The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[Sair]

And we instinctively believe we should have those rights because of the nature of our being persons rather then just objects. Its because of our experience as “persons” that we develop a sense of moral truth, because there are things in life that truly offends and oppresses the nature that is a person.

You apparently have a great deal of reverence for the concept of the person - nothing wrong with that, of course - but this is still a human-framed concept, like any other. It doesn’t exist as an independent moral entity, because it is a function of the physical components of our brains, just as our capacity for reason, for empathy, for abstract thought and all the things that make us persons are a function of the grey matter in our heads.

As persons we attempt to seek that which fulfills our nature as people because that’s what the nature of being a person compels us to do. Thus we gain an instinctive or intuitive sense of the greater good, as a result of having the nature of being personal. This is not just a matter of opinion. Its an objective fact of our being personal that leads to the unhappiness of being treated like object. Thus in being personal we understand that our value is greater then that which is an object. The fact that we can oppose that which fulfills our nature as people, leads to our awareness of right and wrong and that there is that which fulfills our nature as people, rather then just objects. And thus we experience the feeling of guilt when we gain knowledge of the fact that we have undermined the value of a person and the greater good in treating them as mere objects of our desire.

You appear to be defining human nature and personhood as entities independent of human beings - how could they be? Again we are getting onto the confusing ground of defining subjective and objective realities - there is no realm of objective human moral values that exists independently of human minds. That these values may be shared by many humans at once still does not make them any less a function of human minds, human desires, human needs - therefore these things are subjective; in other words, human values are subject to the existence of the human minds that hold them.

The experience of Guilt, that there is such thing, only makes sense in terms of objective moral values. Given this fact, it makes me wonder why sombody would attempt to oppose objective values.

Actually, guilt makes perfect sense in terms of subjective values. If I do something that hurts or offends someone else, then I can perceive that they are hurt and unhappy - I can imagine myself in their place and imagine what they must be feeling (empathy). Thus, I feel bad - guilty - for having done to them something that I would not like being done to me. This is all subjective - there is nothing here that exists independently of my feelings and perceptions and the feelings and perceptions of the person I have hurt. Does this subjectivity make my values any less important to me? No. If anything, it reinforces them.

 

[Sair]

Objectively speaking, why would physical reality alone feel it necessary to develop human intellect in order to negotiator social relationships? This is a purposeful response that presupposes knowledge of a particular problem. Sounds like a teleological argument to me, and teleology is not suppose to be the subject of empirical science.

Physical reality, as such, wouldn’t ‘feel’ it necessary to do anything. That statement alone presupposes that natural forces have conscious intent.

Animals - and mammals in particular, which we humans are - demonstrate a propensity to adapt, over the generations, to circumstances in their environment which affect survival and procreation. Negotiating social relationships amongst members of one’s own species is essential to one’s survival prospects as an individual - in other words, making sure members of your own tribe don’t kill you, leave you behind for predators or scavengers, or refuse to mate with you. How does one go about ensuring that they don’t get ostracised by their own kind? Obviously, by developing means of noticing how others react to you, and ultimately of inferring how certain actions will be received and interpreted by others of your kind.

See, I think the problem of presupposing conscious intent is a form of the notion of ‘irreducible complexity’ - because of our experiences of consciousness, we have trouble breaking down the processes by which we became able to exercise conscious intent, and assume conscious intent must have always existed in order to bring about our own self-awareness. However, if we do think in terms of small, incremental developments, it is possible to consider the progression from instinctive response to consciously-directed action.

 

[Oreoracle]

I agree that “there is an infinite amount of particles” is unfounded. But I’m not talking about inferring to infinity – infinity has nothing to do with inference. Induction has to do with the step from “this x is a” to “all x’s are a’s.” Induction, as regards God, would move from “this thing is a thing God can do” to “all things are things God can do.” Likewise with knowledge: “this thing is a thing God knows” to “all things are things God knows.”

This is different than what I expected. Would you say that omnipotence is better described as “all-power” instead of “infinite power?” That makes sense, I think. Power is only possible with things (in fact, it is proportional to the number of things). Since the number of things is finite, even God could only have finite power. That makes the induction a bit more reasonable, but I still don’t think we know enough about “all things” to induce that they can all be known and done by a being. Would you agree with that much?

More basically, to inductively infer the existence of God is to observe certain things which God is the best explanation of. A choir of angels appearing in the sky might be explained naturalistically, but the existence of a (seemingly invisible) being of tremendous power is certainly a better explanation for such phenomenon.

I’m not so sure. If the naturalistic explanation seems plausible, wouldn’t it be the better of the two? On one hand, we would have an informative naturalistic explanation–one that allows us to make predictions and such–that would not require us to amend current scientific laws or posit anything outside of the physical world. On the other hand, we would have something that could be somewhat informative and explanative, but we would be hard pressed to formulate laws to predict future behaviors and abilities of “superbeings.”

Oh, I couldn’t agree more. We don’t want to know *that *God; we want to know God. But the fact that such a relationship is possible certainly amounts to inductive evidence for God’s existence. (Similarly, the fact that I am having a conversation with you seems to speak in favor of your existence.)

You’ll have to take my word for it when I say that no offense is intended with this question, but how do we tell the difference between a relationship with God and a relationship with an imaginary friend? Strong emotions can be present in both, and the personalities of each “friend” can be well developed. I don’t think this indicates that the friends are real, just that people have excellent imaginations.

Well, whenever you infer God, you infer His existence as an explanation of phenomena, just like the law of physics is an explanation of phenomena. Likewise, the existence of an actual cup of coffee in front of me is an explanation of my phenomenal experience right now. If a physical law is not a thing, then what is it? I’m not presuming to say that it is a thing, nor would I presume to say that God is a “thing”. But a physical law is as real as any object.

My science teacher and I have talked about this, and we couldn’t come to a conclusion either. While it may be the case that inertia, for example, is an actual thing, it is only used as an entity in an explanation of why things continue to move when force is not applied. In short, we don’t know what inertia is, we just know that it’s a placeholder/variable in an explanation that allows us to predict movement.

“Know” and “comprehend” are not synonyms. One can have a *justified true belief *in the laws of physics, but this does not entail that one comprehends the laws of physics. I can be justified in the belief that “God can do anything logically possible” without being able to give a full account of the set of all the things God can do.

Fair enough. My qualm, though, is that I don’t see how you would be justified in making such a claim when you have little knowledge of “all things.” To address the example you opened with, there is a big difference between inducing that a rocket can be used at any trajectory (or something like that) and inducing that God can create matter/energy that previously didn’t exist to create angels, or even that he could manipulate previously existing matter to generate life. Do you see where someone might ask, “How does this guy have telekinetic powers?!!”

Alright, then: how do you know that He hasn’t already done this?

Let’s put it this way: If I am capable of such understanding, then I have no idea why I have so much trouble understanding how one infinity can be greater than another in algebra. Obviously, the set of all integers would be larger than the set of all natural numbers, and both sets have an infinite number of members, each having a successor. But does it really make sense to say that one set is larger than another, if we can’t even establish how many members there are in each set? Yet, we still have the power to say that one set is half the size of the other. It’s all very puzzling. I’ve even asked my geometry and algebra teachers for a definition of “infinity,” and they had nothing to offer.

 

[tonyrey]

Don’t you value the existence and beauty of nature?

Differences of opinion do not mean that nature is not valuable or beautiful.

The value of everything doesn’t depend just upon what humans think, because values are related to needs and desires.Moreover, deriving a value from a need requires a consciousness of the need, not just an instinctive fulfilment of it. Sometimes we only realise how much we value certain things when we no longer have them.

I entirely agree. Values are objective facts not just subjective opinions.

As to it being better if life had never existed - well, in order for it to be better, it has to be better for someone or something. I can certainly see how it would be better for many other species if humans had never existed…

A good point - which underlines the fact that their lives are valuable regardless of human opinion.

The atheist is restricted to unfinished business!

What you speak of as unfinished business, I assume, refers to the perceived injustice of cutting short a life in its prime, or perhaps the failure of human institutions to administer justice in this life.

Yes, life is incomplete for several reasons. Albert Camus regarded life as absurd - which is the logical consequence of atheism - and death as “le supreme abus”.

Certainly it’s comforting to think that injustices will be corrected in our “next life” - but why do we not do more to correct them in this life?

Good question but life will always be incomplete and unjust however much we do.

I do wonder how belief in an afterlife affects people’s behaviour. I think this is also why Marx called religion the ‘opium of the masses’ - because belief in attaining everlasting paradise makes people more accepting of hardship in this life.

That is a good thing if it enables them to live with hope and courage. And there is no obvious reason why it is a false belief.

I think, with regard to unfinished business, there are many ways that the purpose of our lives can continue after our death, even if we have no immortal souls to carry on our own consciousness. Work that we do in our lives can be taken up by those who come after us, whose ideals we helped to shape; ideals will persist longer than the lives of people who held them.

One of the grimmest facts is the eternal separation of those who love each other, especially when one dies many years before the other…

So, in short, I don’t think the absence of an afterlife, as such, strips our lives of purpose.

Not completely but sufficiently to drive many people to despair and suicide.

Yes, freedom certainly is a double-edged sword, isn’t it? Nevertheless, I still think you are inferring conscious intent from unconscious forces.

Then the problem arises as to how conscious intent is derived from unconscious forces.

We can and do command them to alter and probably even destroy this planet eventually.

Command and use are different things. We use the laws of physics to our advantage, but the ways we use them are bound by the limitations imposed by those very laws.

Our power is limited but sufficient to destroy all life on earth. That would be “no mean achievement”- but it would be a mean action!

We are superior to the entire universe because of our insight and awareness whereas it is blind and purposeless.

Your second phrase is problematic, to say nothing of mightily arrogant. Firstly, not all humans have a great capacity for insight and awareness - does that make those who do have these things ‘superior’ to those who don’t?

I did specify “because of our insight and awareness” - which is not arrogant but the plain truth. The universe does not know that we exist…

Secondly, you are intrinsically claiming that there is a higher consciousness responsible for our existence - otherwise it makes no sense to say that we are superior to the natural forces that gave rise to our existence and awareness, and which retain the power to destroy us. I always think ‘superior’ is a word that should be used with great caution, because it is very context-specific.

I used the word advisedly because
the success of science is due solely to our power of reason and it increases the likelihood that it is not simply the result of electrical activity.

Fortuitous events are not associated with the power to bring order and organization out of chaos!

What ‘fortuitous events’ do you mean?

The combination of molecules which led to the origin of life.

We’ve already covered the non-randomness of evolutionary selection. It is an explicable process, not just a series of chance occurrences.

Yes but chance occurrences are the sole basis of evolution - according to the atheist. Without random mutations life would not have developed. They provided the necessary variations from which the selection of the “fittest” was made.

And if indeed reason is required to understand what you term the ‘unreasonableness’ - certainly the lack of conscious direction - of natural phenomena, then perhaps we could say the universe has come full circle?

For the materialist it would seem a linear process because he sees reason as the product of unreasoning processes - but perhaps I may have misunderstood you.

 

[Sair]

Differences of opinion do not mean that nature is not valuable or beautiful.

Well, obviously you and I don’t think so, and there are plenty of others out there who value the natural world. Despite the fact that so many people live at many degrees of separation from nature, we do still need the natural world to fulfil our basic survival requirements. So whether we hold it in high regard or not, the natural world is necessary to us. But I get the feeling this is not precisely what you are referring to when you’re speaking of intrinsic value. Differences of opinion come into play over whether one considers the rest of the world valuable in itself or only in relation to humans’ needs. The latter is the opinion I have most commonly encountered amongst Christians, who tend to believe that the rest of the world was created for humans. Those of us who don’t hold this belief don’t consider that humans are any more valuable, intrinsically, than the rest of the natural world; we might subjectively value other humans more than other animals, or forests, or oceans, but we don’t consider that there is some objective, external measure of value that places us above any other creature or the environment.

Good question but life will always be incomplete and unjust however much we do.

That is an entirely subjective (not to say defeatist) belief, based upon cultural notions of purpose and meaning that are programmed into us by religion. To say that the logical consequence of atheism is that ‘life is absurd’, I think, misses the point - we are the ones that make meaning for our lives; we are not imbued with meaning by a consciousness external to human minds.

That is a good thing if it enables them to live with hope and courage. And there is no obvious reason why it is a false belief.

But it does raise the question of why belief in a meaning external to ourselves should be necessary to live with hope and courage. There is also a danger in depending upon belief in unprovable notions - all that is required is a sufficient challenge that makes you doubt your beliefs or lose your faith completely, and the psychological consequences can be disastrous. I have, in my life, had to deal with episodes of severe depression, and it was not faith that helped me overcome them, but engagement with the world and other people - physical interaction, sharing ideas, building collective consciousness - these are the things that give me hope, and they are things that I can see and experience. You are quite right in saying that there is no obvious reason to suppose that belief in a deity is false, but the opposite is also true.

Then the problem arises as to how conscious intent is derived from unconscious forces.

It’s true that we don’t presently know the mechanism by which brain structures give rise to consciousness. We also don’t know for certain that the human brain is the only collection of matter that is capable of exhibiting any kind of consciousness - but once again, there is no reason to suppose that consciousness is derived from anything other than arrangements of physical matter.

Our power is limited but sufficient to destroy all life on earth.

With the end result that we destroy ourselves as well, thus negating the achievement.

I did specify “because of our insight and awareness” - which is not arrogant but the plain truth. The universe does not know that we exist…
I used the word advisedly because
the success of science is due solely to our power of reason and it increases the likelihood that it is not simply the result of electrical activity.

Considering that science itself is the study of how physical matter, forces and energy work - in other words, it is the application of ideas and physical tests to increase our knowledge of the universe - how exactly does it increase the likelihood that our reason and consciousness are more than effects arising from the matter of our brains?

Yes but chance occurrences are the sole basis of evolution - according to the atheist. Without random mutations life would not have developed. They provided the necessary variations from which the selection of the “fittest” was made.

Well, yes - without variation, organisms could not adapt to a changing environment. It doesn’t follow that there must be a reason for this to happen other than the fact that it does.

For the materialist it would seem a linear process because he sees reason as the product of unreasoning processes - but perhaps I may have misunderstood you.

It’s a happy irony, don’t you think?

 

[tonyrey]

Differences of opinion do not mean nature is not valuable or beautiful.

Christians believe everything is good because it was created by God. There is a hierarchy of values in which inanimate objects, living organisms and human beings have their rightful place. A person is more valuable than an animal and an animal is more valuable than a rock. In the 12th century St Francis of Assisi expressed a love of all created things.The Church teaches that we are the stewards of creation, not that it exists solely for our benefit.

Good question but life will always be incomplete and unjust however much we do.

That is an entirely subjective (not to say defeatist) belief, based upon cultural notions of purpose and meaning that are programmed into us by religion.

It is not defeatist or subjective but a realistic assessment made by atheists like Camus and Sartre who took atheism to its logical conclusion.

To say that the logical consequence of atheism is that ‘life is absurd’, I think, misses the point - we are the ones that make meaning for our lives; we are not imbued with meaning by a consciousness external to human minds.

Ironically Camus became a humanist and dedicated his life to fighting for values such as freedom and justice. How does one make meaning out of a meaningless existence? It is an arbitrary imposition of purpose on the purposeless. It amounts to creating an illusion which lasts only till death. Worse than that, goodness and justice also become illusions. In moments of depression, as you well know, one is tempted to regard life as a tale told by an idiot… which is indeed the case if our life comes to a dead end. Evil is bound to triumph because an unscrupulous person will do anything to obtain what he wants whereas a good person will not.

But it does raise the question of why belief in a meaning external to ourselves should be necessary to live with hope and courage.

If you believe in objective values you already have a meaning external to yourself on which you can base your decision to live with hope and courage. But again the question arises: how do objective values exist in a valueless universe?

There is also a danger in depending upon belief in unprovable notions - all that is required is a sufficient challenge that makes you doubt your beliefs or lose your faith completely, and the psychological consequences can be disastrous.

I entirely agree. But if there is one thing I am convinced of it is the difference between good and evil. It changes our whole attitude to life and gives us a reason for living. This is not possible if we believe reality is amoral.

I have, in my life, had to deal with episodes of severe depression, and it was not faith that helped me overcome them, but engagement with the world and other people - physical interaction, sharing ideas, building collective consciousness - these are the things that give me hope, and they are things that I can see and experience.

In reality it was faith that saved you - faith in friendship, kindness and love, realities that cannot be explained as the functions of biological machines.

You are quite right in saying that there is no obvious reason to suppose that belief in a deity is false, but the opposite is also true.

The most obvious reason is the madness of materialism!

We also don’t know for certain that the human brain is the only collection of matter that is capable of exhibiting any kind of consciousness - but once again, there is no reason to suppose that consciousness is derived from anything other than arrangements of physical matter.

The power of the mind is one very good reason for believing that the lump of tissue we call the brain is a hopelessly inadequate explanation.

Our power is limited but sufficient to destroy all life on earth.

With the end result that we destroy ourselves as well, thus negating the achievement.

We also have the power not to destroy but to cherish and preserve.

The success of science is due solely to our power of reason and it increases the likelihood that it is not simply the result of electrical activity.

Considering that science itself is the study of how physical matter, forces and energy work - in other words, it is the application of ideas and physical tests to increase our knowledge of the universe - how exactly does it increase the likelihood that our reason and consciousness are more than effects arising from the matter of our brains?

We have never encountered a case of an object using its own power to become aware of itself and capable of controlling itself. It seems far more likely that its power is derived from a conscious, autonomous Being.

Yes but chance occurrences are the sole basis of evolution - according to the atheist.

Well, yes - without variation, organisms could not adapt to a changing environment. It doesn’t follow that there must be a reason for this to happen other the fact that it does.

It is unscientific to accept a phenomenon as an inexplicable, brute fact - unless it is supplemented by a nonscientific explanation.

For the materialist it would seem a linear process because he sees reason as the product of unreasoning processes - but perhaps I may have misunderstood you.

It’s a happy irony, don’t you think?

It’s certainly ironic that a person destroys the means by which he has established his interpretation of reality. I don’t think it is a good recipe for happiness!

 

[Sair]

Christians believe everything is good because it was created by God. There is a hierarchy of values in which inanimate objects, living organisms and human beings have their rightful place.

Well, therein lies one key difference as regards the concept of value. Christians - I presume this includes you - believe everything has a preordained, objective value that exists independently of what it may mean to any individual or community. I don’t believe this, and I certainly don’t subscribe to the ‘humans are the pinnacle of creation’ hierarchy you describe. Just for starters, that notion has been used to perpetrate a great deal of harm to other animals and the environment.

It may be a matter of semantics, but I still think you’re missing the point I’m making about the concept of value. To use the word ‘value’ implies that there is someone - a subject - to whom the thing in question is valuable. This is subjective. Theists say things have an objective value because it’s God who values things, and they conceive of God as a being existing outside and independently of the universe. To say that something is necessary to us is not the same as to say that we value it. This is demonstrated by the fact that people in Western societies are quite happy to spend money on things they want, but often resent having to pay for things they need, like health care, police protection, education, water, etc. The need is objective, yes - the value we ascribe to the need is not.

It is not defeatist or subjective but a realistic assessment made by atheists like Camus and Sartre who took atheism to its logical conclusion

What makes you certain this was a realistic assessment? Why does human life require any meaning beyond “Well, we’re here. Let’s make the best of it.” To me, the pursuit of happiness seems a perfectly logical and sensible end for human existence. You yourself appear to believe it so - the only difference is that you see the purpose of life as the attainment of happiness in the afterlife, whereas I see it as the attainment of happiness in this life. Your apparent belief that happiness is not possible in this life is, as I said, defeatist.

How does one make meaning out of a meaningless existence? It is an arbitrary imposition of purpose on the purposeless. It amounts to creating an illusion which lasts only till death. Worse than that, goodness and justice also become illusions.

How, for that matter, does one locate meaning in a universe which supposedly contains it, in a source independent of conscious awareness? For God to ascribe a purpose to our existence is surely no less of an imposition than if we ourselves decide what to do with our lives. And goodness and justice are not illusions - we can see their effects and become aware of them emotionally. We understand them subjectively, to be sure, but I don’t think the outcome is materially different whether we believe a god to be the agent of justice and goodness, or whether we take that responsibility on ourselves.

If you believe in objective values you already have a meaning external to yourself on which you can base your decision to live with hope and courage. But again the question arises: how do objective values exist in a valueless universe?

The simple answer is they don’t, because values are subjective - they are, as I’ve said before, subject to our experience.

In reality it was faith that saved you - faith in friendship, kindness and love, realities that cannot be explained as the functions of biological machines.

Remember you’re talking about extraordinarily complex and nuanced ‘machines’ resulting from millions of years of biological evolution - not the relatively clumsy imitations humans make. Friendship, kindness and love are emergent properties of our evolution as social animals. They aren’t the only ones, of course, but they are there, and they have biological justification. Humans are not the only social animals that exhibit altruistic behaviour, after all.

The most obvious reason is the madness of materialism!

Obvious to you, perhaps; not so obvious to me. I don’t think materialism is an inherently insane approach to understanding the universe. I see no problem with the notion that consciousness, emotion, experience of self are all emergent properties of complex arrangements of matter.

The power of the mind is one very good reason for believing that the lump of tissue we call the brain is a hopelessly inadequate explanation.

Considering that we don’t yet know all the precise functions and interrelated structures of the brain, this seems a rather pre-emptive dismissal.

We have never encountered a case of an object using its own power to become aware of itself and capable of controlling itself. It seems far more likely that its power is derived from a conscious, autonomous Being.

Do you remember what it was like to be an embryo? Even a 6-month-old child? If not, why weren’t you aware back then? It’s strange to think that an external meaning-maker only gave you this awareness at a certain point of your existence - and chooses to take it away again when you sleep deeply, drink too much, or fall down and hit your head. The fact that our awareness doesn’t persist when certain functions of our brain are insufficiently developed, at rest or otherwise impaired is quite a good argument for consciousness being an emergent property of brain function, don’t you think?

It is unscientific to accept a phenomenon as an inexplicable, brute fact - unless it is supplemented by a nonscientific explanation.

That claim just makes no sense whatsoever. That it’s unscientific to accept an observed phenomenon unless we can come up with some whimsical, *unscientific *reason for it to be there? Are you serious?

 

[tonyrey]

…1…

Christians believe everything is good because it was created by God. There is a hierarchy of values in which inanimate objects, living organisms and human beings have their rightful place.

Don’t you value a person more than a dog or a dog more than a stone?Is that an arbitrary decision? Or does it reflect the nature of the entity?

I don’t believe this, and I certainly don’t subscribe to the ‘humans are the pinnacle of creation’ hierarchy you describe. Just for starters, that notion has been used to perpetrate a great deal of harm to other animals and the environment.

The distortion and abuse of a principle does not show it is false.

It may be a matter of semantics, but I still think you’re missing the point I’m making about the concept of value. To use the word ‘value’ implies that there is someone - a subject - to whom the thing in question is valuable.
This is subjective. Theists say things have an objective value because it’s God who values things, and they conceive of God as a being existing outside and independently of the universe. To say that something is necessary to us is not the same as to say that we value it.This is demonstrated by the fact that people in Western societies are quite happy to spend money on things they want, but often resent having to pay for things they need, like health care, police protection, education, water, etc. The need is objective, yes - the value we ascribe to the need is not.

You obviously believe that such people are misguided and have a wrong sense of values - which implies that there are objective values. King Lear’s words are appropriate here:
“O reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man’s life is as cheap as beast’s.”
If you take your argument to its logical conclusion nothing, not even life, is intrinsically valuable. Suppose everyone in the world decided that life is not worth living would they be justified in committing mass suicide? If you say “yes” you are forgetting that they are depriving future generations of the opportunity to live. Not only that. They are being unreasonable because life is a source of opportunities and while we are alive we have a choice: to live or not to live. If we kill ourselves we no longer have that choice. The fact that a very small minority commit suicide suggests that the advantages of life outweigh its disadvantages. Schopenhauer was wrong and in practice he did not live according to his view that it would have been better if life had been never existed on this planet.

It is not defeatist or subjective but a realistic assessment made by atheists like Camus and Sartre who took atheism to its logical conclusion

What makes you certain this was a realistic assessment? Why does human life require any meaning beyond “Well, we’re here. Let’s make the best of it.” To me, the pursuit of happiness seems a perfectly logical and sensible end for human existence.
You yourself appear to believe it so - the only difference is that you see the purpose of life as the attainment of happiness in the afterlife, whereas I see it as the attainment of happiness in this life.

That is a false dilemma. The purpose of life is the attainment of happiness now **and **hereafter. There is no discontinuity between this life and the next. There is good reason to believe heaven and hell begin in this world.

Your apparent belief that happiness is not possible in this life is, as I said, defeatist.

I believe happiness is possible in this life but for the atheist it is inevitably clouded by the prospect that it will be terminated by death - which will lead to eternal separation from those we love. You cannot deny this in itself is a tragedy, without even considering the monstrous injustice in the world.

How does one make meaning out of a meaningless existence? It is an arbitrary imposition of purpose on the purposeless. It amounts to creating an illusion which lasts only till death. Worse than that, goodness and justice also become illusions.

How, for that matter, does one locate meaning in a universe which supposedly contains it, in a source independent of conscious awareness?

By using our power of reason and intuition. We find meaning because of our ability to determine and choose what we consider to be the meaning of life. Like you most people find it in happiness for themselves and for others - and, of course, in the means by which we attain happiness.

 

[tonyrey]

…2…

For God to ascribe a purpose to our existence is surely no less of an imposition than if we ourselves decide what to do with our lives.

The simple answer is they don’t, because values are subjective - they are, as I’ve said before, subject to our experience.Values are subjective only in the sense that we choose them. But we are not infallible. We can have false values which lead us into trouble, as you have already pointed out. For example, if we choose to value ourselves more than anything else and more than anyone else we are bound to alienate others and create a hell on earth for ourselves.

In reality it was faith that saved you - faith in friendship, kindness and love, realities that cannot be explained as the functions of biological machines.

Remember you’re talking about extraordinarily complex and nuanced ‘machines’ resulting from millions of years of biological evolution - not the relatively clumsy imitations humans make.You cannot escape the fact that we are machines if evolution is an unplanned process. In which case we cannot have free will because it infringes the law of conservation of energy. Our power of choice becomes an illusion and we cannot be responsible even for our thoughts, let alone our decisions.

Friendship, kindness and love are emergent properties of our evolution as social animals. Humans are not the only social animals that exhibit altruistic behaviour, after all.

If we are simply social animals why are we considered morally responsible for what we do? Knowledge alone does not entail responsibility: it is possible to recognise what we should do and yet it be incapable of doing it. And this is our predicament if we don’t have free will.

The most obvious reason is the madness of materialism!

I see no problem with the notion that consciousness, emotion, experience of self are all emergent properties of complex arrangements of matter.May I refer you to my post “Is materialism mumbo-jumbo?”

The power of the mind is one very good reason for believing that the lump of tissue we call the brain is a hopelessly inadequate explanation.

Considering that we don’t yet know all the precise functions and interrelated structures of the brain, this seems a rather pre-emptive dismissal.Then let me modify my statement. In our existing state of knowledge it is a hopelessly inadequate explanation.

We have never encountered a case of an object using its own power to become aware of itself and capable of controlling itself. It seems far more likely that its power is derived from a conscious, autonomous Being.

Do you remember what it was like to be an embryo? If not, why weren’t you aware back then? The fact that our awareness doesn’t persist when certain functions of our brain are insufficiently developed, at rest or otherwise impaired is quite a good argument for consciousness being an emergent property of brain function, don’t you think?I don’t think it is. It is the logical consequence of the inability of the brain to communicate our thoughts and feelings. It is impossible to know when we become conscious but that does not mean consciousness is produced by electrical currents in the brain. Consciousness of the self is intangible like the self itself! Like all the realities we value most in life: truth, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty, purpose and love - which other atheists on this forum as just “efficacious concepts”!. Materialism does not reflect the way we live in daily life and the way we regard ourselves and others as unique individuals with the right to life, freedom and happiness.

It is unscientific to accept a phenomenon as an inexplicable, brute fact - unless it is supplemented by a nonscientific explanation.

That claim just makes no sense whatsoever. That it’s unscientific to accept an observed phenomenon unless we can come up with some whimsical, unscientific reason for it to be there? It is not a question of rejecting the observed phenomenon but of accepting it as a brute fact. A reason is hardly whimsical if it is based on the principle of adequacy. Do you really believe particles can be transformed into persons by a succession of largely fortuitous events? The fact that an explanation is unscientific does not mean that it is false because science is restricted to explanations of physical phenomena and physicalism is demonstrably false. All knowledge is based on our knowledge that we exist as intangible beings capable of thought and feeling…

[/QUOTE]

 

[Sair]

God has created us with the power to choose for ourselves what to do with our lives. If we were not created by God we would not have that power but be no more than cogs in the universal machine.

If they are not illusions we live in a moral universe - which poses insurmountable difficulties for the materialist.

We are not the authors of justice and goodness because they depend on our needs. They exist whether we recognise them or not. But our interpretation of justice and goodness depends on us and for that we alone are responsible.

Values are subjective only in the sense that we choose them. But we are not infallible. We can have false values which lead us into trouble, as you have already pointed out. For example, if we choose to value ourselves more than anything else and more than anyone else we are bound to alienate others and create a hell on earth for ourselves.

What I see here is a list of examples of special pleading on the part of someone who insists that there must be a higher power in the universe, despite all appearances to the contrary, despite the likelihood - supported, if not absolutely proved, by scientific research and experiment - that there is a physical explanation for conscious experience.

There is no reason to suppose that we ought to have any particular control over our needs. However, the fact that we can recognise that we have needs - and our needs, as you may recall I did say in a previous post, are objectively provable - means that we can apply the reasoning power of our complex brains towards meeting those needs. This is distinct from values, which are subjectively chosen. Certainly no human is infallible when it comes to deciding what they ought to do in a given situation; however, if, as you say, we pursue a purely self-seeking course in life, there are demonstrably negative consequences, which would be enough for to motivate any rational person to exercise at least a degree of altruistic behaviour.

You cannot escape the fact that we are machines if evolution is an unplanned process. In which case we cannot have free will because it infringes the law of conservation of energy. Our power of choice becomes an illusion and we cannot be responsible even for our thoughts, let alone our decisions.
If we are simply social animals why are we considered morally responsible for what we do? Knowledge alone does not entail responsibility: it is possible to recognise what we should do and yet it be incapable of doing it. And this is our predicament if we don’t have free will.

Choice comes into play when the ability to reason - a function of one part of a complex brain - can be used to override instinct - a more primitive function of our brains, and of less complex brains. Even if we have limited options, we always have a choice as to how we will act, whether we allow instinct to guide us, or whether we allow reason and the calculated likelihood of consequences to inform our decision.

Then let me modify my statement. In our existing state of knowledge it is a hopelessly inadequate explanation.

Sure. That’s why scientists keep looking for more knowledge. The trouble with the ‘god-of-the-gaps’ approach, apart from the fact that the gaps keep getting smaller, is that it amounts mostly to an attempt to arrest the progress of knowledge.

It is not a question of rejecting the observed phenomenon but of accepting it as a brute fact. A reason is hardly whimsical if it is based on the principle of adequacy. Do you really believe particles can be transformed into persons by a succession of largely fortuitous events? The fact that an explanation is unscientific does not mean that it is false because science is restricted to explanations of physical phenomena and physicalism is demonstrably false. All knowledge is based on our knowledge that we exist as intangible beings capable of thought and feeling…

Is physicalism demonstrably false? Remember that the physical universe consists not just of atoms, molecules and subatomic particles, but also of energy, and what physicists refer to as ‘dark matter’, which has mass but otherwise no other detectable properties (any physicists reading this, feel free to correct me if that’s an inaccurate statement). A theory may be perfectly adequate as an explanation, at least in terms of semantics and logic, but still whimsical if it isn’t based upon observable, testable evidence. Scientific explanations are based on observable, testable evidence, while religious explanations generally aren’t.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

The only case in which I have referred to a higher power is with respect to free will. The materialist must either reject it or accept it as an intangible, unexplained form of personal energy which transcends physical processes.

There is no reason to suppose that we ought to have any particular control over our needs. However, the fact that we can recognise that we have needs means that we can apply the reasoning power of our complex brains towards meeting those needs. This is distinct from values, which are subjectively chosen. Certainly no human is infallible when it comes to deciding what they ought to do in a given situation; however, if, as you say, we pursue a purely self-seeking course in life, there are demonstrably negative consequences, which would be enough for to motivate any rational person to exercise at least a degree of altruistic behaviour.

If all normal persons choose the same values it is unrealistic to believe their choices have no rational basis. The negative consequences of egoism also show that values are objective facts rather than subjective preferences.

You cannot escape the fact that we are machines if evolution is an unplanned process. In which case we cannot have free will because it infringes the law of conservation of energy. Our power of choice becomes an illusion and we cannot be responsible even for our thoughts, let alone our decisions.
If we are simply social animals why are we considered morally responsible for what we do? Knowledge alone does not entail responsibility: it is possible to recognise what we should do and yet it be incapable of doing it. And this is our predicament if we don’t have free will.

Choice comes into play when the ability to reason - a function of one part of a complex brain - can be used to override instinct - a more primitive function of our brains, and of less complex brains. Even if we have limited options, we always have a choice as to how we will act, whether we allow instinct to guide us, or whether we allow reason and the calculated likelihood of consequences to inform our decision.

You do not explain how we have a choice as to how we will act! You imply that we transcend our brains…

That’s why scientists keep looking for more knowledge. The trouble with the ‘god-of-the-gaps’ approach, apart from the fact that the gaps keep getting smaller, is that it amounts mostly to an attempt to arrest the progress of knowledge.

There are so many gaps with respect to the scientific explanation of reality that it becomes a “science-of-the-gaps” approach. It explains none of the most important aspects of human existence because it is restricted to physical processes. Materialism certainly results in a devaluation and reduction of persons to biological machines.

It is not a question of rejecting the observed phenomenon but of accepting it as a brute fact. A reason is hardly whimsical if it is based on the principle of adequacy. Do you really believe particles can be transformed into persons by a succession of largely fortuitous events? The fact that an explanation is unscientific does not mean that it is false because science is restricted to explanations of physical phenomena and physicalism is demonstrably false.

Is physicalism demonstrably false?

Physicalism is demonstrably false because it asserts that everything** is ultimately physical. How can anyone possibly know **that is the case? It implies insight into the ultimate nature of reality - which is clearly absurd. The only thing we know for certain is that we are thinking. We cannot get outside our intangible minds. We infer the existence of physical objects from our perceptions. So if we deny that our minds exist the whole edifice of knowledge collapses because it no longer has any foundation!

A theory may be perfectly adequate as an explanation, at least in terms of semantics and logic, but still whimsical if it isn’t based upon observable, testable evidence. Scientific explanations are based on observable, testable evidence, while religious explanations generally aren’t.

Physicalism itself is not a scientific but a metaphysical explanation of everything. It is based on evidence which is neither observable nor testable because it is impossible to observe everything. Physicalism itself is intangible!
The most important explanations are not scientific at all. They are explanations which concern persons rather than things - about "why?"rather than “how?”, about what we love and cherish, about our aspirations and ideals. Physical comfort alone does produce happiness. There are laws of personal development and fulfilment which are quite beyond the scope of science. It is certainly whimsical to regard science as a panacea…

 

[Sair]

The only case in which I have referred to a higher power is with respect to free will. The materialist must either reject it or accept it as an intangible, unexplained form of personal energy which transcends physical processes.

So there is left only the option to admit that we don’t understand the processes by which what we perceive as free will occurs. It makes sense to dismiss as dogmatic any insistence that they must come from either entirely physical processes (which we have yet to prove, if proving such is possible) or from God (which is a concept that remains unprovable by definition for science).

If all normal persons choose the same values it is unrealistic to believe their choices have no rational basis. The negative consequences of egoism also show that values are objective facts rather than subjective preferences.

I’m still not convinced that the subjective/objective distinction holds when we are talking about values - unless we pursue a might=right philosophy, then we have to consider what feels right to the majority of people. A person can be intimidated into doing the will of another person, but still feel subjectively that it is wrong for that person to impose their will.

You do not explain how we have a choice as to how we will act! You imply that we transcend our brains…

That would be a problem with language, I guess! I meant to imply that reason comes into play in overriding instinct, and also in deciding when it is appropriate to override instinct.

There are so many gaps with respect to the scientific explanation of reality that it becomes a “science-of-the-gaps” approach. It explains none of the most important aspects of human existence because it is restricted to physical processes. Materialism certainly results in a devaluation and reduction of persons to biological machines.

The fundamental difference is that a physicalist will continue the search for understanding of how physical, observable, measurable processes result in what we feel as human experience, rather than assuming it is unexplainable, or putting it down to the action of a transcendent being. What I don’t understand is why, if human experience ultimately proves to be explicable by physical processes, it has any less meaning as human experience. What need of an extra-physical explanation to impart meaning? The only reason to think that a physical explanation would result in a devaluing of persons is if we assume that our meaning comes from something external to ourselves and our experience.

 

[Sair]

Don’t you value a person more than a dog or a dog more than a stone?Is that an arbitrary decision? Or does it reflect the nature of the entity?

It reflects the nature of my relationship to the person/dog/stone in question. For example, my dog is more valuable to me than a human stranger, and if it came to the crunch, I’d have to say my husband is more valuable to me than is my dog. As for stones, well, I don’t particularly care for them, but some people are extremely fond of diamonds, for example.

The distortion and abuse of a principle does not show it is false.

There is plenty of evidence, quite apart from the abuse of the principle, that shows we are misguided in thinking humans are the pinnacle of creation, rather than one highly evolved species among many.

You obviously believe that such people are misguided and have a wrong sense of values - which implies that there are objective values.

Or a wrong sense of understanding what values are, and what they think is the source of value - that it comes from something other than human perception and desire.

If you take your argument to its logical conclusion nothing, not even life, is intrinsically valuable. The fact that a very small minority commit suicide suggests that the advantages of life outweigh its disadvantages. Schopenhauer was wrong and in practice he did not live according to his view that it would have been better if life had been never existed on this planet.

How does one go about living according to the belief that it would be better if life had never existed? The very idea is ridiculous. Furthermore, life is valuable to those that possess it, for the most part. Some people, for whatever reason, find life intolerable, and choose to end it. That does seem like a logical course of action for someone who no longer values their own life. Unfortunately, there are many people who might value that person’s life, who will be seriously hurt by the ending of it. To say that life is valuable to those that possess it, though, is not the same as saying that life has an intrinsic value separate from the experience of living things - unless one assumes there is a higher consciousness in the universe (or outside it, depending on your concept of god) that values life.

I believe happiness is possible in this life but for the atheist it is inevitably clouded by the prospect that it will be terminated by death - which will lead to eternal separation from those we love. You cannot deny this in itself is a tragedy, without even considering the monstrous injustice in the world.

Certainly it’s a tragedy for those still living, but for the deceased, there is no awareness left to be conscious of the loss. Believing that life ultimately ends with death is surely more reason to make the most of the time we do have.

By using our power of reason and intuition. We find meaning because of our ability to determine and choose what we consider to be the meaning of life. Like you most people find it in happiness for themselves and for others - and, of course, in the means by which we attain happiness.

I could be mistaken, but this kinda sounds like you’re agreeing with me… :yup:

 

[MindOverMatter]

It reflects the nature of my relationship to the person/dog/stone in question. For example, my dog is more valuable to me than a human stranger, and if it came to the crunch, I’d have to say my husband is more valuable to me than is my dog. As for stones, well, I don’t particularly care for them, but some people are extremely fond of diamonds, for example.

So you are the kind of person that refuses to believe that anything has value outside of your will and desire. Kind of like the value of the world revolves around your likes and dislikes.

You are like a God. A can certainly see the appeal that your belief lends to you.

 

[tonyrey]

It reflects the nature of my relationship to the person/dog/stone in question. For example, my dog is more valuable to me than a human stranger, and if it came to the crunch, I’d have to say my husband is more valuable to me than is my dog. As for stones, well, I don’t particularly care for them, but some people are extremely fond of diamonds, for example.

That is why some are prepared to kill for the sake of diamonds… I hardly think you think that is acceptable.

There is plenty of evidence, quite apart from the abuse of the principle, that shows we are misguided in thinking humans are the pinnacle of creation, rather than one highly evolved species among many.

I agree with you. There are probably other rational beings and even if there aren’t some human beings are the dregs of creation… Nevertheless there is a scale of values by which most of us abide by in our daily lives.

How does one go about living according to the belief that it would be better if life had never existed? The very idea is ridiculous.

A good example of how a speculative philosophy like materialism does not correspond to the way a person lives.

Furthermore, life is valuable to those that possess it, for the most part. Some people, for whatever reason, find life intolerable, and choose to end it. That does seem like a logical course of action for someone who no longer values their own life. Unfortunately, there are many people who might value that person’s life, who will be seriously hurt by the ending of it. To say that life is valuable to those that possess it, though, is not the same as saying that life has an intrinsic value separate from the experience of living things - unless one assumes there is a higher consciousness in the universe (or outside it, depending on your concept of god) that values life.

I agree. But life becomes very precarious if its value is solely a matter of personal opinion, as the Nazis and others have illustrated.

Certainly it’s a tragedy for those still living, but for the deceased, there is no awareness left to be conscious of the loss. Believing that life ultimately ends with death is surely more reason to make the most of the time we do have.

“Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die”… It can lead to a false sense of values. People are more tempted to put themselves first if they believe everything is permissible. If there is an afterlife it is obviously misguided to stake everything on this life and regard it as the be-all and end-all. If you believe truth, goodness, justice and love are objective facts rather than subjective beliefs your whole outlook on life is transformed. Your main purpose is to strive to establish a kingdom that is not of this world rather than a temporary refuge from eternal oblivion. Your right to life and happiness has a rational foundation rather than a man-made expedient for life in society.

By using our power of reason and intuition. We find meaning because of our ability to determine and choose what we consider to be the meaning of life. Like you most people find it in happiness for themselves and for others - and, of course, in the means by which we attain happiness.

         I could be mistaken, but this kinda sounds like you're agreeing with me...

We do agree on that. Where we differ is in our explanation of our ability to reason and choose for ourselves.

 

[Sair]

But life becomes very precarious if its value is solely a matter of personal opinion, as the Nazis and others have illustrated.

That is why a moral system that is anything other than destructive must be based not upon personal opinion alone, but on our capacity for empathy - in other words, our ability to extrapolate from our own wish to experience happiness and avoid misery, that others most likely wish to do the same. You might notice that something the Nazis had in common with other oppressors was to classify their victims as lesser beings than themselves, fundamentally different, even subhuman - so they could absolve themselves, in their own minds, of the need to exercise empathy.

If you believe truth, goodness, justice and love are objective facts rather than subjective beliefs your whole outlook on life is transformed. Your main purpose is to strive to establish a kingdom that is not of this world rather than a temporary refuge from eternal oblivion. Your right to life and happiness has a rational foundation rather than a man-made expedient for life in society.

If truth, goodness, justice and love are objective facts rather than conceptualisations of human experiences and values, where do they exist independently of human minds?

We do agree on that. Where we differ is in our explanation of our ability to reason and choose for ourselves.

If our consciousness is supernatural in origin, why is our ability to choose limited to those things which are physically possible? Did God just want to make sure we recognised our inferiority?

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

I entirely agree with you. An adequate moral system must be based on our capacity for empathy and also on the principle of equality. It does not follow that because we have a capacity for empathy that we need to exercise it (and very often it isn’t exercised) but, as you rightly point out, it is more reasonable to be creative than destructive. In other words morality is based primarily on reason rather than emotion. It is a fundamental aspect of reality rather than an accidental accretion. The Golden Rule applies not only to persons in our society but to all persons whether they live in our community or country, on our planet or elsewhere in the universe, or in some other form of reality of which we are unaware…

If you believe truth, goodness, justice and love are objective facts rather than subjective beliefs your whole outlook on life is transformed. Your main purpose is to strive to establish a kingdom that is not of this world rather than a temporary refuge from eternal oblivion. Your right to life and happiness has a rational foundation rather than a man-made expedient for life in society.

If truth, goodness, justice and love are objective facts rather than conceptualisations of human experiences and values, where do they exist independently of human minds?

The fact that you ask “where?” presupposes that the whole of reality is physical and is located in time and space! If you read one or two of Plato’s Dialogues you may be tempted to think otherwise. Logical, mathematical principles and physical constants are all immaterial. The mind is nowhere in particular! We can transcend time and space with our power of thought, imagination and intuition. The mind has other powers of which many people in our society are unaware.

Where we differ is in our explanation of our ability to reason and choose for ourselves.

If our consciousness is supernatural in origin, why is our ability to choose limited to those things which are physically possible?

I don’t think it is limited to things which are physically possible. “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.”

Did God just want to make sure we recognised our inferiority?

I don’t know how you reached that conclusion!

 

[Sair]

The fact that you ask “where?” presupposes that the whole of reality is physical and is located in time and space! If you read one or two of Plato’s Dialogues you may be tempted to think otherwise. Logical, mathematical principles and physical constants are all immaterial. The mind is nowhere in particular! We can transcend time and space with our power of thought, imagination and intuition. The mind has other powers of which many people in our society are unaware.

You’re starting to sound like O’Brien in 1984 - the most frightening book I’ve ever read. And not entirely irrelevant to the original topic of the thread…

Are you also unaware of these supposed powers? And if our bodies can’t follow where our minds lead when our ideas deviate from that which is physically possible, what’s the point?
Apart from speculative fiction, of course! :yup:

 

[tonyrey]

**tonyrey **An adequate moral system must be based on our capacity for empathy and also on the principle of equality. It does not follow that because we have a capacity for empathy that we need to exercise it (and very often it isn’t exercised) but, as you rightly point out, it is more reasonable to be creative than destructive. In other words morality is based primarily on reason rather than emotion. It is a fundamental aspect of reality rather than an accidental accretion. The Golden Rule applies not only to persons in our society but to all persons whether they live in our community or country, on our planet or elsewhere in the universe, or in some other form of reality of which we are unaware…

These facts are evidence of the objective reality of good and evil - which disproves the idea that if there were no sentient physical entities in the world there would be no moral truths. It is a mistake to equate persons with bodies. Reason, creativity, purpose and decision-making are related to intangible facts, philosophical principles, mathematical proportions, logical relations and physical constants - all of which exist independently of human beings.

The fact that you ask “where?” presupposes that the whole of reality is physical and is located in time and space! We can transcend time and space with our power of thought, imagination and intuition. The mind has other powers of which many people in our society are unaware.

Are you also unaware of these supposed powers?

I have personal experience of the power of auto-hypnosis to anaesthetise the body. I have witnessed feats by yogis in India which cannot be explained scientifically. There is abundant evidence that they can control physical functions like their pulse rate and induce states of suspended animation.

And if our bodies can’t follow where our minds lead when our ideas deviate from that which is physically possible, what’s the point?

If men and women had confined themselves to what they **thought **is physically possible they would not have achieved many heroic feats of courage and endurance nor used their intuition and imagination to make the most outstanding scientific discoveries…
"Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp,
*Or *what’s a heaven for?

 

[SimonArizona]

That is why a moral system that is anything other than destructive must be based not upon personal opinion alone, but on our capacity for empathy - in other words, our ability to extrapolate from our own wish to experience happiness and avoid misery, that others most likely wish to do the same. You might notice that something the Nazis had in common with other oppressors was to classify their victims as lesser beings than themselves, fundamentally different, even subhuman - so they could absolve themselves, in their own minds, of the need to exercise empathy.

The Nazi’s made excuse for their murderous ways by labeling non-aryans untermich, not because they had good hearts deep down inside.

Christiainity is not seeking happiness, that is why its so hard to be a Christian.
The natural life of the human heart is to seek happiness, but Christianity says deny yourself, give up pleasures, carry your cross, be beaten, stripped, martyrd. (obv not so much in the land of the free) but for many centuries, that was life for a christian.

If truth, goodness, justice and love are objective facts rather than conceptualisations of human experiences and values, where do they exist independently of human minds?

We give labels to things we experience, such as mercy.