it is unrealistic.

Unrealistic for us in our current level. It should not be unrealistic for God. Let’s remember, this line of thought stemmed from your question, where you asked what would I do in God’s place.

We are currently experiencing the seperation from God which means we experience what is under discussion here and I believe, it is only when we are united with God we will know what it is all about.

Funny stuff. When I argued in a different thread that we are separated from God (and asked if we are in “hell”), many posters “jumped” on me and said the opposite.

I appreciate your comment as the end. If you don’t mind me saying so, give glory to the creator and not the creating thing. Any modesty I have, or reasoning I use is due to the fact that God has bestowed that ability on me. I take no credit for myself but it’s nice to hear it.

Since I only know about you, I can only give credit to you. After all, even if you consider those gifts “bestowed” upon you, you were responsible to exercise those gifts of your own free volition, and not discard them.

 

[minkymurph]

Unrealistic for us in our current level. It should not be unrealistic for God. Let’s remember, this line of thought stemmed from your question, where you asked what would I do in God’s place.

Funny stuff. When I argued in a different thread that we are separated from God (and asked if we are in “hell”), many posters “jumped” on me and said the opposite.

Since I only know about you, I can only give credit to you. After all, even if you consider those gifts “bestowed” upon you, you were responsible to exercise those gifts of your own free volition, and not discard them.

I did say something along the lines of if you where God but I meant it in a hypothetical sense. What I was really getting at is trying to envisage what sort of world we would create if we had ultimate power. Humans are by and large not very good at manageing power. Of course some are better than others. It’s like the question of Government. Democracy is a very fair way to govern but is it the best? The electorate can’t always be relied upon to vote into power those who should actually be in power and have you ever tried to get anything done at a meeting? Dictators have been known to make good decisions for their nation; Franco is a good example of that however they tend to go a bit mad when they hang on to power to long. I believe only God knows what the permission of evil is really all about and we can only specualte. I do however have confidence in God that there is a purpose to it, I just don’t know what it is. I don’t believe we are in hell but perhaps in this life we have glimpses of it as we have glimpses of heaven. Heaven and Hell are states that we don’t know all about but know something about and the closer we are to God, the more we are able to percieve heaven, but I stress this is a personal opinion. I do not mean to discard gifts I may have been given; I value them. I was simply acknowledging I don’t believe any gifts I may have are one’s I hold completely on my own merit and if they are God given, I want to use them with God’s guidance which is not forced as God invites us to use gifts he gives us of our own free will. Incidently, have you read any of Aquinas in relation to Faith and Reason in line with what is relevent to the topic here? Have you read what any of the Medieval mystics had to say regarding God’s permission of evil?What do you think? I’m not challenging you to agree with them, just asking for an opinion.

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

What if God simply was, then things couldn’t be different, could they?

scripturelink.googlepages.com/search?cx=001763116401597409521%3Af7idlv7awxw&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=%22God+Is%22+OR+God+simply+Is+OR+God+is+Truth+OR+God+Is+Existence+OR+God+is+Truth#1356

and what if we were simply existent, what if what we see as moral, or good, is simply a reflection of IS, and what if what is wrong is a worse reflection?

here are some arguments for God

newadvent.org/cathen/06614a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

 

[jimmy85]

I am not convinced that simply because rats “learn” to avoid poisons that they are exhibiting some form of “free will.” .

lol

 

[minkymurph]

I am not convinced that simply because rats “learn” to avoid poisons that they are exhibiting some form of “free will.” They may in fact be pre-programmed to “anticipate” certain patterns in events and avoid those which have links to harm. This is not very different from a computer playing chess when it “tracks a certain pattern” of moves to anticipate where its opponent is headed and subsequently forestalls the danger. Consciousness is not required in “abstracting” patterns from events. Computers, the non-conscious constructs they are, can demonstrate similar processes, but I would “bet the farm” that they are not conscious.
Again the capacity for “processing” information is different from the capacity to “be aware.” The former may or may not be present in conscious beings and it can be found in creatures that are definitely not conscious, like bees and perhaps even ants.

Do not underestimate rats! Believe it or not, they are the most wonderful animals. I had three pet rats and they learned to recognize both my husband and myself and show a degree of affection and it’s not just me who says that. Many other people who met my pets said the same and where amazed by them. One of them used to like sitting on the window sill looking out the window. I made the mistake of leaving their cage open one night going to bed and still didn’t realize the next morning. When I came home from work, all three rats where sitting quite happily in their cage. So was a family pack of Wotsits however that I had left on the settee. Before anyone asks, they didn’t leave little calling cards all over the place. They got back into their cage to do it and I didn’t train them to and they did a great job of preventing impromptu visits from my mother-in-law. Better than any guard dog! I could tell you so many stories about rats but I won’t as it would take forever.

Computers are another matter. They remind me of a few people I used to work with. Could only do exactly as they where told! They haven’t developed conciousness YET! I’m becoming more and more convinced they will some day take over the world to show us how inadequate we are. Has anyone else had the experience of being in some business establishment and everything grinds to a halt because the computer is having a tantrum? A friend of mine thinks that if the theory of evolution is true; everyone will have huge big thumbs from sending text messages and taxi drivers will have no legs. Further to that, I have a theory that it’s a toss up between rats, cockroaches and computers as to who will take over the world from humans. If that is the outcome for mankind, I’m holding onto my belief in God for dear life!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Not today. Do you believe that a computer, which passes the Turing-test, is also just a high level simulation of human thought process? Even if one cannot decide that the being on the other end of a telephone line is a human, or a computer? How would you differentiate?

So, you’re going to base a distinction of reality (whether a “being” is “conscious”) on your admittedly VERY fallible “human perception”?

The way you differentiate a non-person from a person is by checking for the “made by God as a person” label on the underside. That is the ONLY way to make that differentiation.

To call a being (a creature, or creation) a person by simply seeing if it can pre-programatically FOOL a real person into not dismissing it as a person is using the wrong standard (yardstick) to measure “personhood”.

But then, so-called atheists are extremely prone to living in the world of sci-fi juvenilia. Which, by the way, is very good to “recreate” in for purposes of stretching one’s mind, but is a very very bad place to actually live in.

 

[ateista]

The way you differentiate a non-person from a person is by checking for the “made by God as a person” label on the underside. That is the ONLY way to make that differentiation.

Very well, Mr. Lawyer! Show me the label! You talk the talk… do you walk the walk?

 

[ateista]

Computers are another matter. They remind me of a few people I used to work with. Could only do exactly as they where told!

You know, that is not exactly true… there are learning programs, which change their behavior as they interact with reality. They even change their own code!

Not even their creator can foresee how they will develop in time, since their changes are not fully determined by the initial code, and it is impossible to foresee the (name removed by moderator)ut from the external world.

Of course, such programs are in the early research stages. Mostly you are right, and the “curse” of the programmers is the lack of “DWIMNWIT” instruction (Do What I Mean, Not What I Told )

A well written and well debugged program will indeed do exactly what it is supposed to do. But such programs are much more rare than white ravens.

They haven’t developed conciousness YET!

Right!

I’m becoming more and more convinced they will some day take over the world to show us how inadequate we are.

That is not likely. Since the human race has a strong “Frankenstein-complex”, it is very unlikely that a conscious computer will ever be built - WITH a capabilty to act freely (Asimov’s three laws of robotics come to mind). Most likely it will be just a “freak-show”, which will be powerless to act out its desires… but, of course, we never know. Maybe your scenario will happen. I would not bet a fortune against it.

But the main point is: I agree with you that consciousness is an emergent attribute which appears if and when the complexity of the system (be it organic or silicon-based) passes a certain level.

 

[ateista]

I did say something along the lines of if you where God but I meant it in a hypothetical sense.

Ah, I misunderstood, and took it literally.

What I was really getting at is trying to envisage what sort of world we would create if we had ultimate power. Humans are by and large not very good at manageing power.

Yes, very true, unfortunately. I read once that the best person to be president would be someone who is dragged kicking and screaming into the White House, where he would do a great job, to get time off for good behavior.

Incidently, have you read any of Aquinas in relation to Faith and Reason in line with what is relevent to the topic here? Have you read what any of the Medieval mystics had to say regarding God’s permission of evil?What do you think? I’m not challenging you to agree with them, just asking for an opinion.

No, I have not. The truth is that I did read some books about the subject and participated in many conversations, but never found any argument even remotely convincing. Most were sheer nonsense.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
The way you differentiate a non-person from a person is by checking for the “made by God as a person” label on the underside. That is the ONLY way to make that differentiation.

Very well, Mr. Lawyer! Show me the label! You talk the talk… do you walk the walk?

You’re the lawyer. I’ve done the “testing” and the “patient” (God) is alive and well. I realize it’s not in the interest of your client (the great deceiver) to have you, his lawyer, do the “medical testing” (which you COULD do, as God-stuff med-testing education is relatively cheap and quick), so it’s not surprising that you’d be once again purposefully lazy in doing your own testing to confirm the facts, and dis-serving your client.

The “label” of personhood is called being human. What is it to be human? Check the DNA.

If it isn’t possessed of (sufficiently functional to produce human-like life) human DNA, it isn’t a person. Period.

(( Now, if there ARE aliens, their DNA may very well qualify as being “human labels” if the Magisterium eventually says that they do. Machines will never be persons, regardless of their seeming personal attributes. ))

What do we do with transgenic-quasi-but-functional-as-humans? They’re still humans. The “consequences of sin” that come from mucking about with transgenesis are the production of profound evil in the world, but with so many so-called atheists out there these days it seems inevitable that we’ll have to deal with your evils eventually.

 

[minkymurph]

Ah, I misunderstood, and took it literally.

Yes, very true, unfortunately. I read once that the best person to be president would be someone who is dragged kicking and screaming into the White House, where he would do a great job, to get time off for good behavior.

No, I have not. The truth is that I did read some books about the subject and participated in many conversations, but never found any argument even remotely convincing. Most were sheer nonsense.

Perhaps I should specify when I joking and when I’m being serious. I do admit to having a weird sense of humour and I am often misunderstood by those who don’t share my weird sense of humour. Some people love it but some don’t! I write as a hobby and a friend of mine said that because she knows me, she knows what I am trying to say but people who didn’t know me would not know what I was getting at. She also said I write the way I talk. I’ve had to work on that to get some of my stuff published. On a serious note, I can understand why you would say some of the stuff you read is sheer nonsense. I found the mystics incredibly hard to read and my first reaction was; what are they on about? I feel, personal opinion, that the mystics demonstrate how difficult it can be to express really deep thought within the limits of human language and I learned up to a point, to look past the words and try to get to grips with the concept of what is being said. I have to get to grips with it as I have to write essays on it and demonstrate that I have understood what I am writing about. In relation to your other post, God’s foreknowledge is a subject all of it’s own. To discuss it here would mean going into pre-destination and the distinction between pre-destination and foreknowledge and all that which I would prefer to avoid as I always get into rows with people when I discuss this subject! As it is something we don’t really understand perhaps it’s best left alone.

 

[ateista]

I’ve done the “testing” and the “patient” (God) is alive and well.

There is no “testing”. If there were, there would be no need for faith.

The “label” of personhood is called being human. What is it to be human? Check the DNA.

Check THE DNA? Any cell within or body has a DNA. Is a single cell a “human”? Any collection of cells (for example a tumor) has the same DNA. Is the tumor a “human”?

Also there is no such thing as THE “human” DNA. There are billions of DNA’s all somewhat different which we associate with humans. If someone’s DNA is different than yours, does he still qualify as a human? Your “reasoning” is most inadequate.

And of course there is no “label” on them, which would say: “manufactured by God”. You have to do much better than that.

Where is the label which proves scientifically that God exists and he manufactured us? That is what you claimed. Now deliver! As they say: “put up or shut up!”.

(( Now, if there ARE aliens, their DNA may very well qualify as being “human labels” if the Magisterium eventually says that they do. Machines will never be persons, regardless of their seeming personal attributes. ))

Very narrow-minded. Other beings may not even have a DNA. And “machines” may have a “DNA”. Who says that “machines” most be made of “metal”?

What do we do with transgenic-quasi-but-functional-as-humans? They’re still humans. The “consequences of sin” that come from mucking about with transgenesis are the production of profound evil in the world, but with so many so-called atheists out there these days it seems inevitable that we’ll have to deal with your evils eventually.

Wow. Deal with our “evils”? I sure smell the stink of burning flesh at the stakes… is that how you plan to “deal” with us? If inconvenient, burn it???

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

I am a Delphi programmer, I also delve in JavaScript, and have learnt other languages- as Delphi is a subject I learnt- I can tell you this instant that even “Learning” computers only create a set of statistical procedures, which may be a point- you don’t believe in God, what if I don’t believe in you?

prove yourself

Marc

 

[minkymurph]

I once asked an atheist I had a discussion with, why they where so keen to convince me God did not exist. His answer was because he wanted me to make my own decisions and enjoy life. As this person had known me for approximately half an hour, I asked what he based this opinion on? He proceeded to say that I thought this and I thought that to which I replied, ‘you don’t know what I think, any more than I know what you think.’ I also asked him, if you remove a persons faith, what do you replace it with? If I ceased to believe in God, what would I draw on to make decisions regarding such things as ethics and morals? He his answer was that I could simply make up my own mind. I replied that may work for me as an individual but does society not need to find some sort of consensus of opinion? If it does, who decides and what would their decision be based on? The conversation was very amicable but in the end I said to him that I was not convinced of his motives, that he wanted what was best for me and my family and was it not at least possible, that he simply wanted to convince me of his own ideology? To end with a question, why do we really feel the need to convince others of our own idealogies and opinions? Is it simply that we need some kind of reassurance that we are right?

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

Wow…



Ateista, you still haven’t answered my last queston, or the one before- what is good?

is God really evil, if you cannot define evil- what is your basis?

I think, in Fact Know God is Good, because God is my definition of Good… what’s your definition of good, and please answer minkymurf, her post was brilliant

 

[ateista]

I am a Delphi programmer, I also delve in JavaScript, and have learnt other languages- as Delphi is a subject I learnt- I can tell you this instant that even “Learning” computers only create a set of statistical procedures, which may be a point-

Well, my friend, before I retired I was also a programmer. No need to list all the languages I used, both mainframe and micro. Before that I was a math and computer science professor, whose research was parallel processing. Learning and developing programs exist, and their “behavior” changes over time. They are still quite primitive, of course, but the whole science is a mere couple of decades old.

you don’t believe in God, what if I don’t believe in you?

prove yourself

You don’t have to believe in my existence, you know that I exist. Who and what I am, may be questionable (maybe human, maybe a very clever computer program, maybe a space alien…), but the existence of “someone” should be beyond doubt to you. The reason is that if you deny my existence then you must believe that all the posts under my name are simply a delusion of your mind.

We are able to doubt many things, but cannot doubt one thing: “our own sanity”. Anyone who would doubt their own sanity is already insane.