Who am I? Why am I here?

[chlotilde]

Sparetherod:

There is no real evidence that people with traits we like, like loyalty, have any higher fertility rates than others, so selection is nil at present. Not so, when we lived in small familial groups. All behavioral adaptations, even “sins” like envy, greed, or lust are designed to encourage propogation of the species. Naturally we share many behaviors with the apes…they just cant talk about them.

So any sense of “ethical” is superficial, there is no reason then to appeal to it.

Because we share many (if not most) behaviors with many animals (not just apes), I am not convinced that when we were smaller H-G groups we somehow selected for certain (superficial) behaviors that we can no longer do so because we are larger.

 

[Sparetherod]

So any sense of “ethical” is superficial, there is no reason then to appeal to it.

Because we share many (if not most) behaviors with many animals (not just apes), I am not convinced that when we were smaller H-G groups we somehow selected for certain (superficial) behaviors that we can no longer do so because we are larger.

You are right in the sense that many of our behaviors originated even before we were mammals…the drive to satisfy hunger or the realisation that you don’t eat your own young. Our “sense” of ethics is not superficial…it is deeply ingrained in us, and extends a bit to other species as well. A normal person would helplessly feel anger and disgust at watching a dog being tortured for example. These ethical drives are universal…and, hence, transcendent of us, something greater than us, if you will. We will almost helplessly follow them until for some reason, cultural or ideological, we ignore them…ie. we convince ourselves the “other” is not worth our emotional dissonance. Holocausts and Inquisitions follow.

Small groups can amplify the effects of genes much quicker with inbreeding. As it is now, try to name a behavioral or personality trait that truly bestows greater fertility. Say, sense of humor…do funny people have more kids? And if they do, how long do you think it will take to spread among 6 billion people.

 

[Sparetherod]

Because we share many (if not most) behaviors with many animals (not just apes),

Exactly. It should give you pause to assign great uniqueness to us. We are really just very smart apes who can talk. Language allows us to put abstract notions…like loyalty…into conversation, but doesn’t mean that other intelligent creatures don’t have a primitive sense of loyalty, or guilt, or affection, for example.

 

[chlotilde]

Sparetherod:

These ethical drives are universal…and, hence, transcendent of us, something greater than us, if you will.

I agree. I was responding to EntertheBrowser who felt that ethics had somehow evolved.

 

[reen12]

Hi, hurst,

quote: hurst

The fact is, we are still dealing with “issues” from the sin of Adam.

People are not much different from centuries ago, regardless of the technological advances.

It’s a point well made.

My own point is that - as Paul said - “I become all things
to all men…” It is more effective - in terms of conveying
‘truth’ - to speak to people in terms of the issues that are
dominant in our own day…and the rendering of same
in literature, philosophy, theater [the play, *Rhinosceros
by, I think, Ionesco, or No Exit by Sartre, Waiting for
*Godot…*or those “classics” The Plague and The
Stranger. ]

The “substratum” does not change - yet the “expression”
changes…if for no other reason than the analogies made
possible by technological and scientific “gains.”

[For some reason, the use of the word “concerns”
gets me laughing. It’s so *trite, at this point, I think.
I laugh, additionally, at the word “issues” - and half of
the time - when I employ same - I do so, tongue in
cheek. ]

Do you really think that Thomas would have chosen
the same “mode” of explication, in our day? I don’t.

As I said:

quote: reen12

If Aquinas were alive, today, he’d be delving into Existentialism, New Age, quantum physics, Quantum Psychology…to be better prepared to ‘defend’ the faith.

Truth does not change - agreed! - nor does human nature.

But the expression of “postions” *does *change -
and while it may be satisfying to feel that one has
adequately “addressed” an issue, it is, I think,
less satisfying, in terms of ‘results.’

You may be right, hurst, in the use of Aquinas.
For surely there will always be arenas, in which
his work will remain invaluable.
Yet I can’t help but think that there are arenas in which
reliance on the Summa is counter-productive.

Just my “take” on same.

Best wishes, and thanks for your reply,

reen12

 

[reen12]

quote: EnterTheBowser:

reen12: is your point as follows:
-There are no rational reasons to prefer theism to atheism
-There are no rational reasons to prefer atheism to theism (I’m not as sure about this one)
-Atheism is depressing
-Theism is “exciting” (whatever suitable set of words)
-Therefore you have faith that theism is true

Thanks for your reply.

The sole…and I do mean sole…basis, intellectually, for
going with theism is the complexity of the universe.
And - even there - all that could be served up is an
intelligent ‘Agent’…it would say nothing at all about a
personal deity.

quote: EnterTheBowser, inquiring *re *reen12’s position

-There are no rational reasons to prefer atheism to theism (I’m not as sure about this one

Again, the “complexity” issue gives the ‘tilt’ toward theism,
in my assessment.

quote:EnterTheBowser, inquiring *re *reen12’s position

-Atheism is depressing

I suppose ‘depressing’ might cover same, yet I would
choose the terms: sterile, hollow, empty…a “box.”

The position of the atheist -there is no deity - may reflect
the reality *…and yet, if this position
indeed reflects reality, then I hold life to be, in sum and
in total: sterile, hollow, empty…a “box.”

quote:EnterTheBowser, inquiring *re *reen12’s position

-Theism is “exciting” (whatever suitable set of words)

I find theism a pain in the neck. For if the God, spoken
of by Israel, in fact, exists, life is suddenly full of:
-I don’t “own” myself
-Another has “made” the rules
-I will, at the end of my existence, be responsible for
my actions.

---

If this ‘logical’ progression is seen as:

quote:EnterTheBowser, inquiring *re *reen12’s position

-There are no rational reasons to prefer theism to atheism
-There are no rational reasons to prefer atheism to theism (I’m not as sure about this one)
-Atheism is depressing
-Theism is “exciting” (whatever suitable set of words)
-Therefore you have faith that theism is true

[emphasis mine]

then, no, this is not my line of reasoning.

If there is no God, then my ‘hoping’ that life is not, as a result,
sterile, hollow, empty…a “box” - isn’t going to change that
reality.

However, because I hold that God exists [complexity of
creation] and…call it an ‘intuitive sense’ …that what was
claimed to have happened - at Sinai - did indeed happen, then
I experience life as richer, fuller - with a ‘meaning’…not that
I ‘give’ same - but one ‘given,’ that inheres in Deity.
I expect no one to believe aught, based on my 'intuitive
sense ’ Same can be too easily dismissed in psychogenic
terms.

The “complexity” view might get me to intelligent Agency.
It would never get me to:
“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our G-d, the Lord is One.”

I re-read the account of Moses being given the commandments.
Whether or no this represents, accurately, the sequence of
events, or depicts this event with precision…I sure don’t know.
But I read it and say: something happened, there.

And I choose to believe.

[though it would be held, by many, that God gave me
the ‘gift’ [grace] to believe.]

Hope that I’ve responded, adequately, to your post.

Best,

reen12**

 

[Sparetherod]

chlotilde:

I agree. I was responding to EntertheBrowser who felt that ethics had somehow evolved.

The emotions and motives involved in ethics HAVE evolved. Read my post again. The subject of ethics is merely the abstract conversation we have about those emotions and motives.

Rod

 

[Sparetherod]

The sole…and I do mean sole…basis, intellectually, for
going with theism is the complexity of the universe.
And - even there - all that could be served up is an
intelligent ‘Agent’

Even here, all we have is a universe with matter obeying physical laws and interacting many times in a random way…to give the appearance of complexity, or maybe even purpose. As we understand the physical laws better…the appearance of complexity and purpose wanes, and the Designer gets more and more irrelevant.

The appearance of complexity in the life in a rainforest becomes more understandable in light of evolutionary random changes acted on by natural selection. The variety seems complex to us, but was not planned by any Designer.

 

[Sparetherod]

However, because I hold that God exists [complexity of
creation] and…call it an ‘intuitive sense’ …that what was
claimed to have happened - at Sinai - did indeed happen, then
I experience life as richer, fuller - with a ‘meaning’…not that
I ‘give’ same - but one ‘given,’ that inheres in Deity.

I hold that there is a treasure buried in my backyard. Why? This gives my life meaning. My family loves to dig for it on sundays. In fact, I wouldn’t want to live in a world where there wasn’t a treasure in my backyard. Do you really want to take this belief away from me? Don’t you feel compelled to respect my beliefs?

In no other areas of human discourse would these answers be sufficient. Only religion gets a pass.

 

[john_doran]

Sparetherod:

I hold that there is a treasure buried in my backyard. Why? This gives my life meaning. My family loves to dig for it on sundays. In fact, I wouldn’t want to live in a world where there wasn’t a treasure in my backyard. Do you really want to take this belief away from me? Don’t you feel compelled to respect my beliefs?

In no other areas of human discourse would these answers be sufficient. Only religion gets a pass.

i dunno - i wouldn’t bother trying to take it away from you. you’re not hurting yourself or anyone else.

maybe there is treasure in your backyard.

 

[reen12]

quote: Sparetherod

As we understand the physical laws better…the appearance of complexity and purpose wanes, and the Designer gets more and more irrelevant.

Au contraire.

The more science uncovers, the more complex the
universe is seen to be.

Additionally, the ‘complexity’ stance - as I said - would only
serve up an intelligent Agent or Agents.
So, whether the points scored by ID proponents make
waves, or no, matters little, I think.

I must say, I’m am truely startled - that you would hold
such a view. I honestly see the atheistic stance as
wholly reasonable. But this kind of statement gives
me pause:

quote: Sparetherod

…the appearance of complexity and purpose wanes…

This statement is contradicted by the evidence yielded by
the scientific enterprise of our time.

If you wish to maintain that science can now “view” or
or “describe” this increased complexity more skillfully -
that science has yielded greater understanding that this
stunning complexity* exists* - I’d have no arguement with that.

But “…complexity…wanes” ?? I…don’t…think…so.

As I said, above:

quote: reen12
*

Au contraire.

The more science uncovers, the more complex the
universe is seen to be.

Best,

reen12
*

 

[PLP]

reen12:

I note that my observation, following, has been left, unaddressed, by those who hold the a-theistic position:
My experience is this: without a personal deity, the world is a “box.” No exit. This world may be several things: interesting, useful, even fascinating - but a “box” it remains - again, in my experience.

I see no particular expansion of freedom in a-theism, but rather a more limited view of the nature of human existence. [Still, that is solely my “take” on this.]

When I was decades younger, I thought that the existence of God was self-evident. I have come to realize -and respect - the fact that this is not the case.

I can no more “prove” there is a God than sprout wings.

I’m not what there is to address here. You’re stating your personal opinion, which simply is what it is. Personally, I really don’t have an a priori emotional opinion about either atheism or theism; I want to believe whichever is the objective truth, or at least whichever is more rational to believe. Obviously, I find atheism rationally preferable. YMMV.

As it happens, that I find atheism more rational and thus believe it causes me no emotional distress whatsoever, and it has the added bonus of leaving my Sundays free.

I don’t know what more I can say about this comment.

 

[reen12]

quote: PLP

You’re stating your personal opinion, which simply is what it is.

I realize that. And I have taken pains, thoughout my posts
on this thread, to make that plain.

Example:

quote: reen12

I expect no one to believe aught, based on my 'intuitive
sense ’ Same can be too easily dismissed in psychogenic
terms.

The “complexity” view might get me to intelligent Agency.
It would never get me to:
“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our G-d, the Lord is One.”

In fact, I do not at all find the atheistic position without
merit, logically.

Thanks for your thought, and let me say that I have
found your views [in those of your posts that I have
taken the time to read] to be the most elegantly argued -
among the hundreds that I’ve read - since joining the
forums. For what it’s worth, you have my respect -
for precision of thought. :tiphat:

reen12

 

[PLP]

BTW: The phrase “Who am I? Why am I here?” was made somewhat famous by Vice Presidential candidate Admiral James Bond Stockdale, H. Ross Perot’s running mate, in his opening debate against Al Gore (Clinton) and Dan Quayle (Bush pere) during the campaign for the 1992 Presidential election.

 

[Neithan]

PLP:

Scientific Materialism doesn’t say that it is logically impossible for there to be unperceivable entities, or entities with unperceivable properties. It says, merely, that anything unperceivable is irrelevant, if not meaningless.

Ironically, the problem with this logic is the source of it–the involvement of your own mind. Minds are ‘unperceivable entities’, but are you going to seriously posit that minds are “irrelevant, if not meaningless”!?

But again, if we say nothing more about God than, “God explains the Material Universe; god is self-explanatory”, we are saying exactly the same thing as, “The Material Universe is self-explanatory”.

I think you might be confusing Theism with Deism here. Deism renders God relatively impotent within the material universe, he is merely a first cause and nothing more.
Theism, however, attributes to God the ability to act within the material universe as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent yet wholly transcendant being. The consequences of this create profound differences from an Atheistic worldview.

On a comparative scale, saying that terrestrial life (the only life we know about) is the purpose of the universe is like saying that a spot of mold in my shower is the purpose of all of Human Civilization.

Is this a fair comparison
We aren’t talking about size here, we are talking about complexity. Human civilization did not evolve into mold; however, the initial elements present in the Big Bang eventually evolved into life, and then intelligence. Do you not see intelligent life as progress from a cloud of noxious gases?

It’s not an “accident”. It’s a consequence of natural law. Many of the fine details are, of course, accidental.

What is the source of this natural law, and how did it come into being? Is the Big Bang not a chance event (according to Materialism) and does this not create a contradiction in terms?

(Continued)

 

[Neithan]

If I define “truth” to be the simplest scientific theory, then it’s tautological. If you define “truth” to be something else, then perhaps not. But if you define “truth” in some other way, can you preserve the belief that truth should be objectively determinable, that it should be the same for everyone?

Now this question cuts to the heart of our opposing worldviews.

‘What is Truth?’

So you’re truth, you’re ultimate reference point, is the simplest scientific theory. But does this even exist? What is this Theory?
Since everything is material, and Truth is absolute: *where *is this theory? Where does it exist in its purest, perfect form? Is there a particular brain which contains the ‘absolute standard’ for this simplest scientific theory, by which all truth is measured?

Personally, my definition of truth rests in the mind of God. The old Catholic Encyclopedia defines it (emphasis mine):

*Every existing thing is true, in that it **is the expression of an idea which exists in the mind of ***God, and is, as it were, the exemplar according to which the thing has been created or fashioned.

Basically, the problem with your definition is thus: The Universe is the absolute reality for a materialist, yes? And, in a material universe, truth must necessarily correspond with reality, it must itself be a materially existing thing (i.e. a part of the physical universe) and not transcendant.
So, if the universe is absolute reality, then it must be its own absolute truth, it must itself be the ‘simplest scientific theory.’
Yet, a ‘theory’ is caused by an intelligence, right? Now if absolute reality (the Universe) is devoid of an intelligent cause (and is itself non-intelligent), then a theory can not be equal to absolute truth.

I suppose a hardcore materialist could simply answer with ‘The Universe is Truth.’ Unfortunately we still have the problem of a material truth. If the Universe is Truth, then how does one measure the truth of an abstract mathematical equation, for example? Especially considering that not all ‘true’ statements necessarily correspond with reality. For example, I could say that “Goldilocks has blond hair”, or “Dragons breathe fire” both of which express truths within their own domain, but neither of which are real.
Now comes the question ‘What is real?’ and the materialist answers ‘The Universe is Real.’ Good, but how do we measure reality? Truth. Back to square one.

The problem for the materialist is that what is *true *must of necessity also be *real, *however, this runs into a logical dead end when we try to measure the ‘reality of truth’. What is real is certainly also true, but not everything that is true is necessarily real. Truth encompasses reality and judges it, but is itself greater.
This is most vividly exemplified in the field of theoretical mathematics.

Well, science certainly doesn’t ignore intelligent causes. We can rule out intelligent causes for a specific phenomenaon rather easily, by fully explaining the phenomenon without reference to intelligence.

Can the self-conscious, free-willing human mind be fully explained without reference to an intelligent cause of it? Or do you see self-consciousness and free-will as mere illusions? Is ‘the mind’ merely an illusion? If so—how do we know that what it perceives (matter) isn’t?

Our minds are probably abstract material entities; they are specific arrangements of matter (neurons). We can certainly sense them indirectly, by sensing their effects. We should also probably have more positivistic evidence when our ability to “see” individual neurons at work improves a couple of orders of magnitude.

Sure we can observe the effect of minds, electrical activity in the brain, but we can not observe minds themselves, in their essence.
But this is all philosophical speculation, and I can just as easily counter with other philosophical speculation. You say that mind is matter, but one could say that matter is mind, that everything we see, feel, hear, taste, and smell is simply psycho-phenomena (think ‘The Matrix’) externalized into an imaginary space. Materialism and Idealism are two epistemological extremes which, when taken to logical consequences, are intellectually repulsive, although many will ‘force’ them in order to fit larger belief systems (such as Atheism or Existentialism, respectively).

 

[Sparetherod]

john doran:

i dunno - i wouldn’t bother trying to take it away from you. you’re not hurting yourself or anyone else.

maybe there is treasure in your backyard.

Ahhh, but what if the treasure instruction manual tells me not to trust anyone that doesn’t believe there is a treasure and I’m special. Logically, I wouldn’t vote for anyone who didn’t believe. And I want to post the manual in the courthouse and have the kids read it in school. And I got lots of friends who have treasures too; we should be able to do what we want.

Well, no use getting ridiculous about it…but wouldn’t you start resisting these “odd” treasure seekers?

PLP…time to get off the fence…it’s fun to debate the rationale for God or Allah. Fact is , it’s irrelevant. People believe anyway. Religious moderates, who ignore most of their holy books, do validate the 1st century philosophy in them. These books are engines of fundamentalism. Do you feel you are under any real obligation to respect these beliefs which are eroding respect for science, at the very least, and threatening our lives, at worst?

 

[Neithan]

Sparetherod:

PLP…time to get off the fence…it’s fun to debate the rationale for God or Allah. Fact is , it’s irrelevant. People believe anyway. Religious moderates, who ignore most of their holy books, do validate the 1st century philosophy in them. These books are engines of fundamentalism. Do you feel you are under any real obligation to respect these beliefs which are eroding respect for science, at the very least, and threatening our lives, at worst?

Obviously Rod, there is a difference in the motivations behind your own atheism and PLP’s. Yours seems much more emotionally driven.
What makes you think that a world without theistic religion would be a safer world? Did you forget about the Nazis and Communism already?
How can you say that theism erodes respect for science, when the modern scientific method originated amongst theists? In fact, there is an entire school of thought surrounding the assertion that it is philosophically untenable to use logic, science or ethics to defend atheism
(see Transcendental Argument).

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Neithan:

…

In fact, there is an entire school of thought surrounding the assertion that it is philosophically untenable to use logic, science or ethics to defend atheism
(see Transcendental Argument).

More specifically that things like logic, science, and ethics presuppose the existence of God (or that atheism entails either their non-necessity; it amounts to much the same thing).

There’s a significant amount of literature on the subject here.

 

[PLP]

sorry, I had to snip some of your comments to fit in the 5,000 charater limit.

Neithan:

Now this question cuts to the heart of our opposing worldviews.

‘What is Truth?’

So you’re truth, you’re ultimate reference point, is the simplest scientific theory. But does this even exist? What is this Theory?

I don’t know the simplest scientific theory. I evidence that it exists, or might exist, and no evidence that it doesn’t or cannot exist.

Since everything is material, and Truth is absolute: *where *is this theory?

I look at it a very different way: A statement is “truthful” just in the sense that it allows me to predict and explain my experience. Under scientific materialism, “truth” is a rather prosaic property of ontological statements.

Basically, the problem with your definition is thus: The Universe is the absolute reality for a materialist, yes?

The Material Universe is, indeed, the only reality. “Absolute” has a lot of connotations I don’t necessarily want to endorse. But basically, yes.

And, in a material universe, truth must necessarily correspond with reality, it must itself be a materially existing thing (i.e. a part of the physical universe) and not transcendant.

Well, a statement which is truthful is just one that predicts and explains experience. That predictivity and explanatory power is taken to be correspondence with reality. But no, truth is not transcendant. A definition of truth is logically “transcendant” (i.e. it is not deducible), but I’m no big-R Rationalist; logical transcendance is no big deal.

So, if the universe is absolute reality, then it must be its own absolute truth, it must itself be the ‘simplest scientific theory.’

Not at all. The universe is not a statement. Only statements have the property of truth.

Yet, a ‘theory’ is caused by an intelligence, right? Now if absolute reality (the Universe) is devoid of an intelligent cause (and is itself non-intelligent), then a theory can not be equal to absolute truth.

At this point, our metaphysics have diverged enough that I can’t even address this argument sensibly within my own metaphysics.

I’m going to post a thread on Metaphysical Scientific Materialism in due time; I want to address some lesser topics first; please be patient. Metaphysics is the most intractable of philosophical topics, and we’re not going to even be able to discuss all the issue in a few days.

I suppose a hardcore materialist could simply answer with ‘The Universe is Truth.’

Well, I’m a “hard-core” materialist. The universe is the universe. Statements which describe the universe can be truthful, just in that one can use those statements to account for experience.

For example, I could say that “Goldilocks has blond hair”, or “Dragons breathe fire” both of which express truths within their own domain, but neither of which are real.

Yes, the issue of abstract ontological entities is thorny indeed. Somewhere, there’s a real story (i.e. real ink on real paper with definite shapes) which describes Goldilocks. Perhaps we need nothing more than than that real story to ground ontological discussion about Goldilocks.

The problem for the materialist is that what is *true *must of necessity also be *real, *however, this runs into a logical dead end when we try to measure the ‘reality of truth’…

Self-referentiality is a problem for any logical system.

Can the self-conscious, free-willing human mind be fully explained without reference to an intelligent cause of it?

Here’s where we get to the thorny part of theistic metaphysics. If it is indeed the case that an intelligent (that is, self-conscious and free-willing) mind cannot be explained without an intelligent cause, then how do we explain God?

Just lumping everything mystical or unknown under the label “God” doesn’t seem to me to do anything but try to handwave around our ignorance. And it hides even more completely the second part of the scientists credo: “I don’t know, let’s find out.”

Or do you see self-consciousness and free-will as mere illusions? Is ‘the mind’ merely an illusion? If so—how do we know that what it perceives (matter) isn’t?

No. Not illusion. Abstract, perhaps.

Sure we can observe the effect of minds, electrical activity in the brain, but we can not observe minds themselves, in their essence.

Strictly speaking, we cannot “observe” anything but the operation of our own minds. Even the construct of ordinary reality is completely theoretical and indirect. Once you’ve swallowed enough indirection to get to rocks and trees, the tiny bit extra indirection to get to minds is no big deal.

continued