Today's philosophy

[Ismael]

Ismael…the logic of the purposeless life is SURVIVAL…and then Pleasure

To freely do either one or both…you need to keep the predators at bay

therefore…the Primal drivers of a godless humanity is Survival via Victim manipulations…ie…herding and whatever else will level the playing field=equality

the “morality” that would arise from this scenerio…is based on these 2 Primal drivers and an apeal to “natural equality”=a dog is a boy is a fish…all are of equal worth…and all have one overarching purpose…Survival…individually and collectively.

What I’ve outlined is a world that doesn’t acknowledge God…and it has historical support.

I am not sure if I would claim this ‘historical evidence’.

Some things you quote are proposed, not quite in that way, by some naturalists or new atheists… but they do not really explain ‘morality’, but rather SOME form of behaviors.

Even the use of Game Theory in evolution or evolutionary psychology is being criticized and often begs the question, rather than answering it.

“*Primal drivers of a godless humanity *”

I think that there has never really been a “godless humanity”, not in Homo sapiens at least. I think even atheist scholars agree to this (of course they look for some naturalist explaination for it)
Some affirm that even nehanderthals (which are not strictly ‘human’) held some beliefs, maybe.

At best you find ‘godless primal instincts’ in non-human animals, no doubt, albeit that’s also debatable, regardin your stance with teleology and final causes (NOT talking about intelligent design, that’s something different)

Here in the West we are watching our civilization give a final rejection of the Christian God…as a worldly philosophy based on fear displaces it.

Well: Ask any serious sociologist, it’s not going that way at all.
Actually ‘de-christianisation’ found it’s peak in the '70-'80… and now has lessend, with some trends of re-christianisation, albeit small.

So it is true that there is al lot of ‘movement’ socially and some denominations, especially in protestantism are suffering quite a lot.

Strangely enough the funadamentalist-evangelical corner seems the most solid.

Sure new atheists are proclaiming they are winning ‘souls’ … but data seems to indicate otherwise…

I think we need to observe a few more generations before assessing the phenomenon of atheism and secularization (well ‘we’ won’t… but our posterity)

==========

I also thing we cannot define mankind only with ‘primal drives’.

Unless you take the questionable pure naturalist and materialist position, where even consciousness is an illusion (but here they ought to show it is like they claim) humans are rational, conscious and moral beings…

 

[jonathan_hili]

Sorry about my spelling…As to my OP…my entire point is to delve into the Primal Drivers of human nature and then show how the godless run a society.

Without God…anything is NOT permitted by large collectives or secular societies. Without God…there is fear…the #1 primal driver…and that is why you see here in the West…(as the Judeo-Christian God is “finally” rejected after 500 years of assault)…a god-free society tries to control EVERYTHING…even what you eat and drink…what you speak…etc.

By anything being permitted, Dostoyevsky meant in the moral order, that is, no action is technically morally good or bad, so you can do anything you want!

I don’t know if a God-free society is so controlling, but I do think there is a vast difference between a religious society, that has some sense of higher order and deference to some supernatural force(s), and a secular one like ours. The latter, I’m sad to say, seems full of hubris and general disrespect, not only for people living now, but for tradition and our ancestors.

I’m in China at the moment and have lived here about two years of my life (off and on) and it always amazes me how Chinese still flock to Buddhist, Taoist and Confucian temples to offer sacrifices and honour their ancestors. They are a very superstitious people on the whole. But they eschew Communism because its materialistic philosophy and worldview has nothing to offer them and, I think this is a point that’s often missed, it’s a view without honour. I think our society is also much like this.

On a final point, it’s interesting to read why many thinkers rejected outright atheism in the past. It wasn’t so much because they were afraid of persecution (though this doubtlessly had some influence) but because they saw atheism as base, not worthy of the human spirit. The French Revolutionaries on the whole, epitomised in Robespierre, were antithetical to atheism because they saw rightly that without some kind of divine order and judgement, there is no justice and there is no power of law (because there’s anchor for morality).

 

[polytropos]

Is the difference between chance and design, perhaps? If love exists by chance – a cosmic accident – then there is no (ulterior) purpose to love. But if love exists because it was designed “intentionally” by a Creator, then it has an ulterior purpose, or is intrinsically purposeful (“purposeful,” to me, suggests conscious intention, design). I still wouldn’t see a logical “ought” to love, however, given that humans have free will. The only “ought” is in the consequences of not loving, which I don’t consider “logically necessary” form of “ought” (rather, it would be conditioned upon the avoidance of unpleasant consequences). It would be conceptually simpler if humans did not have free will, and love (for example) were as obligatory and as incontrovertible as the law of falling bodies.

I think so much of this argument hinges, though, on how one defines God, which is perhaps where the confusion comes in (is it a self-fulfilling definition, a kind of supra-subjectivity or supra-consciousness that we declare to have the status of objective truth?). Does the God concept mean, frankly, whatever we “want” it to mean, so that it resolves all paradoxes? Is it not the ultimate conceptional version of a “theory of everything”?

Regarding intrinsic purpose – if I create a work of art intentionally, to what extent does that work of art have intrinsic meaning and purpose? In a limited sense, I suppose it does have intrinsic meaning and purpose (the “meaning” of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, for example, whereby the author put layers of meaning into the work of art that were “by design”).

I don’t really agree that if love is created, then the only “reason” for love would be avoidance of consequences.

The Catholic view is that humans are made in the image of God, and aspire to “loving” like God insofar that they are capable. This is not strictly about avoiding the consequences of not loving but because there is supposed to be something intrinsically good in harmonizing with your nature. Now I agree, you could come up with some conception of God in which it is not intrinsically good to be in line with your designed nature.

The Catholic concept of love hinges on its being freely given. Without free will, there cannot be love. Again, from an anthropological perspective, I’m sure you could look at this and call it “self-fulfilling”: humans thousands of years ago defined God and love in such ways that their shortcomings are explained.

As far as intrinsic purpose: Christianity assumes that things should function as intended. For the most part this works well if you assume creation. A tree functions “as intended.” Animals all act similarly, for the most part, and respond to the world in predictable ways. Humans have the mental complexity to be the exception to that mold. So what does Christianity do? It designates a common “purpose” for humans that all humans can aspire to in spite of their separate drives. It provides a narrative that explains free will. If humans do have free will (if that is how they are designed), then in what way are they supposed to act? In accordance to free will / however they want? In accordance with the thing that “made” them?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

poly

**If humans do have free will (if that is how they are designed), then in what way are they supposed to act? In accordance to free will / however they want? In accordance with the thing that “made” them? **

They are supposed to freely act in accordance with the Thing that made them.

 

[wittgenstein]

I am not an atheist. However, I would never make the absurd claim that atheists believe that the strong should destroy the weak.
Actually, the atheists I know believe that their ethics are not based on the fear of punishment (being unsuccessful ). They believe that an ethical decision based on self interest is self contradictory.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wittgenstein

Actually, the atheists I know believe that their ethics are not based on the fear of punishment (being unsuccessful ). They believe that an ethical decision based on self interest is self contradictory.

So all the atheists you know would not buy a gun for self protection?

 

[polytropos]

wittgenstein

Actually, the atheists I know believe that their ethics are not based on the fear of punishment (being unsuccessful ). They believe that an ethical decision based on self interest is self contradictory.

So all the atheists you know would not buy a gun for self protection?

I don’t fully agree with wittgenstein’s statement; I don’t think atheists fully disavow “ethical decision based on self interest,” because there’s no reason to. Most atheists seem to subscribe to some conception of “human rights.” (I personally think that those “rights” often end up being arbitrary and, for instance, involve the definition of a fetus as a nonperson. But that’s another topic.)

For what it’s worth, I know many atheists, none of whom (to my knowledge) own a gun or would own a gun for self protection. I know a handful of Christians who own guns for self protection. I also know a handful of Christians who do not own guns for self protection.

 

[wittgenstein]

To suggest that not buying a gun is unethical is absurd.
For example, I may buy a steak because I like eating a steak (self interest). However, my decision to buy a steak is not ethical or unethical. It has nothing to do with ethics.
Buying a gun for self protection is not ethical or unethical. Al Capone had many weapons for self protection. Would you call his decision to purchase guns was righteous? There was nothing unethical about his purchasing guns (if only for self protection). However, I do not think that when God compared Capone’s sins with the righteous things he did,buying guns (even if for self protection) was in the righteous catagory.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

poly
**
For what it’s worth, I know many atheists, none of whom (to my knowledge) own a gun or would own a gun for self protection. I know a handful of Christians who own guns for self protection. I also know a handful of Christians who do not own guns for self protection.**

The question is not whether there is a right to choose, but rather whether it is as rational to choose to own a gun as it is to not choose to own a gun. Self interest can be furthered either way.

 

[Portofino]

I don’t really agree that if love is created, then the only “reason” for love would be avoidance of consequences.

The Catholic view is that humans are made in the image of God, and aspire to “loving” like God insofar that they are capable. This is not strictly about avoiding the consequences of not loving but because there is supposed to be something intrinsically good in harmonizing with your nature. Now I agree, you could come up with some conception of God in which it is not intrinsically good to be in line with your designed nature.

The Catholic concept of love hinges on its being freely given. Without free will, there cannot be love. Again, from an anthropological perspective, I’m sure you could look at this and call it “self-fulfilling”: humans thousands of years ago defined God and love in such ways that their shortcomings are explained.

As far as intrinsic purpose: Christianity assumes that things should function as intended. For the most part this works well if you assume creation. A tree functions “as intended.” Animals all act similarly, for the most part, and respond to the world in predictable ways. Humans have the mental complexity to be the exception to that mold. So what does Christianity do? It designates a common “purpose” for humans that all humans can aspire to in spite of their separate drives. It provides a narrative that explains free will. If humans do have free will (if that is how they are designed), then in what way are they supposed to act? In accordance to free will / however they want? In accordance with the thing that “made” them?

I think we agree, and it’s again semantics that is creating the appearance of discord.

I agree that if God exists and has woven love into our natures and into the fabric of the universe itself, because “God is love”, then:

–love is natural for human beings
and
–love is morally right (assuming that God imposes it as a moral commandment, “thou shalt love”)
and
–love is true, love is real

It still sits uneasily with me to say, “if all of the above is true, it is rational to love,” though perhaps the semantics is tripping me up.

There’s also the fact that, for a Christian, it takes no special rationality or intelligence to be good, to love, etc. Perhaps that is another reason why “it is rational to love” sits somewhat uneasily with me, except in the context of using it synonymously with “it is in your best interest to love” (which is not what I am claiming is the Christian understanding).

But, again, if by “it is rational to love” it is meant “love is real; love is true; love is eternal”, then, yes, I am in agreement

 

[John_Savage]

I happen to think that three spheres of life can bring satisfaction to most people- work, family, and spirituality. You mentioned the first two. For most people, that’s enough. Most people do not ponder the meaning of life. Some do, however, and they ask these types of questions, sometimes on philosophy forums.

If either work or family does not suffice or there’s a problem with one of the first two, some people turn to spirituality. Some people have all three going well.

The vast majority of people don’t need a motivation to live, especially if things are mostly pleasant. The spiritual/philosophical person might need more reassurance.

One thing I’ve noticed in recent movies and TV, like The Road, Walking Dead, and Falling Skies, is the mention of suicide. Suicide and Euthanasia is also on the march in the Western world. When things go badly, people need a reason to put up with unpleasantness. I think this is relevant to what I’m talking about.

Twenty five years is a long time to live a life without purpose and which seemed to have zero meaning. How did you cope?

I’ll hope that you coped quite well. You must have had a job - hopefully one that satisfied you. You must have had friends and family. Maybe you had/have a wife and children that brought you happiness. Perhaps you enjoyed travel and the arts. A decent glass of wine now and then and good food. A good book. Learning something new every day. Maybe you looked at your son one day and hugged your wife and said: Hey, we did that!

If someone had asked back then if your life had purpose and meaning, then I’m sure you would have been as puzzled by the question as I continually am now. But maybe you felt that there was something missing and that your belief now fills that void. That’s good. But not everyone has that void.

But you can trust me on this: if I thought that a belief in a deity would make me a happier man, a better husband, a better father, a better person, even if there was no happy-ever-after, then I’d be taking Pascal’s wager.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John
**
I happen to think that three spheres of life can bring satisfaction to most people- work, family, and spirituality. You mentioned the first two. For most people, that’s enough. Most people do not ponder the meaning of life. Some do, however, and they ask these types of questions, sometimes on philosophy forums.**

A good point. There is not much in the secular materialistic view of life to encourage spirituality. After all, in that view we are not much more than higher primates with no ultimate purpose to meditate upon other than that our bodies return to the dust from which they have sprung.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Well, yes…those designations are very simplistic. The envy of the 1% is simplistic The Occupy Wall Street crowd is simplistic…the hatred of Walmart is simplistic…the rush to control everyone’s soda size in New York is simplistic…the rush to legislate in knee-jerk fashion at every crisis is simplistic…the efforts to manufacture false crisis like Global Cooling inthe 70’s and Global Warming in the 90’s and Climate Change now…so as to gain raw control of world economies…is simplistic.

There are some problems with some of the liberal agendas towards tolerance even if the intents by many may be good.

Likewise, there are potential problems with a One World Government.

But somethings need recalling. The Catholic Church has historically believed in the ideals of a One World Religion and Empire (or one government).

Take the United States of America and democracy. Looking at history during the era the Spanish were a major power, we might think of Spain (or Castile) as the USA and Catholicism and democracy. And in fact Americans culturally think of themselves as the world evangelizers of democracy as the Spanish did of themselves with Catholicism. And in both cases some within the population objected to the notion their nations assumed the responsibility to convert the world.

Catholicism does not favor nationalism however (although it regards patriotism as a virtue). And it certainly does not favor national Churches like the Anglican Church. Protestantism on the other hand has been deeply tied to nationalism and national Churches. This is in part why a One World Government has often been tied in the Protestant imagination with the anti-Christ and the Papacy.

But I would submit to you that there are problems with democracy. And in the United States were democracy is under the form of a republic and the processes largely carried out by interest groups and lobbyists, problems of propaganda will occur, even with the 4th Estate the free press.

Another part of democracy that most people seem to hate, is that sizable numbers of voters and potential voters may not agree with you. What Republicans really mean by “democracy” is a one party system ruled by a few elite that spoon feeds everyone what they should know to be true. What the Democrats really mean by “democracy” is a one party system ruled by a few elite that spoon feeds everyone what they should know to be true. What we really admire is Cuba.

 

[lynnvinc]

Attention…this post is NOT about evolution! It is about Western civilization collapsing into loving thuggery.
…

Here is the secular philosophy of love–a case for morality without God…(perhaps you will recognize it):

The world evolved randomly. There is no god…no meaning or purpose…We are, therefore, utterly free to do whatever we want! But, then…that’s the first problem…we are also free to harm each other. Such a world is naturally divided between the predator and the prey…the Strong and the Weak.

Premise #1…Everyone is born free to enjoy everything we desire…but for the fact that The world is naturally divided between the Strong and the Weak…and the Strong must be CONTROLLED…or the Weak will never be free.

Premise #2…For people to fully realize their free enjoyments…the problem of the Strong must be addressed. If you are not for controlling the Strong…then YOU are part of the problem…YOU are “evil”.

Premise #3…If you see the world divided between the Strong and the Weak, and you are for CONTROLLING the Strong and helping the Weak to be free…then you are Empathetic. You are “good”.

Premise #4…The natural world is morally divided between the Strong and the Weak…the Empathetic and the Manipulative…those who seek equality in all things vs. those who speak of hierarchical inequalities

Premise #5…Those who work for herding the Weak into powerful groups to control the Strong…are doing a great service…vs…those evil people who speak of individual freedom and hierarchical concepts like religion

Premise #6…The goal of the human race is to achieve a worldwide government that imposes control over all sources of Strength and lifts up the Lowly…a government that imposes Empathy amid world peace and progress and human enjoyment. A government that will not tolerate unequal speech or hierarchical thinking…perhaps jailing or executing the religious and those who manipulate others

This sounds like total bunk, based on corrupted Enlightenment thinking.

People with those views need a basic college education, esp in the social sciences.

 

[John_Savage]

John
**
I happen to think that three spheres of life can bring satisfaction to most people- work, family, and spirituality. You mentioned the first two. For most people, that’s enough. Most people do not ponder the meaning of life. Some do, however, and they ask these types of questions, sometimes on philosophy forums.**

A good point. There is not much in the secular materialistic view of life to encourage spirituality. After all, in that view we are not much more than higher primates with no ultimate purpose to meditate upon other than that our bodies return to the dust from which they have sprung.

I’m saying that most people don’t even know to ask. My siblings are each successful in their own way, seemingly happy, and non-religious. I think they’d be better off with religion, but right now, they don’t see the need. Events may occur that would change that, but for right now, they don’t need an EXTERNAL (I forgot to write that earlier) motivator to continue living.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John

** I think they’d be better off with religion, but right now, they don’t see the need. Events may occur that would change that, but for right now, they don’t need an EXTERNAL (I forgot to write that earlier) motivator to continue living. **

Yes, John. I didn’t see the need either when I was an atheist. I now see that I needed the external motivator even when I denied there was an “external motivator” to need.

 

[lynnvinc]

Attention…this post is NOT about evolution! It is about Western civilization collapsing into loving thuggery.
…

Here is the secular philosophy of love–a case for morality without God…(perhaps you will recognize it):

The world evolved randomly. There is no god…no meaning or purpose…We are, therefore, utterly free to do whatever we want! But, then…that’s the first problem…we are also free to harm each other. Such a world is naturally divided between the predator and the prey…the Strong and the Weak.

Thankfully not everyone who accepts what the scientists say about how we got here – like JPII, BXVI, I presume Pope Francis, and myself – believe this is without meaning or purpose. What it says to me, at least, is that God is much greater than we limited humans could have ever imagined.

And both within the Catholic tradition and in modern social sciences, the theme is not “total freedom,” but more that we are emeshed in (and impacted by) society, and while we have rights (natural rights, etc), we also have duties and responsibilities. Its the Ten Commandments, not the Ten Rights or Freedoms.

Unfortunately this does not sit well with the “tea-party” and “patriot” types who are pretty much into this corrupted Enlightenment thinking.

I think as Catholics we need to be very vigilant of this “free for all (esp the strong who can better press their rights and freedom)” philosophy creeping into our Catholic thinking.

Root it out from our thinking the way Elijah rooted out Baal worship.

 

[Pugsly]

Thankfully not everyone who accepts what the scientists say about how we got here – like JPII, BXVI, I presume Pope Francis, and myself – believe this is without meaning or purpose. What it says to me, at least, is that God is much greater than we limited humans could have ever imagined.

And both within the Catholic tradition and in modern social sciences, the theme is not “total freedom,” but more that we are emeshed in (and impacted by) society, and while we have rights (natural rights, etc), we also have duties and responsibilities. Its the Ten Commandments, not the Ten Rights or Freedoms.

Unfortunately this does not sit well with the “tea-party” and “patriot” types who are pretty much into this corrupted Enlightenment thinking.

I think as Catholics we need to be very vigilant of this “free for all (esp the strong who can better press their rights and freedom)” philosophy creeping into our Catholic thinking.

Root it out from our thinking the way Elijah rooted out Baal worship.

Lynnvinc…I just want to clarify something here…I don’t believe in this pagan philosophy that is taught in many of our universities. Furthermore,…to love the ANAWIM…ie…the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger at your door is repeatedly asked by God in the Bible…but this god-free philosophy mimics concern for the weak…while it’s leaders consolidate political power.
Now…Christianity is not a fear-based, political movement. However, this worldly philosophy that I outlined…(and you seem to despise)…is actually empowered by our voting for Leftists in America and Europe.
As regards your beef with “The Tea Party”…the Tea Party that I know loves the anawim just like you do…but despises this fear-based philosophy taking total control of our lives.

 

[Pugsly]

There are some problems with some of the liberal agendas towards tolerance even if the intents by many may be good.

Likewise, there are potential problems with a One World Government.

But somethings need recalling. The Catholic Church has historically believed in the ideals of a One World Religion and Empire (or one government).

Take the United States of America and democracy. Looking at history during the era the Spanish were a major power, we might think of Spain (or Castile) as the USA and Catholicism and democracy. And in fact Americans culturally think of themselves as the world evangelizers of democracy as the Spanish did of themselves with Catholicism. And in both cases some within the population objected to the notion their nations assumed the responsibility to convert the world.

Catholicism does not favor nationalism however (although it regards patriotism as a virtue). And it certainly does not favor national Churches like the Anglican Church. Protestantism on the other hand has been deeply tied to nationalism and national Churches. This is in part why a One World Government has often been tied in the Protestant imagination with the anti-Christ and the Papacy.

But I would submit to you that there are problems with democracy. And in the United States were democracy is under the form of a republic and the processes largely carried out by interest groups and lobbyists, problems of propaganda will occur, even with the 4th Estate the free press.

Another part of democracy that most people seem to hate, is that sizable numbers of voters and potential voters may not agree with you. What Republicans really mean by “democracy” is a one party system ruled by a few elite that spoon feeds everyone what they should know to be true. What the Democrats really mean by “democracy” is a one party system ruled by a few elite that spoon feeds everyone what they should know to be true. What we really admire is Cuba.

Thank you for your well thought-out post. What i was driving at here…is how the modern secularization of Western states mimic Christianity’s concern for the Weak…while utterly rejecting Theism.

 

[lynnvinc]

Lynnvinc…I just want to clarify something here…I don’t believe in this pagan philosophy that is taught in many of our universities. Furthermore,…to love the ANAWIM…ie…the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger at your door is repeatedly asked by God in the Bible…but this god-free philosophy mimics concern for the weak…while it’s leaders consolidate political power.
Now…Christianity is not a fear-based, political movement. However, this worldly philosophy that I outlined…(and you seem to despise)…is actually empowered by our voting for Leftists in America and Europe.
As regards your beef with “The Tea Party”…the Tea Party that I know loves the anawim just like you do…but despises this fear-based philosophy taking total control of our lives.

While the “left” in America is wrong on its Enlightenment-based calling for rights – including the right to abortion; the “right” is just as wrong in its Enlightenment-based calling for rights that lead to discounting the rights of the weaker among us, and to the harming and even killing them.

A more Catholic position would focus more on our duties than our rights – our duties to help the poor, disabled, unborn, those being harmed by environmental harms, etc. Which is exactly the position of the Holy Fathers. One cannot say it is “right” or “left” in the way most people think of, but it is distinctly to the left of American “right” AND the American “left.” Its over on the side of Jesus…far from the both tea-partiers and the totalitarians. It’s a totally different world view and ethos that we seem to have left in the dust, and it’s very hard for modern people to find, whether they be religious or atheist, right or left.

RE atheism, it seems to me that Western atheists, if they have some righteous concern for the poor, etc, this they got from Christianity. The danger is, without the Church magesterium, they are sailing without a rudder.

But it seems to me they are no worse than those who pervert Christianity and God in their own image to suit their selfish ends. In fact it seems to me that many atheists became atheists BECAUSE of the fake-Christians, who say Jesus, Jesus, thumping on the Bible, but do not follow the Gospel, and even going against Christ’s teachings in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

We ARE our brothers’ keeper, and we are responsible in many ways for why people have been turned off of religion. That some maintain a modicum to compassion for the poor, etc, is a good thing, not a bad thing. We should work with that and draw them to the source of all goodness.

You can attract people better with honey than with vinegar (I think St. Teresa of Jesus said that).