"The Benefits of Belief" - Video

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Yo keep going off on tangents not really pertinent to the actual points that I have attempted to make. Do yo even know what they are?

My understanding of your point is that we currently have access to God’s objective morality. 

Edited September 13, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think that science is leaving you behind:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/amp/320112

Its possible to look at peoples brains and people who are depressed and anxious have brains that look different. I guess I’m coming at this from the standpoint that a persons well being is linked to their brain state in a real physical way. I’m also coming at this from the standpoint that my actions can have real impacts on the real objective brain states of others. 

Is this where the disconnect is happening? Do you disagree with this?

ETA: Human well being depends entirely on events in the world and on the states of the human brain. Both of these are objectively observable to some degree and become more and more so as we get better at science. 

None of that matters.is pertinent to the discussion you are having with Pogi. He asked a question that I did not see you answer. Before there was any kind of life in the universe, did morality exist? I am interested in you belief on this.

Glenn

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

None of that matters.is pertinent to the discussion you are having with Pogi. He asked a question that I did not see you answer. Before there was any kind of life in the universe, did morality exist? I am interested in you belief on this.

Glenn

That’s not the conversation that I’m having with Pogi. My conversation with centers him around whether we can define good in an objective way without God. The answer is yes. Good can and is defined as that which promotes well being - something that is objective and definable. 

As to your question: No morality did not exist before life. How is this pertinent to the discussion though? 

Edited September 13, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My understanding of your point is that we currently have access to God’s objective morality. 

You have completely missed it. I attempted to make two points. (1) Assuming that there is no God, never has been, never will be, all morality will be subjective, i.e. creations of human beings. (2) Assuming that there is a God, an omniscient, all knowing, and all wise God,  there will also exist an objective morality that exists independent of mankind. How well or just how information on that objective is transmitted to humans is a debate for another thread. I was making those points in relation to the overall topic of this thread, i.e. the Benefits of Belief.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That’s not the conversation that I’m having with Pogi. My conversation with centers him around whether we can define good in an objective way without God. The answer is yes. Good can and is defined as that which promotes well being - something that is objective and definable. 

As to your question: No morality did not exist before life. How is this pertinent to the discussion though? 

Your last question first. Since morality did not exist before life, and I would contend, sentient, conscious life, then morality would be entirely a construct invented by man.

Now you have said that you can define good in an objective way without God, then you gave your definition of good "as that which supports well-being."  That is still a subjective idea. And you will get many different ideas on what "well being means." There are people who do not believe old people should vote. Amd then there are Godless societies which are now beginning to abandon the elderly because they are no longer useful and are a burden for their children, such as in China. Or North Korea where "well being" defined as how helps the state. You will disagree with those ideas, but you have no higher moral authority in a universe that came into existence without a God than Pol Pot or Kim Jong-un. In such a universe, the only way that you could have your ideas become the higher authority would be to convince a majority of people in the world that your ideas are the best and the basis for morality (good lick with that) or obtain enough clout to enforce your ideas of morality on everyone else in your particular society, until someone else bigger and stronger came along.

Of course you may believe that you have a higher moral authority because you just know that your ideas are the right ones and everyone that disagrees with you are wrong, but there will be those who have the same opinions about your ideas. What moral tribunal can you appeal to in order to have your ideas of morality declared to be objective and the way things should be? Why to other like minded people who can the observe how wicked the Pol Pot's, Hitlers,  and Kim Jong-uns of the world are and declare some type of meaningless  moral victory and superiority because in the end your fate will be the same fate as all of them, no better nor no worse, in a universe without God.

Glenn

 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/11/2018 at 5:59 PM, 6EQUJ5 said:

Pragmatism is completely incompatible with the Gospel.  The Gospel is about truth.  Historical, spiritual, truth.  Pragmatism is smoke and mirrors.

I see.

So Alma 32, James 1, section 93 and Moroni 10 are all false smoke and mirrors?

Truth is what is sweet, messages from an invisible God, and truth exists in "spheres" all these statements are smoke and mirrors, and all visions etc are as well.

Well I guess atheism is the only way out.

Thanks for your help!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

You have completely missed it. I attempted to make two points. (1) Assuming that there is no God, never has been, never will be, all morality will be subjective, i.e. creations of human beings. (2) Assuming that there is a God, an omniscient, all knowing, and all wise God,  there will also exist an objective morality that exists independent of mankind. How well or just how information on that objective is transmitted to humans is a debate for another thread. I was making those points in relation to the overall topic of this thread, i.e. the Benefits of Belief.

Yes we went down that road. Your morality is just as subjective as everyone else's because you don't have access to God's Objective Morality. No one does. So maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. Here in the world that is, we have to figure things out on our own. You disagreed with this and stated that we do have access. I was merely providing real world examples that show we actually do not - I would think this is beyond dispute.

 

Quote

Your last question first. Since morality did not exist before life, and I would contend, sentient, conscious life, then morality would be entirely a construct invented by man.

Now you have said that you can define good in an objective way without God, then you gave your definition of good "as that which supports well-being."  That is still a subjective idea. And you will get many different ideas on what "well being means." There are people who do not believe old people should vote. Amd then there are Godless societies which are now beginning to abandon the elderly because they are no longer useful and are a burden for their children, such as in China. Or North Korea where "well being" defined as how helps the state. You will disagree with those ideas, but you have no higher moral authority in a universe that came into existence without a God than Pol Pot or Kim Jong-un. In such a universe, the only way that you could have your ideas become the higher authority would be to convince a majority of people in the world that your ideas are the best and the basis for morality (good lick with that) or obtain enough clout to enforce your ideas of morality on everyone else in your particular society, until someone else bigger and stronger came along.

Of course you may believe that you have a higher moral authority because you just know that your ideas are the right ones and everyone that disagrees with you are wrong, but there will be those who have the same opinions about your ideas. What moral tribunal can you appeal to in order to have your ideas of morality declared to be objective and the way things should be?

 

 

I think we are maybe talking about two different things. People are capable of horrible things. People like Hitler, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-un. The universe doesn't care. There is not going to be a cosmic day of reckoning. I agree with all of these things. Just like Hitler wouldn't care that his ideas offend your morality, he wouldn't care that his ideas offend my morality.

Let me try again. Humans exist as conscious creatures. Humans have various states of well-being. The well-being of humans depends entirely on events in the world and on states of the human brain. Good only makes sense to me to be defined as that which supports well being. Moral actions then are those which promote well-being. It is perfectly rationally and logical as an atheist to choose to live in a moral society.

This idea of morality exactly parallels your morality. For you God's Objective Morality exists. For me there exists a set of actions that if taken will maximize humankind's well being. Neither of us have access to this objective standard of morality. We are trying to get there, but we are not there. 

You ask "What moral tribunal can you appeal to in order to have your ideas of morality declared to be objective and the way things should be?" I can only appeal to logic, reason and science when it comes to human well-being. Will there be disagreements? Sure. Lets look at your side of this issue. Where is God? The God who created us and has an Objective Standard of Morality, where is his earthly tribunal? Why don't Christians agree on what that Morality is? 

Quote

Why to other like minded people who can the observe how wicked the Pol Pot's, Hitlers,  and Kim Jong-uns of the world are and declare some type of meaningless  moral victory and superiority because in the end your fate will be the same fate as all of them, no better nor no worse, in a universe without God.

Glenn

 

 

Yes in the end we are all dead, but my life is not meaningless. And defeating people like Pol Pot and Hitler is not meaningless to the millions of people that they torment. I am always perplexed by the idea that life is meaningless without God or an afterlife. If I proved to you that God didn't exist, what would change for you? Would your life become meaningless? If so, would you go commit suicide? Would you kill your family? Why or why not?

 

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[pogi]

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When I feed my dog treats he wags his tail and is perky. When he is separated from his family he is anxious. He is excited when we return. I’ve seen video of abused animals and they act depressed. These are all observations I make as a third party. They can be observed by anyone. They are repeatable. Are you saying that my dog’s state of well being is not accessible to me - a third person observer? This is your argument? That my own state of well being is not accessible to a third party? Do you ever go home to your wife and notice that she isn’t well? Even before she speaks to you? How is that possible that you a third party observer can see this? 

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think that science is leaving you behind:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/amp/320112

Its possible to look at peoples brains and people who are depressed and anxious have brains that look different. I guess I’m coming at this from the standpoint that a persons well being is linked to their brain state in a real physical way. I’m also coming at this from the standpoint that my actions can have real impacts on the real objective brain states of others. 

Is this where the disconnect is happening? Do you disagree with this?

ETA: Human well being depends entirely on events in the world and on the states of the human brain. Both of these are objectively observable to some degree and become more and more so as we get better at science. 

As a hospice nurse I saw terminally ill patients who, despite their horrible condition by all medical measures, reported a state of well-being.  As a home-health nurse, I saw many relatively healthy individuals with no objective signs or measures of suffering, report uncontrollable pain or inexplicable nausea. Have you never been surprised to learn that a close friend/relative was suffering in ways that was not perceivable to you before they opened-up to you?    Well-being cannot be objectively measured.  It is a state of consciousness that can only be reported in the first person.  No matter how tightly we may be able to correlate changes in physiology and anatomy of the brain with changes in reported well-being, we can never throw out the first person experience and pretend to know what they are experiencing. 

Two people can respond to the exact same stimulus in many different ways.  One person might find that a particular stimulus enhances well-being, while another might find that it distracts from well-being.  Some people are known to find pleasure in pain for example.  Some people find heightened well-being at parties and always want lots of people around them, others find well-being in more solitude.  Some people can live perfectly content on $100/year living in a bamboo hut and a dirt floor, while others would rather kill themselves then live in those conditions.  Well-being is relative and subjective.  There is no objective measure.  

Another example from the story of Corrie ten Boom:

Quote

Ten Boom was initially held in solitary confinement. After three months, she was taken to her first hearing. On trial, ten Boom spoke about her work with the mentally disabled; the Nazi lieutenant scoffed, as the Nazis had been killing mentally disabled individuals for years based on their eugenics ideologies. Ten Boom defended her work, saying that in the eyes of God, a mentally disabled person might be more valuable "than a watchmaker. Or a lieutenant.

Using objective measures, the Nazi's determined that the mentally disabled were of no value and harmed the well-being of the rest of society.  How could a severely disabled person possibly live in a state of well-being?  How could you even know if they can't speak? It is a condition that most healthy people would describe as undesirable and would they would not wish it upon anybody.  So, were the Nazi's right?  Or, was Ten Boom right? The answer is, whoever wins the war, whoever is stronger and has more influence on society is right in the end, because it is all subjective and the strongest person has the final say. 

Also, most people would consider solitary isolation in a Nazi consentration camp as not being conducive to well-being, yet Corrie Ten Boom was able to choose well-being despite "events in the world" that were inflicted upon her. Most people would look at her from the outside and say that she could not possibly be in a state of well-being, yet Corrie Ten Boom insisted that “Happiness isn't something that depends on our surroundings...It's something we make inside ourselves.”  It is absolutely subjective as others suffered terribly in the same conditions. 

Since you brought up Sam Harris, I will use him again (He always reminds me of Ben Stiller )   He explains the subjectivity of consciousness and well-being despite what objective measures can tell us.  He explains it better than I do:

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yes we went down that road. Your morality is just as subjective as everyone else's because you don't have access to God's Objective Morality. No one does. So maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. Here in the world that is, we have to figure things out on our own. You disagreed with this and stated that we do have access. I was merely providing real world examples that show we actually do not - I would think this is beyond dispute.

 

 

 

I think we are maybe talking about two different things. People are capable of horrible things. People like Hitler, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-un. The universe doesn't care. There is not going to be a cosmic day of reckoning. I agree with all of these things. Just like Hitler wouldn't care that his ideas offend your morality, he wouldn't care that his ideas offend my morality.

Let me try again. Humans exist as conscious creatures. Humans have various states of well-being. The well-being of humans depends entirely on events in the world and on states of the human brain. Good only makes sense to me to be defined as that which supports well being. Moral actions then are those which promote well-being. It is perfectly rationally and logical as an atheist to choose to live in a moral society.

This idea of morality exactly parallels your morality. For you God's Objective Morality exists. For me there exists a set of actions that if taken will maximize humankind's well being. Neither of us have access to this objective standard of morality. We are trying to get there, but we are not there. 

You ask "What moral tribunal can you appeal to in order to have your ideas of morality declared to be objective and the way things should be?" I can only appeal to logic, reason and science when it comes to human well-being. Will there be disagreements? Sure. Lets look at your side of this issue. Where is God? The God who created us and has an Objective Standard of Morality, where is his earthly tribunal? Why don't Christians agree on what that Morality is? 

Yes in the end we are all dead, but my life is not meaningless. And defeating people like Pol Pot and Hitler is not meaningless to the millions of people that they torment. I am always perplexed by the idea that life is meaningless without God or an afterlife. If I proved to you that God didn't exist, what would change for you? Would your life become meaningless? If so, would you go commit suicide? Would you kill your family? Why or why not?

 

 

One might find it strange that what Christans claim is objective morality, which could not exist without God just happen to be the same principles that provide peace and a comfortable life in all cultures, allowing them to make more happy and healthy babies, and which makes  "civilization" possible.

In other words these principles have "survival value", and one could argue that they "evolved".  Some of the most "moral" and " civilized " cultures have no concept of a personal God at all. (China, Japan, etc.)

Again Alma 32 explains it both ways, and resolves the apparent conflict.

Beliefs which become sweet and provide peace and calm, could be the result of evolution or of following a merciful God.

Cultures which are considered evil and you mentioned a few do not survive.

Civilization cannot allow for warlike Neighbors, war is raged, and eventually so far civilization has won. We see that process happening right now with the wars against terrorism and totalitarianism. Civilization unites to condemn their War like neighbors and bring about peace.

Again it is Alma 32. Cultures which produce bad fruit will not survive.

Again we are left with our own personal ways of explaining the origins of these principles which we know work. Whether they occurred because of God or because of evolution is something that each of us needs make their own decision based on either their belief in science or in God.

Ultimately there is no difference in results. Six of one half dozen of the other. Both explain peace and calm and the benefits of belief.

And so the bottom line is that all we have our beliefs and their benefits.

That is about as objective as you can get. Family Values lead to peace. Civilization has proven it again and again. It is an objective fact.

For some odd reason people prefer to sit on the couch and watch TV having fun with the kids to being shot in the street for being Politically Incorrect..

As always though we have to accept some paradigms on faith, and whether or not God made us that way or we evolved that way is one of those.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, pogi said:

As a hospice nurse I saw terminally ill patients who, despite their horrible condition by all medical measures, reported a state of well-being.  As a home-health nurse, I saw many relatively healthy individuals with no objective signs or measures of suffering, report uncontrollable pain or inexplicable nausea. Have you never been surprised to learn that a close friend/relative was suffering in ways that was not perceivable to you before they opened-up to you?    Well-being cannot be objectively measured.  It is a state of consciousness that can only be reported in the first person.  No matter how tightly we may be able to correlate changes in physiology and anatomy of the brain with changes in reported well-being, we can never throw out the first person experience and pretend to know what they are experiencing. 

Two people can respond to the exact same stimulus in many different ways.  One person might find that a particular stimulus enhances well-being, while another might find that it distracts from well-being.  Some people are known to find pleasure in pain for example.  Some people find heightened well-being at parties and always want lots of people around them, others find well-being in more solitude.  Some people can live perfectly content on $100/year living in a bamboo hut and a dirt floor, while others would rather kill themselves then live in those conditions.  Well-being is relative and subjective.  There is no objective measure.  

Another example from the story of Corrie ten Boom:

Using objective measures, the Nazi's determined that the mentally disabled were of no value and harmed the well-being of the rest of society.  How could a severely disabled person possibly live in a state of well-being?  How could you even know if they can't speak? It is a condition that most healthy people would describe as undesirable and would they would not wish it upon anybody.  So, were the Nazi's right?  Or, was Ten Boom right? The answer is, whoever wins the war, whoever is stronger and has more influence on society is right in the end, because it is all subjective and the strongest person has the final say. 

Also, most people would consider solitary isolation in a Nazi consentration camp as not being conducive to well-being, yet Corrie Ten Boom was able to choose well-being despite "events in the world" that were inflicted upon her. Most people would look at her from the outside and say that she could not possibly be in a state of well-being, yet Corrie Ten Boom insisted that “Happiness isn't something that depends on our surroundings...It's something we make inside ourselves.”  It is absolutely subjective as others suffered terribly in the same conditions. 

Since you brought up Sam Harris, I will use him again (He always reminds me of Ben Stiller )   He explains the subjectivity of consciousness and well-being despite what objective measures can tell us.  He explains it better than I do:

 

Yep.

Precisely nails it.  Or should I say Nagels it. (Philosophy joke )

But to me what he is showing is that the self is not an illusion. I don't know how it got that title. He actually says that the experience of the self is a real experience. So how can it be an illusion?

Probably it's a semantic problem.

Edited September 13, 2018 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

But to me what he is showing is that the self is not an illusion. I don't know how it got that title. He actually says that the experience of the self is a real experience. So how can it be an illusion?

Probably it's a semantic problem.

Ya, I think it is semantics.  He argues here and in his books that the self is indeed an illusion, along with free-will.  It is a pretty compelling argument when you take God out of the picture.

I think his argument is that the experience is real, but that doesn’t necessarily make the real experience of an illusion any less an illusion.   Like a mirage of water on a desert horizon.  Real experience, but what we think we see/experience (water, or the self/free-will in this case) is just an illusion.  That’s how I interpret him anyway.  

He sees consciousness/self/free-will as illusions created by neurochemical reactions set in process by the indifferent universe/cosmos that we don’t understand and have no control over. 

Remove God from the picture, and I don’t see how he could be wrong.

Edited September 13, 2018 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

As a hospice nurse I saw terminally ill patients who, despite their horrible condition by all medical measures, reported a state of well-being.  As a home-health nurse, I saw many relatively healthy individuals with no objective signs or measures of suffering, report uncontrollable pain or inexplicable nausea. Have you never been surprised to learn that a close friend/relative was suffering in ways that was not perceivable to you before they opened-up to you?Yes!    Well-being cannot be objectively measured.  It is a state of consciousness that can only be reported in the first person.  No matter how tightly we may be able to correlate changes in physiology and anatomy of the brain with changes in reported well-being, we can never throw out the first person experience and pretend to know what they are experiencing. 

Two people can respond to the exact same stimulus in many different ways.  One person might find that a particular stimulus enhances well-being, while another might find that it distracts from well-being.  Agreed. Some people are known to find pleasure in pain for example. So? Some people find heightened well-being at parties and always want lots of people around them, others find well-being in more solitude.  Indeed Some people can live perfectly content on $100/year living in a bamboo hut and a dirt floor, while others would rather kill themselves then live in those conditions.  Well-being is relative and subjective.  There is no objective measure.  

Okay, So I'm not sure where we are disagreeing here. You seem to take as a given that there is such a thing as well-being? It is a real thing that people experience? That it can be impacted by events in the real world? I'm not seeing any disagreement. Yes it is hard to measure. Some of it is currently completely subjective. Some of it is relative just like health. A healthy person in his 50's that lived in Roman times would look very unhealthy to us now, no doubt. People are born with different preferences etc. As we learn more and more about the brain it becomes less. I notice you completely ignore things that are objectively observable. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Another example from the story of Corrie ten Boom:

Using objective measures, the Nazi's determined that the mentally disabled were of no value and harmed the well-being of the rest of society.  How could a severely disabled person possibly live in a state of well-being?

It seems that part of the problem is that you think we can fix all the problems. We can't. The universe is callous and creates suffering. The question is from a moral standpoint, how do we increase well being. If we increase it, then we are moral. If we decrease it we are immoral. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

  How could you even know if they can't speak?

We can't know for certain with our current understanding, but we can understand many things. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It is a condition that most healthy people would describe as undesirable and would they would not wish it upon anybody.  So, were the Nazi's right?  Or, was Ten Boom right? The answer is, whoever wins the war, whoever is stronger and has more influence on society is right in the end, because it is all subjective and the strongest person has the final say. 

I'm really confused here. Are you saying that your current well being depends some historical trivia? 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Also, most people would consider solitary isolation in a Nazi consentration camp as not being conducive to well-being, yet Corrie Ten Boom was able to choose well-being despite "events in the world" that were inflicted upon her. Most people would look at her from the outside and say that she could not possibly be in a state of well-being, yet Corrie Ten Boom insisted that “Happiness isn't something that depends on our surroundings...It's something we make inside ourselves.”  It is absolutely subjective as others suffered terribly in the same conditions. 

Since you brought up Sam Harris, I will use him again (He always reminds me of Ben Stiller )   He explains the subjectivity of consciousness and well-being despite what objective measures can tell us.  He explains it better than I do:

 

Yes consciousness is subjective. No where in the video did he say that well-being is subjective.

Let's step back. I think we are in agreement that well being exists? If you disagree, you spent a lot of space talking about the well being of Corrie Ten Boom and others. 

Here is the chain of logic one more time. Please tell me where it breaks down for you:

Humans exist as conscious creatures. Humans have various states of well-being. The well-being of humans depends entirely on events in the world and on states of the human brain. Good only makes sense to me to be defined as that which supports well being. Moral actions then are those which promote well-being. It is perfectly rationally and logical as an atheist to choose to live in a moral society.

Is someone's well being hard to determine? Yes! I don't dispute that. That doesn't change the fact that their well being exists, that it depends entirely on events in the world and on states of the human brain. Are there some parts of individuals well being that are currently totally subjective? Yes! Are there parts of individuals well being that are not? Yes! Does the fact that well-being is hard to define mean that we can't take actions to try and maximize it? I hope not.

This pathway is no less problematic for a theist. I can quote all day long lists of evil done in the name of God. Who are you to dispute it if it was done in God's name? How do you know what God's Objective Morality is? Why does God sometimes say "Utterly Destroy" and at others "Do not Kill." I can go on and on. The objective frame of reference (God says so vs. Maximized Human Well-being) doesn't stop the implementation from being subjective in many areas and very messy.

I listened to Church General Authorities on NPR talking about their opposition to the current ballet initiative for medical Marijuana. In arguing against the proposition, not once did they invoke the name of God. Not once did they say "Thus Saith the Lord." What they did do was talk about the well being of children, the safety of drivers, the benefits to the well being of society. Why is that do you think?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Okay, So I'm not sure where we are disagreeing here. You seem to take as a given that there is such a thing as well-being? It is a real thing that people experience? That it can be impacted by events in the real world? I'm not seeing any disagreement.

It is not a "thing", it is a state of being which entails many subjective factors.  It is a state of consciousness.  No one can tell you what well-being means for you.  It is not objective.  No one can tell you that pain is not a state of well-being.  No one can tell you that dying is not a state of well-being.  No one can tell you that eating cookies is a state of well-being.  There is no objective measure of well-being. 

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I'm really confused here. Are you saying that your current well being depends some historical trivia? 

No, I am saying that well-being is subjective and in many ways is culturally defined.  The strongest cultre usually gets to define it.  If the Nazi's won the war, well-being would have been defined as a world without disabled people. 

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yes consciousness is subjective. No where in the video did he say that well-being is subjective.

Well-being is a state of consciousness.  Unless you have heard of a rock reporting a state of well-being.  It can only be experienced, related, and defined in the first person.  

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Humans exist as conscious creatures. Humans have various states of well-being. The well-being of humans depends entirely on events in the world and on states of the human brain. Good only makes sense to me to be defined as that which supports well being. Moral actions then are those which promote well-being. It is perfectly rationally and logical as an atheist to choose to live in a moral society.

1) Humans exist as conscious creatures - OK

2) Humans have various states of well-being  - Agreed, it is entirely subjective and fluid.  It is not an objective thing that can be measured and agreed upon by all, and which exists independent of consciousness. 

3) The well-being of humans depends entirely on events in the world and on states of the human brain - I disagree.  Well-being is not something that happens to you, it is something you choose regardless of your circumstances.  Even the terminally ill can report being in a state of well-being, so it has nothing to do with health if you don't want it to.

4) Good only makes sense to me to be defined as that which supports well being - "to me" is the key part there.  Other's see it as good to kill people with disabilities.

5) Moral actions then are those which promote well-being. - Since "well-being" is subjective, and since "good" is subjective, so is morality, as proven by the Nazi's.

6)  It is perfectly rationally and logical as an atheist to choose to live in a moral society. - I agree, based on subjective and emotional presuppositions.  Once you address those presuppositions, ration and logic leave the room and subjective emotion enters. 

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

1) Humans exist as conscious creatures - OK

Perfect

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

2) Humans have various states of well-being  - Agreed, it is entirely subjective and fluid.  It is not an objective thing that can be measured and agreed upon by all, and which exists independent of consciousness.

There is no objective measure of well-being. 

Well-being is a state of consciousness.  Unless you have heard of a rock reporting a state of well-being.  It can only be experienced, related, and defined in the first person.  

Let’s stop here. Entirely subjective. That’s your claim. Interesting. So by observation alone you can’t tell anything about someone’s well being? You’ve never noticed anything about your spouses well being without asking? Let’s look at a zoo animal. Compare an elephant chained to a post 24x7 in a small cage to one kept at the San Diego Zoo in a large beautiful enclosure. It’s your position that we can’t tell anything about the comparative well being of the two animals? 

 

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yes in the end we are all dead, but my life is not meaningless.

It is not meaningless to you of course. But it is meaningless in a universe without God.

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Let me try again. Humans exist as conscious creatures. Humans have various states of well-being. The well-being of humans depends entirely on events in the world and on states of the human brain. Good only makes sense to me to be defined as that which supports well being. Moral actions then are those which promote well-being. It is perfectly rationally and logical as an atheist to choose to live in a moral society.

I understand that. I actually agree with you. We have pretty much the same ideas about morality in general. There are some specifics that we may disagree on, but generally we are on the same page. But without objective morality there just is no moral authority that will elevate your or my idea of what is "right" over that of a Pol Pot or a Hitler, or a Kim Jong-un. I pointed out something about what is happening in some Godless countries such as China. The Chinese used to be really strong on family tradition with the parents being held in great esteem and it has been the custom for the longest time that the children would take care of their parents once they were aged and could no longer work and provide for themselves financially. But over the decades that family tradition has been eroded away in many cases. A lot of the younger generation no longer hold to those ideals and a lot of elderly people are being abandoned by their children. That is the effects on the latest of several generations that have been raised in a Godless country where human life has value only as how it can benefit the state.. You and I do not think that is good, that it is not moral, but what we think of that is completely meaningless to them and to a universe without a God. They are promoting their own idea about promoting well being. To them, they are living in a moral society.

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This idea of morality exactly parallels your morality. For you God's Objective Morality exists. For me there exists a set of actions that if taken will maximize humankind's well being. Neither of us have access to this objective standard of morality. We are trying to get there, but we are not there. 

Other people have their own ideas about actions that will maximize the benefit to all humankind. Pol Pot had a vision of an agrarian utopia and thought that all of the city dwellers need to get back out into the country side and work to promote the welfare of everyone in Cambodia, so he had the residents of all of the cities driven out into the countryside so that they could begin helping raise food to support the people. Those that resisted were killed, to promote the better welfare of the majority. You and I think that was atrocious, but with no God, who is to say that was wrong? Who is to say that cannibalistic societies are wrong? They couldn't care less what we think, and without God....... There is no higher moral authority, no objective authority that can declare our ideas to be the correct ones.

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And defeating people like Pol Pot and Hitler is not meaningless to the millions of people that they torment.

Of course not. But ultimately, without God, it is all meaningless.

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I am always perplexed by the idea that life is meaningless without God or an afterlife. If I proved to you that God didn't exist, what would change for you? Would your life become meaningless? If so, would you go commit suicide? Would you kill your family? Why or why not?

If you could prove to me that there is no God, my life still would have meaning to me, but nothing more. I would not commit suicide because there are people that depend on me financially and emotionally and I would not wish to cause them pain. But those are the only reasons I would not. I would not kill my family nor anyone else for that matter because i do not like to hurt anyone. I do not ever go hunting for the same reason. I would continue to treat people the same way I do now because that is the way I want to be.

I know that I am not going to convince you and am not even going to try to convince you that there is a God. But there is the Light of Christ in this world and it shines into the hearts and minds of good people like you and tells you that this life is not in vain, that there "is something out there" transcendent of humankind. You cannot grasp just what it and attribute it to logic and reason. And I cannot prove that. And the problem for us both is that we do not have another universe verifiably  without God that we can observe. We are denizens of this one and will have to wait until we pass these mortal portals to know anything more for sure. Only problem is, we will only know more if there is a God.

Glenn

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Perfect

Let’s stop here. Entirely subjective. That’s your claim. Interesting. So by observation alone you can’t tell anything about someone’s well being? You’ve never noticed anything about your spouses well being without asking? Let’s look at a zoo animal. Compare an elephant chained to a post 24x7 in a small cage to one kept at the San Diego Zoo in a large beautiful enclosure. It’s your position that we can’t tell anything about the comparative well being of the two animals? 

Re-watch the Sam Harris video, pay attention this time. What does not make sense about what he is saying?

No matter how closely you can correlate third person measures, you can never throw out first person reporting and pretend to know exactly what the person is experiencing.  

Answer my question now - does well-being exist independent of consciousness?

Edited September 13, 2018 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

Re-watch the Sam Harris video, pay attention this time. What does not make sense about what he is saying?

No matter how closely you can correlate third person measures, you can never throw out first person reporting and pretend to know exactly what the person is experiencing.  

Answer my question now - does well-being exist independent of consciousness?

If you completely ignore my questions why should I continue to engage yours. Animal first person reporting is impossible. Can we know anything objective about animal well being? It’s not a hard question. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If you completely ignore my questions why should I continue to engage yours. Animal first person reporting is impossible. Can we know anything objective about animal well being? It’s not a hard question. 

I didn't ignore your question.  It has already been answered.  Watch the video. 

Well-being is a state of consciousness.  You can't escape it.  You have already agreed that consciousness is subjective, therefore well-being as a state of consciousness cannot be anything but subjective.  Sure, subjective experience of pain/pleasure can manifest themselves in objective ways, but that doesn't make the experience any less subjective.  The fact is, what causes people to feel pleasure, pain, or meaning in life is entirely subjective. 

Well-being is often defined in a hedonistic way - pleasure vs. pain.  It is defined as "subjective".  Even though I agree with the subjective label, the definition itself is entirely problematic because not everybody fits that mold.  If pleasure = well-being, and pain = not well-being, then what do you make of people who find pleasure in pain?  They don't fit the mold!  Well-being itself is a presupposition based on cultural and normative values in society.  Well-being is about perception.  How you perceive a stimulus determines how you will react to it.  At it's very core, well-being can only be defined and experienced by the first person subject.  Any objective measure that you extrapolate, will never align with what is actually experienced.  What may look like pain and suffering, may actually be causing pleasure for some.  

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I didn't ignore your question.  It has already been answered.  Watch the video. 

Well-being is a state of consciousness.  You can't escape it.  You have already agreed that consciousness is subjective, therefore well-being as a state of consciousness cannot be anything but subjective.  Sure, subjective experience of pain/pleasure can manifest themselves in objective ways, but that doesn't make the experience any less subjective.  The fact is, what causes people to feel pleasure, pain, or meaning in life is entirely subjective. 

Well-being is often defined in a hedonistic way - pleasure vs. pain.  It is defined as "subjective".  Even though I agree with the subjective label, the definition itself is entirely problematic because not everybody fits that mold.  If pleasure = well-being, and pain = not well-being, then what do you make of people who find pleasure in pain?  They don't fit the mold!  Well-being itself is a presupposition based on cultural and normative values in society.  Well-being is about perception.  How you perceive a stimulus determines how you will react to it.  At it's very core, well-being can only be defined and experienced by the first person subject.  Any objective measure that you extrapolate, will never align with what is actually experienced.  What may look like pain and suffering, may actually be causing pleasure for some.  

 

It seems like you are avoiding a very simple question that has a yes or no answer. I wonder why that is. Can we know anything objective about animal well being? 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

@pogi

These aren’t meant to be hard trick questions. Is it your honest opinion that we can’t make any objective observations about the well being of the children in these images? (Yes or no):

http://abclearningcenterfl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Happy-Child.jpg

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A1XYFD/angola-oct-1993-an-emaciated-child-sitting-cuito-A1XYFD.jpg

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It seems like you are avoiding a very simple question that has a yes or no answer. I wonder why that is. Can we know anything objective about animal well being? 

Am I not speaking English or something?  I have clearly state over, and over, and over again that yes, subjective well-being can manifest itself in objective ways.  That doesn't make well-being any-less subjective!  I can objectively discern that my toddler doesn't like to eat meat, but that doesn't really tell me what he is experiencing. Taste, and food preference is still very subjective!  Should I never feed him meet again because it appears to cause him discomfort?  That is crazy! Is meat objectively offensive now because my toddler doesn't like it?  His perceptions may evolve in time, and his subjective experience may change.  While I can guess what he is experiencing by external measures, but no matter how closely external measures correlate with internal experience, we can never toss out the first person and pretend to know exactly what they person is experiencing.  Again, you may see a person in pain, when they actually feel pleasure from it.  Could you know that without their first person reporting.  No way Jose! 

Edited September 13, 2018 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Ya, I think it is semantics.  He argues here and in his books that the self is indeed an illusion, along with free-will.  It is a pretty compelling argument when you take God out of the picture.

I think his argument is that the experience is real, but that doesn’t necessarily make the real experience of an illusion any less an illusion.   Like a mirage of water on a desert horizon.  Real experience, but what we think we see/experience (water, or the self/free-will in this case) is just an illusion.  That’s how I interpret him anyway.  

He sees consciousness/self/free-will as illusions created by neurochemical reactions set in process by the indifferent universe/cosmos that we don’t understand and have no control over. 

Remove God from the picture, and I don’t see how he could be wrong.

Well if that is correct about what he believes he is just putting out a circular argument. On one hand he says that chemical reactions are different that consciousness in that video quotes Nagel and various other philosophers and yet then he says it's all an illusion because it is just chemicals.

If you read Nagel and others that he mentions and that really part of the video they clearly understand that one cannot do what he is doing.

Yes we have mistaken perceptions optical illusions Etc. But you still cannot postulate anything beyond our perceptions. If what you are saying is correct he still has the Cartesian problem of our experience corresponding to something outside of our experience. The mere fact that he sees an indifferent universe means that he is not restricting reality to Consciousness alone.

Daigle incidentally is an atheist and it's actually written a book in which he says that he hopes that there is no God.

He doesn't like the Aesthetics of there being a God but he cannot prove or even State clearly that there is no God.

Nagel understands that his atheism is the same thing as a religion.

So though Harris quotes Nagel in this video he comes out with the opposite conclusion that Nagel does. It's very odd because he quotes some of the major figures in what I call in general terms pragmatism as if he thinks they are right but then comes to what is called a "physicalist" conclusion.

I don't have time right now to link to an article for you but I would suggest you read an article by Thomas Nagel with an odd title. It is called "what is it like to be a bat?", if you are actually interested in getting into the philosophy here.

Holding that Consciousness is nothing more than chemical reactions misses the entire point. I did an article over at Times and Seasons, thanks to Clark, about this and should be easy enough to find. I just don't have time to put up links. It's my only article over there so you could just search for my name.

But just be assured that physicalism or the belief that we are just a bunch of chemicals does not prove there is no God. I have a few mosquito bites right now and I keep wondering where is the itch in the chemicals?

Where is that experience? Where is the blue in the sky? The blue or the itch is not in the chemicals it is a part of Consciousness. To describe Consciousness as if it is only the chemicals totally misses the point.

The physicalist explanation misses completely what the experience is.

If that is really what Harris is saying he's missing the whole argument and that would be very curious.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Am I not speaking English or something?  I have clearly state over, and over, and over again that yes, subjective well-being can manifest itself in objective ways.  That doesn't make well-being any-less subjective!  I can objectively discern that my toddler doesn't like to eat meat, but that doesn't really tell me what he is experiencing. Taste, and food preference is still very subjective!  Should I never feed him meet again because it appears to cause him discomfort?  That is crazy! Is meat objectively offensive now because my toddler doesn't like it?  His perceptions may evolve in time, and his subjective experience may change.  While I can guess what he is experiencing by external measures, but no matter how closely external measures correlate with internal experience, we can never toss out the first person and pretend to know exactly what they person is experiencing.  Again, you may see a person in pain, when they actually feel pleasure from it.  Could you know that without their first person reporting.  No way Jose! 

No you are speaking English loud and clear. Some people just cannot get this concept. Later on I will post more and quote more.

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

@pogi

These aren’t meant to be hard trick questions. Is it your honest opinion that we can’t make any objective observations about the well being of the children in these images? (Yes or no):

http://abclearningcenterfl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Happy-Child.jpg

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A1XYFD/angola-oct-1993-an-emaciated-child-sitting-cuito-A1XYFD.jpg

Is it objectively true that the first picture is a child in a state of well-being?  Absolutely not!  They may be in pain or have mild depression and only smiled for the picture because her mom promised ice-cream if she would smile.  As I stated before, I have been surprised many times in my life to find out that loved ones were really suffering terribly in their lives when all external appearances showed no signs whatsoever.  You can't always tell.

Is the person in the second picture not in a state of well-being?  As I have already stated, I have treated hospice patients who look worse than this who reported a state of well-being.  Ghandi intentionally starved himself and looked much like this child and reported well-being. One can be starving and still find pleasure and happiness even in their final breaths.  One can feel chronic pain and still report a sense of over-all well-being.  There is no objective measure. 

Edited September 13, 2018 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Am I not speaking English or something?  

I will respond to the rest later, but first a complete and unequivocal apology for not reading your response closely enough. I’m sorry. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

Re-watch the Sam Harris video, pay attention this time. What does not make sense about what he is saying?

No matter how closely you can correlate third person measures, you can never throw out first person reporting and pretend to know exactly what the person is experiencing.  

Answer my question now - does well-being exist independent of consciousness?

Again, apologies for misreading you. Part of my problem is a complete and utter lack of philosophical background. Words like epistemological and ontological are like nails on a chalk board. I will try and do better.

Yes. Well-being depends entirely on consciousness and is completely subjective from an ontological perspective.  That said, from an epistemological standpoint there is much that we can objectively observe and say about well being. Well-being exists. That we are ignorant of another's well-being and what can be done to increase doesn't matter. To say something is unknown doesn't mean its unknowable. A head ache is a completely subjective experience. None the less it is entirely a result of my physical brain state and events in the world. My head aches respond very well to ibuprophen. My wife gets migraines and they respond well to neck and shoulder massages. I realize that you realize this, but I am just trying to communicate what was muddled in my head. 

 

19 hours ago, pogi said:

 

1) Humans exist as conscious creatures - OK

2) Humans have various states of well-being  - Agreed, it is entirely subjective and fluid.  It is not an objective thing that can be measured and agreed upon by all, and which exists independent of consciousness. 

3) The well-being of humans depends entirely on events in the world and on states of the human brain - I disagree.  Well-being is not something that happens to you, it is something you choose regardless of your circumstances.  Even the terminally ill can report being in a state of well-being, so it has nothing to do with health if you don't want it to.

I'm not sure you disagree with my statement. Perhaps you can elucidate? Isn't someone's choice (again from an atheistic standpoint) to find peace in the face of adversity directly tied to the state of their human brain? 

Quote

4) Good only makes sense to me to be defined as that which supports well being - "to me" is the key part there.  Other's see it as good to kill people with disabilities.

Perhaps you can help me here. In Mormonism, God does not invent morality. God wants us to be good. Alma 32 encourages to try out moral principles and see if they produce good fruit in our lives. What does good fruit mean in this context if not well-being. Joseph says that happiness is the design and purpose of our existence. Is this not encompassed in well-being? Men are that they might have joy? 

I think that consciousness is the only intelligible domain of value. What's the alternative? Can there be value that has nothing to do with the experience of conscious beings? So doesn't well-being capture all that we can intelligibly value? Doesn't well-being capture everything that makes our lived experience better? You say that other people thought to maximize well being by killing people with disabilities. This may or may not be true (I don't have access to what the Nazi's were actually thinking), but it doesn't change the point.  Do I need to point to all the killing done in the name of God? The fact of the matter is that we don't have full access to God's Objective Morality. And the fact of the matter is that we do not have full access to all those actions that will maximize the well-being of conscious creatures. Does this mean that we give up? No we keep striving for additional knowledge while at the same time doing the best with what we have. It is no different for the atheist than the theist. Both are trying to maximize well-being. One just views well-being through the lens of an afterlife and a God who will punish or reward based on past behavior. 

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding