Religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until it created it.

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Re: Needing a creator, yes and no.  We have always existed in some form, that's true, but someone or something needed to organize (i.e., to create) whatever pre-existed intelligences (perhaps the undifferentiated "pool" of intelligence: light and truth) from that pre-existing state into those intelligences, and someone or something needed, in turn, to organize (i.e., to create) those pre-existing intelligences from spirits, and someone or some thing needed, in turn, to organize (i.e., to create) intelligences into souls with physical bodies ("The spirit and the body are the soul of man").  And of course, the process will continue indefinitely hereafter, as we are "re-created"  from lesser glorified beings into progressively more glorified beings.  My $0.02.  Your mileage may vary.  

Agreed, we do need a creator to exist as we are.

[pogi]

59 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Your religion and its leaders are the source of the articulation of what that god considers a problem and the same source of the solution. 

This is only a problem if our truth claims are not valid.  Otherwise, these are real problems with real solutions.

 

[canard78]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

This is only a problem if our truth claims are not valid.  Otherwise, these are real problems with real solutions.

Naturally. I don't believe the truth claims are valid. 

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

I know you obviously believe that, but your perspective on who or what god is was filtered through the ideas and perspectives of other humans (either the words of others or your own feeling).

What you credit to God (with Satan's "help") is exactly the point I'm making. Your religion and its leaders are the source of the articulation of what that god considers a problem and the same source of the solution. 

Jim is not LDS

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

Naturally. I don't believe the truth claims are valid. 

In that case, my response to your original question stated below is this - Until you can prove otherwise, I would say the proposal is just meaningless conjecture.

Quote

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

 

Edited December 14, 2016 by pogi

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, canard78 said:

I know you obviously believe that, but your perspective on who or what god is was filtered through the ideas and perspectives of other humans (either the words of others or your own feeling).

What you credit to God (with Satan's "help") is exactly the point I'm making. Your religion and its leaders are the source of the articulation of what that god considers a problem and the same source of the solution. 

Pssst! "theplains" does not believe Mormon doctrine, so your "knowledge" of what he "obviously believes" probably is suspect!  That's why it pays to pay attention to posting history hereabouts.  Just sayin'!  

P.S.: I see Cal beat me to it.  Good call!  

Edited December 14, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Gray]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

That is true, but I am not trying to say what "it is". 

I am trying to illustrate my point by comparing two different theories - that of a Godless universe and that of religion (Mormonism specifically).  I am not arguing for one or the other here, I am simply trying to show that in the theory of a Godless universe the concept of "self" and "agency" are illusions (not my words).  It may "feel" like it has "meaning", and to you it is subjectively "real", but those feelings and meaning are simply illusion - neurophysiology.  There is nothing more to it than that - so enjoy the grand illusion while you still can, but in the grand scheme of things, it is all arbitrary to the universe, which you are apart of.  You can't escape the universe, you have no more meaning than the universe which you are a part of, you have no more morality than the universe, etc.  The sun will eventually desiccate the Earth, and things will continue as they always have, void of "self" and "free-will" and "meaning". 

I think you're making the mistake in assuming that meaning must be somehow objective, or else it doesn't exist. That's not true at all. All kinds of subjective things exist and are critically important to the human race. 

 

Quote

So, my point is, to bring it all back to the OP, you can't blame religion for creating "arbitrary" morals.  Religion (God rather) is what gives a non-illusory morality and meaning to the universe.  It gives you, you.  Without God, any theoretical existence is truly arbitrary.

   

You haven't defended the idea that morality is either illusory or arbitrary, you merely keep asserting it. And furthermore, in LDS theology, the existence or nonexistence of God has no effect on any of this. God is not older than us, God did not create us, and God did not create morality. We, along with God, are byproducts of the universe. In many ways Mormon theology is fairly compatible with both atheism and pantheism. God is just as subjective a creature as we are. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Gray

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I think you're making the mistake in assuming that meaning must be somehow objective, or else it doesn't exist. That's not true at all. All kinds of subjective things exist and are critically important to the human race. 

How could subjective meaning not be arbitrary if the objective self is not real?  Subjectivity only makes sense in the context of a subject (self). When the "self" is an illusion, subjectivity is also an illusion, the sense of "critical importance" is an illusion.  None of it is "real" in a Godless universe, it just seems that way. 

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-illusion-of-the-self2

2 hours ago, Gray said:

You haven't defended the idea that morality is either illusory or arbitrary, you merely keep asserting it.

I am not asserting anything here, I am simply comparing and contrasting two different theories.  The one theory asserts (not me) that the "self" is not real and that "agency" is not real, thus making the idea of morality both illusory and arbitrary, yet seemingly important. The other theory asserts that law (revealed to us only by God) is objective and absolute which makes morality a non-illusory certainty and not arbitrary. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by pogi

[canard78]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Jim is not LDS

 

 

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Pssst! "theplains" does not believe Mormon doctrine, so your "knowledge" of what he "obviously believes" probably is suspect!  That's why it pays to pay attention to posting history hereabouts.  Just sayin'!  

P.S.: I see Cal beat me to it.  Good call!  

Thanks for letting me know. 

[Calm]

It can be hard to keep track of everyone.

[PeterPear]

On 12/12/2016 at 2:02 PM, canard78 said:

I heard something recently about religion that caught my thoughts:

An illustration of this is simply illustrated with this Book of Mormon teaching that creates both the problem and the solution in a single verse:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

Why are you asking this of others?

Are you feeling guilty of something? Guilt is not man-made. Guilt is the pain your SPIRIT experiences when you do something wrong. You can ignore the guilt and deaden your feelings to it - thus searing your conscience - and continue the sin or wrongdoing which will only add to your feelings of guilt - but it's ABSURD of you to blame guilt on religion when religion is the vehicle or message on how to remove guilt.

Christ explained this to Nicodemus:

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Christ didn't come into the world to condemn people. Neither does true religion. Christ came to warn of the consequences of doing wrong. It's people with guilt who condemn religion.

 18 ¶He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

 

[cdowis]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

We, along with God, are byproducts of the universe.

I give you my highest compliment ==

I wish I had said that.   It may give a clue to the imponderable question, "Where did we come from."

[sunstoned]

44 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

Why are you asking this of others?

Are you feeling guilty of something? Guilt is not man-made. Guilt is the pain your SPIRIT experiences when you do something wrong. You can ignore the guilt and deaden your feelings to it - thus searing your conscience - and continue the sin or wrongdoing which will only add to your feelings of guilt - but it's ABSURD of you to blame guilt on religion when religion is the vehicle or message on how to remove guilt.

Christ explained this to Nicodemus:

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Christ didn't come into the world to condemn people. Neither does true religion. Christ came to warn of the consequences of doing wrong. It's people with guilt who condemn religion.

 18 ¶He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

 

This is a good example of religion providing a solution to a problem it creates. 

[PeterPear]

15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

This is a good example of religion providing a solution to a problem it creates. 

Why do you blame religion for your guilt?

PeterPear has been banned from the thread.

[PeterPear]

7 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

This is a good example of religion providing a solution to a problem it creates. 

P.S. Now your condemning The Savior himself. Good luck with that.

[canard78]

5 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Why are you asking this of others?

Are you feeling guilty of something? Guilt is not man-made. Guilt is the pain your SPIRIT experiences when you do something wrong. You can ignore the guilt and deaden your feelings to it - thus searing your conscience - and continue the sin or wrongdoing which will only add to your feelings of guilt - but it's ABSURD of you to blame guilt on religion when religion is the vehicle or message on how to remove guilt.

Christ explained this to Nicodemus:

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Christ didn't come into the world to condemn people. Neither does true religion. Christ came to warn of the consequences of doing wrong. It's people with guilt who condemn religion.

 18 ¶He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Are you conscious of your feelings of guilt? Is it present in your mind? If so, that guilt is being processed and experienced through your mind. The only way you are even able to articulate your thoughts about guilt, is because of the mental process. 

In all of that, can you tell me, specifically, how your brain interacts with your spirit? Which neurons are firing and interacting with the spirit. Given every other part of your body is, in various ways, directly and observably linked to parts of your brain, how is your spirit connected to it?

[Gray]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

How could subjective meaning not be arbitrary if the objective self is not real?  Subjectivity only makes sense in the context of a subject (self). When the "self" is an illusion, subjectivity is also an illusion, the sense of "critical importance" is an illusion.  None of it is "real" in a Godless universe, it just seems that way. 

The idea that the self is an "illusion" is something again you seem to be assuming to be true as if it has been established as true. .It may be that many or most of the things we take for granted are illusory - who knows? That certainly doesn't mean that subjectivity doesn't exist. Or even that the self doesn't exist. "Hardness" exists even though that's something of an illusion too. Matter is mostly empty space. Subjective means based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Those things exist regardless of the "true" nature of the self. 

And again, you seem to be confusing Mormon theology with mainstream Christian theology. The Mormon universe is nearly identical to the godless universe. The only difference is the in the Mormon universe we have many super powerful, highly evolved organisms we call gods, but they are not gods in the traditional theological sense. They're like super powerful alien beings. There is no objectivity in them. 

 

17 hours ago, pogi said:

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-illusion-of-the-self2

I am not asserting anything here, I am simply comparing and contrasting two different theories.  The one theory asserts (not me) that the "self" is not real and that "agency" is not real, thus making the idea of morality both illusory and arbitrary, yet seemingly important. The other theory asserts that law (revealed to us only by God) is objective and absolute which makes morality a non-illusory certainty and not arbitrary. 

Again, you seem to misuse the word arbitrary. Again, we don't choose our moral codes out of a hat, therefore they are not arbitrary. The idea that something is "important" is inherently subjective. There can be no such thing as objective importance. Important is a subjective judgement call. Again, it's a mistake to assume that objectivity could be all that exists, even in a godless universe. 

In Mormonism, God is not objective. Morality might be objective (it also might be objective in a godless universe), but we have no access to objectivity, with or without god, so it ends up being the same thing. God doesn't reveal, even through the subjective instrument of human beings, objective morality. What we get instead are codes that are seemingly modalistic and time-bound expressions of some objective morality that always remains hidden from us. In Mormon theology, all Gods everywhere could disappear. It would have no effect on the existence of morality. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

The idea that the self is an "illusion" is something again you seem to be assuming to be true as if it has been established as true.

Modern neuroscience does indeed reinforce the ancient Buddhists views that the "self" is an illusion.  I would point out that there are zero scientific theories or evidences to suggest otherwise.  Best evidence suggests that the "self" is an illusion.  You cannot scientifically demonstrate anything to the contrary.

Quote

The sense of being an ego, an I, a thinker of thoughts in addition to the thoughts. An experiencer in addition to the experience. The sense that we all have of riding around inside our heads as a kind of a passenger in the vehicle of the body.... Now that sense of being a subject, a locus of consciousness inside the head is an illusion. It makes no neuro-anatomical sense. There’s no place in the brain for your ego to be hiding.

Everything you experience -- thoughts, moods, impulses, behavior -- all manifest themselves within the brain. They are the results of myriad neural processes...that what we perceive as self, an unchanging constant experiencer, is really an ever-changing system constructed within the brain.

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-subjectivity-of-consciousness-with-dr-sam-harris

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Again, we don't choose our moral codes out of a hat, therefore they are not arbitrary.

According to modern neuroscience, you don't "choose" anything, therefore it is arbitrary.

2 hours ago, Gray said:

In Mormonism, God is not objective.

CFR

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng

God, like us, like truth, like morality, is eternal, absolute, and objective in Mormon theology. I recognize that others here disagree, but that is the teaching of the church.

Edited December 15, 2016 by pogi

[cdowis]

15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

This is a good example of religion providing a solution to a problem it creates. 

Clearly you and I live in very different realities.  I assume that, for you, reality stops when the heart stops beating.  For me, mortality and death is merely a waystation in eternity.  Science tells us about the laws of reality in mortality, true religion is about the laws of reality in the eternity afterwards. 

Bottom line, the decisions in this life determine our condition (reality) in the next life.

Edited December 15, 2016 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

On 12/12/2016 at 1:02 PM, canard78 said:

I heard something recently about religion that caught my thoughts:

An illustration of this is simply illustrated with this Book of Mormon teaching that creates both the problem and the solution in a single verse:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

 

On 12/12/2016 at 1:02 PM, canard78 said:

I heard something recently about religion that caught my thoughts:

An illustration of this is simply illustrated with this Book of Mormon teaching that creates both the problem and the solution in a single verse:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

Argument for Atheism

[Gray]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Modern neuroscience does indeed reinforce the ancient Buddhists views that the "self" is an illusion.  I would point out that there are zero scientific theories or evidences to suggest otherwise.  Best evidence suggests that the "self" is an illusion.  You cannot scientifically demonstrate anything to the contrary.

Really, this is settled science? I suspect you're overstating your case. I'm not even disagreeing with the idea that free will and the self may be illusory. Maybe they are. It has no relevance to the discussion at hand. 

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

According to modern neuroscience, you don't "choose" anything, therefore it is arbitrary.

Does not follow. You don't seem to understand what arbitrary means. The question of free will is irrelevant. Natural selection doesn't have free will, but it's not an arbitrary process. 

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

CFR

 

God, like us, like truth, like morality, is eternal, absolute, and objective in Mormon theology. I recognize that others here disagree, but that is the teaching of the church.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93.29?lang=eng

 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

Okay, so we were with God in the beginning. That means God didn't create us. God is a person of flesh and bones. If he's a person, he's not objective. The god of mainstream Christianity, the prime mover who is beyond time and space and natural law, is objective. That's not the Mormon God. The Mormon God is a product of the universe, and administrator and an organizer who has to follow natural and moral laws that He did not create. He is moved with compassion and emotion. Therefore God is not objective. If you want an objective God you need a God who is not a person. 

That's the foundation of Mormon theology. You can always find examples of creeping Evangelical theology in conference talks. Perhaps in 50 years we'll be worshiping the great objective Prime Mover, but for now, God in Mormonism is a homo sapiens father figure with a physical body and an origin story.

Zeus was not an objective kind of God. Neither was Neptune. God in Mormonism is bigger than those type of Gods, but of the same general species. That is to say, a human being projected large against the sky. The Mormon God is not the God of Aquinas. 

[pogi]

19 hours ago, Gray said:

Really, this is settled science? I suspect you're overstating your case. I'm not even disagreeing with the idea that free will and the self may be illusory. Maybe they are. It has no relevance to the discussion at hand. 

I never said it was "settled", I said it was "best evidence".  As it stands in science, the idea of "self" is a metaphysical idea not dissimilar to the idea of a "spirit".  Until science can objectively show that such a thing exists, it is a myth or metaphysical musing.  So, until some better evidence comes around, that is what we have to work with.

19 hours ago, Gray said:

You don't seem to understand what arbitrary means. The question of free will is irrelevant.

You don't seem to understand that words have various meanings, uses, and definitions.  Context is important!  If neuroscientists are right that there is no "self" and no "agency" (and we have absolutely no scientific reason to believe otherwise), then existential nihilism makes a lot of sense - the idea that "all aspects of human life and experience are arbitrary."  In philosophy, any actions which lack a goal or "telos" are arbitrary by definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrariness

19 hours ago, Gray said:

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

Apparently we are using different uses of the word "objective" as well, because this verse explicitly attests to the objectivity of God - that he is not "created" but is an eternal being independent of our subjective musings.

Quote

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

This is what Mormonism teaches about God - that he is real and true regardless of what you believe.

Edited December 16, 2016 by pogi

[Gray]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

I never said it was "settled", I said it was "best evidence".  As it stands in science, the idea of "self" is a metaphysical idea not dissimilar to the idea of a "spirit".  Until science can objectively show that such a thing exists, it is a myth or metaphysical musing.  So, until some better evidence comes around, that is what we have to work with.

I think the word you're looking for is "tentative". And like I said, irrelevant regardless. 

 

17 hours ago, pogi said:

You don't seem to understand that words have various meanings, uses, and definitions.  You need to pay attention to the context in which I am using the term "arbitrary".  If neuroscientists are right that there is no "self" and no "agency" (and we have absolutely no scientific reason to believe otherwise), then existential nihilism makes a lot of sense - the idea that "all aspects of human life and experience are arbitrary."  In philosophy, any actions which lack a goal or "telos" are arbitrary by definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrariness

Did you read your wiki link?

"Arbitrariness is the quality of being "determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle".[1]"

None of that applies to morality, even absent an objective deity. Morality is based on necessity, reason and principles. 

 

17 hours ago, pogi said:

Apparently we are using different uses of the word "objective" as well, because this verse explicitly attests to the objectivity of God - that he is not "created" but is an eternal being independent of our subjective musings.

That doesn't follow, but if you're right, we're just as "objective" as God because we weren't created either. In which case we can call human-derived systems of morality "objective"

 

17 hours ago, pogi said:

This is what Mormonism teaches about God - that he is real and true regardless of what you believe.

You're conflating the objective existence of God with the objectivity of God. It's an objective fact that I exist in reality, even if you don't believe that I exist. That doesn't make my perspective objective. 

[carbon dioxide]

On 12/12/2016 at 2:02 PM, canard78 said:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

Perhaps it did not create the problem.  Perhaps it explains the problem that does exist but is not fully realized until one dies when it becomes too late to do anything about it. 

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

I think the word you're looking for is "tentative". And like I said, irrelevant regardless. 

I have no problem using that language, but I have to say that until it can be measured, it is as "tentative" as the spirit or Bigfoot - it is not scientific, period.  I don't see how this is not relevant.  If the self and agency are not real, this has huge implications. 

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Did you read your wiki link?

Did you read more than the first line? Again, you are taking one meaning and use of the word and insisting that it is the only meaning and use. From the link of which I quoted in my last comment:

Quote

Arbitrary actions are closely related to teleology, the study of purpose. Actions lacking a telos, a goal, are necessarily arbitrary. 

Existential nihilism makes sense in the absence of "self" and "agency".  Note how this sentence (from the link) uses the word "arbitrary" in the same way that I have used it throughout this thread.

Quote

Because the universe and all of its constituents contain no higher goal for us to make subgoals from, all aspects of human life and experiences are completely arbitrary. 

 

4 hours ago, Gray said:

That doesn't follow, but if you're right, we're just as "objective" as God because we weren't created either. In which case we can call human-derived systems of morality "objective"

You're conflating the objective existence of God with the objectivity of God. It's an objective fact that I exist in reality, even if you don't believe that I exist. That doesn't make my perspective objective. 

Using the definition of "objectivity" which I quoted in my last post, the objective existence of God and the objectivity of God can be synonymous in how they are used in a sentence.   So I think we are speaking past each other on this subject.  I was talking about his objective existence, and I now see that you were talking about his objective perspective.  Either way, I would not say that it is Mormon doctrine that his perspective is not objective.  We don't know all the qualities of Godhood and it may include an objective perspective which comes with his qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.  We don't really know the implications of that, but it could include an objective perspective.  Who knows?

Edited December 16, 2016 by pogi