"The Benefits of Belief" - Video

[pogi]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I am talking about ultimately defining morality in terms of well-being

I know. I am refuting the idea of a single, universal, objective definition and understanding of what morality is.  I am telling you that not everyone defines it that way, which I thought was obvious from my examples I gave. Extreme Muslims clearly don't see it as a moral imperative to protect my well-being.  So, again, what gives you the moral authority?

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

ETA: According to you, morality only exists in the presence of an all powerful being. Correct? 

No, that is not what I am saying.  Most atheists clearly have morals.  I don't want to explain myself all over again, but you can go back and read my argument if you want.  It is all laid out.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You’ve acted this whole debate as if tying morality to well-being was some sort of novel concept, yet I’ve never had a debate about morality that didn’t ultimately settle around this. 

I never said it was a "novel concept".  I said that it is a concept that is not universal. It is not objective. It is not absolute. It has no more moral authority than any other definition of morality that man might create out of thin air. 

Edited September 18, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Imagine a universe where every individual (human and animal) is in their own personal hell. A state of never ending misery until they die in a long drawn out way. Can I call this bad? If this isn’t bad, what is? What about the world that we live in? What if a radioactive dust started to fall that had no use, but only caused suffering for all conscious creatures, would this be bad? 

In the words of Sam Harris:

”Once we admit that the extremes of absolute misery and absolute flourishing—whatever these states amount to for each particular being in the end—are different and dependent on facts about the universe, then we have admitted that there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.”

Sam Harris doesn't even believe that humans have free-agency (the universe is in absolute control, anything else is an illusion), so how can he possibly argue for morally right or wrong choices?  It is absurd! 

How could it be morally bad for radioactive dust to fall on humans?  You see, there is no inherent morality in the universe that the universe adheres to.  The universe doesn't care.  You are apart of, not apart from the universe.  Everything else (morality) is an illusion - unless you believe in a form of creation ex-nihlo.

Edited September 18, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No. Because morality inherently pits good against bad. To be moral, one must understand both. 

I didn't know that there was an "inherent" morality in the universe.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

58 minutes ago, pogi said:

I know. I am refuting the idea of a single, universal, objective definition and understanding of what morality is.  I am telling you that not everyone defines it that way, which I thought was obvious from my examples I gave. Extreme Muslims clearly don't see it as a moral imperative to protect my well-being.  So, again, what gives you the moral authority?

Have you never read how Osama Bin Ladin justified 9/11? It was absolutely done in terms of well-being. The west had perpetuated and support attacks on Muslims around the world in their eyes. It was an act to protect the well-being of God's people. Is this twisted? Yes. About well-being? Absolutely.  If someone attempts to harm your well-being are you not allowed to defend yourself?

58 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, that is not what I am saying.  Most atheists clearly have morals.  I don't want to explain myself all over again, but you can go back and read my argument if you want.  It is all laid out.

Sorry, morality only rationally exists in the presence of an all powerful creator. 

58 minutes ago, pogi said:

I never said it was a "novel concept".  I said that it is a concept that is not universal. It is not objective. It is not absolute. It has no more moral authority than any other definition of morality that man might create out of thin air. 

Can you think of a single definition of morality that does not ultimately boil down to well-being?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

58 minutes ago, pogi said:

I didn't know that there was an "inherent" morality in the universe.

I didn't notice claiming that anywhere. Do you now deny that words have meaning? Is there a special dictionary I should be using somewhere?

[pogi]

12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you saying an organism’s drive to maximize its own well being is irrational or illogical?

I am saying that without God, there is no choice.  There is no agency.  There is no reason for anything.  Such concepts are an illusion.  The only thing that exists is the universe, there is no making sense of things.  They just are.  In a universe without God, all human behavior has a precipitating cause that we have no control over.  You cannot act independently of the forces of nature that control you. 

12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My recollection of what started my involvement in this thread was that the only rational / logical end of atheism is nihilism. 

I have slightly adjusted my argument.  My argument is only about those atheists who adopt the scientific consensus and preconception that the universe is indifferent.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Sam Harris doesn't even believe that humans have free-agency (the universe is in absolute control, anything else is an illusion), so how can he possibly argue for morally right or wrong choices?  It is absurd! 

Free will is an illusion. I agree. And it's not absurd just because you say so. Perhaps you should read his book? It's not long. There is a whole section on what morality means in the face of the illusion of freewill.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

How could it be morally bad for radioactive dust to fall on humans?  You see, there is no inherent morality in the universe that the universe adheres to.  The universe doesn't care.  You are apart of, not apart from the universe.  Everything else (morality) is an illusion - unless you believe in a form of creation ex-nihlo.

You resist even the simplest things. Is it good or bad? I didn't say morally bad. If we can't call that bad by the way, what does the word even mean? Now it would be morally wrong for me to push a button to cause this to happen. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am saying that without God, there is no choice.  There is no agency.  There is no reason for anything.  Such concepts are an illusion.  The only thing that exists is the universe, there is no making sense of things.  They just are.  In a universe without God, all human behavior has a precipitating cause that we have no control over.  You cannot act independently of the forces of nature that control you. 

And how is this different for a latter-day saint? http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Foreknowledge_of_God. This article seems to take a compatibilist view, but such a view is a cop out. God who knows us perfectly, knows what we will choose before we choose it. I fail to see any difference. If someone can know what we will do, before we do it, agency is an illusion.

 

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Have you never read how Osama Bin Ladin justified 9/11? It was absolutely done in terms of well-being. The west had perpetuated and support attacks on Muslims around the world in their eyes. It was an act to protect the well-being of God's people. Is this twisted? Yes. About well-being? Absolutely.  If someone attempts to harm your well-being are you not allowed to defend yourself?

That isn't your definition of morality though.  Your definition of morality suggests that one is morally obligated to protect the well-being of all sentient beings - that means even your enemies.  Your definition of well-being didn't have any contingencies.  Once we start questioning every detail of your definition, and what is justified under your definition and what is not, we will quickly learn that there is not one universal moral.  

So, we have the US doing what they believe to be moral, and Osama Bin Laden doing what he believes to be moral.  Clearly both groups do not share the same definition of morality if each group is shedding each other's blood with what they perceive to be moral justification.

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you think of a single definition of morality that does not ultimately boil down to well-being?

Clearly those who view sex with a sibling as immoral have a different definition of morality then you. 

One possible definition of morality, is this - Whatever God says is moral is moral. That has been used as justification for killing in the name of God (something that you would argue is immoral according to your definition). So, again, what gives you the moral authority?

[pogi]

57 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If we can't call that bad by the way, what does the word even mean? 

Now you are getting it  welcome to nihilism!

Edited September 18, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Free will is an illusion. I agree. And it's not absurd just because you say so. Perhaps you should read his book? It's not long. There is a whole section on what morality means in the face of the illusion of freewill.

Now we are getting somewhere.  Can you save me the trouble of reading his book and explain to e how moral choices (or choices of any kind, really) exists independent of free-will?  If there is no free-will, there is no accountability/culpability for immoral actions that you have no control over.  If free-will is an illusion, then morality is the same illusion.  If there is no choice, then there are no good or bad choices, there is only the universe 

Edited September 18, 2018 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Now you are getting it 

And I think this is the ultimate problem with this discussion and why I have a general disdain for philosophy. 

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And how is this different for a latter-day saint? http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Foreknowledge_of_God. This article seems to take a compatibilist view, but such a view is a cop out. God who knows us perfectly, knows what we will choose before we choose it. I fail to see any difference. If someone can know what we will do, before we do it, agency is an illusion.

Even with my limited understanding of the cosmos and human consciousness, and my limited time with my son, I can predict with almost certain accuracy that if my son says he is thirsty and I offer him water, he will drink it.  Does that take away his free-agency?

The difference is that we believe in a spiritual realm.  Without God - rather than acting independently in the spiritual realm (agency), they can only be "acted upon" by the universe in the natural realm (no agency, and thus no morality).

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And I think this is the ultimate problem with this discussion and why I have a general disdain for philosophy. 

What makes our existence "good" or "bad" independent of our illusions of self and agency?  The concepts of good and bad are all the same illusion.  We just are.  Like Pluto.  Like some floating space dust.  Like swamp scum.  Not good or bad. Things just are. Everything else is a rather egocentric/anthropocentric illusion of self-importance.  

Edited September 18, 2018 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Delete

Edited September 18, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[a_little_taller]

On 9/6/2018 at 9:12 AM, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

-Smac

Late to the game. But I like this a lot. Thank you for sharing it. It is much like Alma's invitation to "experiment upon my words" to determine the truth of them. I've used a similar argument with those who have grievances against the LDS church or who feel the teaching are silly or of no worth. If my faith is false, in the end, what have I lost? My faith has caused me to live a moral, happy life -- a blessing to me and my family in and of itself. If my faith is true, then it has eternal significance and meaning. And even if the critic lives a moral and happy life, they have missed out on additional blessings and growth offered by the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

The more someone believes and acts, the more experience with the Spirit they gain. The cumulative effect of that experience and revelation becomes a powerful anchor for when the winds of strife and opposition blow and the confusion of the world swirls all around. You know what is true. You can hang on to it with both hands, even if you can't convince others who are unwilling to gain that some experience. Knowledge that comes by faith can't be shared through words or teachings, it can only be experienced. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 9/18/2018 at 11:45 AM, pogi said:

Even with my limited understanding of the cosmos and human consciousness, and my limited time with my son, I can predict with almost certain accuracy that if my son says he is thirsty and I offer him water, he will drink it.  Does that take away his free-agency?

I just don't think you have followed this through to it's logical*  conclusion. Either God made us with a certain set of personality traits or we are coeternal with God with a certain set of personality traits. If someone can predict with 100% certainty what an individual will do in a certain set of circumstances, then yes, that person has no agency. Only the illusion of agency. Does it matter? Not really. We still do the things we want, we can change, we can learn and grow and do all sorts of things. But our agency is an illusion since all of our actions depend only on our inborn traits which God knows perfectly, and the set of events that will happen to us (which God knows perfectly). 

*Note this is a side tangent, and I use logical here to reflect your use of rational / logical at the beginning of our discussion. I only mean all the arguments I've seen to the contrary are unconvincing to me. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 9/18/2018 at 11:51 AM, pogi said:

What makes our existence "good" or "bad" independent of our illusions of self and agency?  The concepts of good and bad are all the same illusion.  We just are.  Like Pluto.  Like some floating space dust.  Like swamp scum.  Not good or bad. Things just are. Everything else is a rather egocentric/anthropocentric illusion of self-importance.  

From the universe's persepective (an athromorphism, I know) sure their is no difference. To self aware conscious beings? There is a huge difference. 

I'd like to thank you for your patience and participation in this thread. I always enjoy a challenging and good debate. After this post though I think I am done. 

In response to this: As I've already stated, by reason alone, that consciousness is the only intelligible domain of value. Is consciousness a cosmic accident? Why does that matter? Bad then can only be defined as that which increases the misery of conscious beings. Good can only be defined as that which increases the well-being of conscious beings. What makes our existence good or bad? Our experiences. We exist. Not only are we aware of our surroundings, but we are aware that we are aware. 

I've said I'm bowing out, but I am super curious of one thing. As a rational being who stated at the beginning of this thread: " Is is possible to be an atheist and find meaning and well-being...sure, but that to me just means they haven't really followed the trail to the logical end. " If I proved to you that God didn't exist, you would find your life meaningless and have zero well-being. Correct? So would you commit suicide? Would you go on a murderous rampage? What (besides the lack of worship) would realistically change for you?

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I just don't think you have followed this through to it's logical*  conclusion. Either God made us with a certain set of personality traits or we are coeternal with God with a certain set of personality traits. If someone can predict with 100% certainty what an individual will do in a certain set of circumstances, then yes, that person has no agency. Only the illusion of agency. Does it matter? Not really. We still do the things we want, we can change, we can learn and grow and do all sorts of things. But our agency is an illusion since all of our actions depend only on our inborn traits which God knows perfectly, and the set of events that will happen to us (which God knows perfectly). 

*Note this is a side tangent, and I use logical here to reflect your use of rational / logical at the beginning of our discussion. I only mean all the arguments I've seen to the contrary are unconvincing to me. 

Foreknowledge is not the same as precausation.  Foreseeing an outcome is not the same as fixing it.  If there is no precausation (predestination), then free-will is not an illusion. 

Anyway, not much can be said about God's foreknowledge.  Is it 100% certain, or is it limited?  I don't know.  The church has taken no official stance on it. 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Foreknowledge_of_God

[pogi]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From the universe's persepective (an athromorphism, I know) sure their is no difference. To self aware conscious beings? There is a huge difference. 

"Self aware conscious beings"?  What the heck is that?  I thought you agree with Sam Harris that the self and free-agency are illusions?

"Self aware" becomes an oxymoron.  Consciousness itself is an illusion.  

Your consciousness is an illusion of the universe.  It may seem like it matters to you...but it is only an illusion 

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I'd like to thank you for your patience and participation in this thread. I always enjoy a challenging and good debate. After this post though I think I am done. 

I think I'm done too.  It's run it's course.  Thanks for your patience and participation as well, its been real...I mean...it's been an illusion!

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In response to this: As I've already stated, by reason alone, that consciousness is the only intelligible domain of value. Is consciousness a cosmic accident? Why does that matter?

Personally, once I realize that something is an illusion, I stop chasing after it.  I personally will not be chasing illusions of water on the desert horizon to quench my thirst...but to each his own. 

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

We exist. 

Do we exist as conscious beings of united "self" in reality or as illusions only?  Can you really say that there is water in the illusion on the horizon?

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 I've said I'm bowing out, but I am super curious of one thing. As a rational being who stated at the beginning of this thread: " Is is possible to be an atheist and find meaning and well-being...sure, but that to me just means they haven't really followed the trail to the logical end. " If I proved to you that God didn't exist, you would find your life meaningless and have zero well-being. Correct? So would you commit suicide? Would you go on a murderous rampage? What (besides the lack of worship) would realistically change for you?

 I don't know what I would do.  Honestly, I would probably just enjoy the illusion and try not to think about the absurdity of it all (which I would encourage all atheists to do).  I would probably choose the intellectually dishonest approach and pretend like I exist, like I have choices, and like stuff matters.  I guess I wouldn't really have a choice either way (no agency), so would it really matter to anything that is not illusory? 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by pogi

[Analytics]

On ‎9‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 10:12 AM, smac97 said:

Wow:

This fits pretty much perfectly into my worldview.

Yet another reason to admire those wonderful Catholics.  Any faith that produces people like Peter Kreeft is worthy of respect.

Thoughts?

-Smac

I just saw this video. I’ll offer some thoughts, since you asked.

Dr. Kreeft makes some pretty sweeping assumptions, all with the basic pattern of, “If God exists, then the universe is a wonderful, magical, place full of adventure and happy endings. If God doesn’t exist, then everything about the universe sucks. Therefore believing in God is better.” I have two problems with this. First, his answers to the questions of what the universe is like with a God vs. without a God are based on his own narrow religious beliefs and reveal a lack of awareness of other beliefs about God and other approaches to life. For example, I can assure you that if the average Christian is right, untold millions will be wishing for eternity that the vengeful God of Christianity didn’t exist as they burn in hell. For all of eternity.

My second problem with this is that the question itself is an unabashed appeal to wishful thinking. I find this approach incredibly pessimistic.

Let me explain why. Rather than engaging in wishful thinking, some people want to know the truth about the world as it really is, regardless of what that truth is, and then confront it and deal with it. They realize they can’t know everything perfectly. But they try to understand reality as best as it can be understood. This approach to life is called enlightenment thinking. It is based upon the optimistic belief that we can not only handle the truth, but that if we know the truth we could use our ingenuity to make better decisions and make the world a genuinely better place. We don’t need to pretend God exists for there to be meaning, beauty, love, justice, adventure, and happy endings. We can make these things ourselves by taking charge of our own lives.

A philosopher might say that "believing in religion works! That statistics show that on average, religious people live happier, better lives. Therefore believe in religion." An enlightenment thinker might respond by saying there are two questions here. First, we should figure out the truth of the matter regarding God regardless. Second, we should figure out how to live happier, better lives. I am optimistic enough to believe that in the long run, the best way to live happy, good lives is to understand reality and figure out how to be happy. I am optimistic enough to believe this can be done without engaging in wishful thinking.

To understand where I'm coming from, my thoughts on this have been refined by a book I'm now finishing by Dr. Steven Pinker of Harvard University called Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Bill Gates called this book, “My new favorite book of all time.”

Edited September 20, 2018 by Analytics

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I am optimistic enough to believe that in the long run, the best way to live happy, good lives is to understand reality...

Perhaps your optimism is based in wishful thinking.  What does "reality" tell us about purpose and meaning?

This is from your "wishful thinking" link:

Quote

 

Christopher Booker described wishful thinking in terms of

"the fantasy cycle" ... a pattern that recurs in personal lives, in politics, in history – and in storytelling. When we embark on a course of action which is unconsciously driven by wishful thinking, all may seem to go well for a time, in what may be called the "dream stage". But because this make-believe can never be reconciled with reality, it leads to a "frustration stage" as things start to go wrong, prompting a more determined effort to keep the fantasy in being. As reality presses in, it leads to a "nightmare stage" as everything goes wrong, culminating in an "explosion into reality", when the fantasy finally falls apart.[5]

 

If you base your understanding of reality on the preconception that the universe is indifferent, then you must concede that no matter how long and hard you search for meaning and purpose, there is none to be discovered. That means that any meaning and purpose that we perceive as humans is just a fantasy that we create.  We become ex-nihlo creationsits of meaning and purpose. While some may sustain the "dream stage" for a life-time, those who reject creation ex-nihlo, try to reconcile these things with the scientific consensus of the reality of the universe, and it will ultimately lead, as Christopher Booker states above, to a "frustration stage", then to a "nightmare stage" until the fantasy falls apart.  It is then that you meet your new reality - nihilism.

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by pogi

[Analytics]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

Perhaps your optimism is based in wishful thinking.  What does "reality" tell us about purpose and meaning?

This is from your "wishful thinking" link:

If you base your understanding of reality on the preconception that the universe is indifferent, then you must concede that no matter how long and hard you search for meaning and purpose, there is none to be discovered. That means that any meaning and purpose that we perceive as humans is just a fantasy that we create.  We become ex-nihlo creationsits of meaning and purpose. While some may sustain the "dream stage" for a life-time, those who reject creation ex-nihlo, try to reconcile these things with the scientific consensus of the reality of the universe, and it will ultimately lead, as Christopher Booker states above, to a "frustration stage", then to a "nightmare stage" until the fantasy falls apart.  It is then that you meet your new reality - nihilism.

 

In my book, reality tells us that people are free to define for themselves the purpose and meaning of their lives.

[Gray]

48 minutes ago, pogi said:

Perhaps your optimism is based in wishful thinking.  What does "reality" tell us about purpose and meaning?

This is from your "wishful thinking" link:

If you base your understanding of reality on the preconception that the universe is indifferent, then you must concede that no matter how long and hard you search for meaning and purpose, there is none to be discovered. That means that any meaning and purpose that we perceive as humans is just a fantasy that we create.  We become ex-nihlo creationsits of meaning and purpose. While some may sustain the "dream stage" for a life-time, those who reject creation ex-nihlo, try to reconcile these things with the scientific consensus of the reality of the universe, and it will ultimately lead, as Christopher Booker states above, to a "frustration stage", then to a "nightmare stage" until the fantasy falls apart.  It is then that you meet your new reality - nihilism.

 

Nihilism is just as subjective a conclusion as any other interpretation of the meaning of life. All of this is based on the fallacy that it is somehow important that meaning and purpose be objective, and if meaning isn't objective that somehow means that meaning doesn't exist. There is always an invisible "to whom?" hovering behind the word "meaning".

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

In my book, reality tells us that people are free to define for themselves the purpose and meaning of their lives.

Reality tells you that people are free-willed?  Is the universe free-willed?  Are you apart of the universe, or apart from the universe?  Free-will can only exist if it is possible for you to exist apart from the natural laws of cause and effect.  How are you any different, in terms of cosmic cause and effect, from Pluto?  Every movement Pluto makes is dictated by precursor causes of the universe.  Any body of mass (including humans) is subject to the dictates of the indifferent universe.  Anything else is an illusion.   The universe is the cause, and the universe is the effect.  Everything you know, everything you imagine, everything you believe, everything you feel is dictated by the universe.  Everything.  You are a puppet of the universe. A grand illusion of conscious being and free-will.    Carl Sagan put it this way, "the Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be."  The cosmos are indifferent.  Anything else is irrational and illusory.

Albert Camus describes any created meaning as "fictitious" - fabricated out of thin air.  Living with meaning is living in a fiction. 

As I have said previously:

It is the rational questioning of convictions that can lead to only one possible outcome - "reason is impotent".  It is reason that leads to the ultimate conclusion that the universe is irrational and indifferent, and that I am simply a bud on the tree of the universe - no different from the universe, with no more importance, no more value, no more meaning... Any perceived subjective meaning, value, or morality is an arbitrary symptom of an indifferent universe, which is the core and cause of our nature.   It is that sense of arbitrariness that leads to nihilistic feelings. 

The only way to avoid the conclusion of an irrational existence is to avoid reason, which itself is irrational - so there is no escaping it either way. 

Quote

“Main thought! The individual himself is a fallacy. Everything which happens in us is in itself something else which we do not know. ‘The individual’ is merely a sum of conscious feelings and judgments and misconceptions, a belief, a piece of the true life system or many pieces thought together and spun together, a ‘unity’, that doesn’t hold together. We are buds on a single tree—what do we know about what can become of us from the interests of the tree! But we have a consciousness as though we would and should be everything, a phantasy of ‘I’ and all ‘not I.’ Stop feeling oneself as this phantastic ego! Learn gradually to discard the supposed individual! Discover the fallacies of the ego! Recognize  egoism asfallacy! The opposite is not to be understood as altruism! This would be love of other supposed individuals! No! Get beyond ‘myself’ and ‘yourself’!  Experience cosmically!”
― Nietzsche, Kritische Studienausgabe

Quote

"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" (Sam Harris).

Quote

“Judgments, judgments of value, concerning life, for it or against it, can, in the end, never be true: they have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of consideration only as symptoms; in themselves such judgments are stupidities. One must by all means stretch out one’s fingers and make the attempt to grasp this amazing finesse, that the value of life cannot be estimated.“
— Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by pogi