False by Incredulity, according to atheists such as Penn Jillette

[nuclearfuels]

So I heard some LDS people started reading Jillette's writings and left the Church / faith.

Looked into Jillette a bit but not much.

As I try and advocate reason and logic however rarely the opportunity presents itself, I'm seeking feedback on my response to such atheists who:

1. claim morality can not and does not exist if you are behaving in a reward/punishment, carrot/stick framework.

2. question the validity of the Garment.

--

Here goes:

1. Not all of us (definitely me, for sure) are as morally and emotionally evolved as people like Penn Jillette. So operating in a carrot/stick framework works for people such as me. If I am honest, there is no chance I'd be living the way I am without having recieved Temple blessings and other blessings throughout my life

2. Claiming the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is off/wrong/bad/silly because of this practice seems to me to also question such ordinances from the Bible (if we exclude the BoM, for the sake of argument). This would mean: Judaism and Christianity, whose foundation is Judaism, and what was formerly called Mormonism are all invalid because...atheists think the ordinances are silly.  Seems awfully similar to the claim that garments and religions that use them are "false by incredulity," as Berlinski described some Darwinists. This type of argument doesn't seem to be the strongest, use the most logic, data, history, etc.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

1. claim morality can not and does not exist if you are behaving in a reward/punishment, carrot/stick framework.

Interesting, so morality cannot exist in parenting or basically any behavior modification system known to man?

I would like to know what his definition of morality is.

Good —> better —> best.  

Fear/reward —> duty —> love.  

It is a progressive system of morality.

Edited December 10, 2019 by pogi

[strappinglad]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

what her definition of morality is.

Penn Jillette - famous magician , part of Penn and Teller. 

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Penn Jillette - famous magician , part of Penn and Teller. 

Oops - “his”. Not much into magic.

My daughter is named Penny, we often call her “Pen”, so I just related it with that. 

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

1. claim morality can not and does not exist if you are behaving in a reward/punishment, carrot/stick framework.

I  think the idea here is that if you are only choosing good to get a reward instead of a punishment an not because it's good you are insincere and not truly moral.

I don't think the receipt of a carrot reward is the question.

Is God good only because he gets to be God as a result or because it's his nature?

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

So I heard some LDS people started reading Jillette's writings and left the Church / faith.

Really? I didn't know that he had taken the time to write / comment about Latter-day Saints anytime recently. Last I remember him saying anything substantive was back when Romney was running for president.

Has he said anything new recently?

 

[nuclearfuels]

Thanks for all of your responses. 

I read the BoM and see something of a causal relationship: do good - get blessings. Do evil - don't get blessings.

That seems like an objective administration of eternal laws which God Himself and His Ancestors probably didn't create but simply used in thier own jurisdictions.

Claiming that doing things that are good simply because they are good is the epitomy of ethical, moral behavior has some logic and reason in it but requires us to ignore the context of our mortal existence, in addition to ignoring that all truth (including logic and reason) comes from the same source

[pogi]

2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Thanks for all of your responses. 

I read the BoM and see something of a causal relationship: do good - get blessings. Do evil - don't get blessings.

That seems like an objective administration of eternal laws which God Himself and His Ancestors probably didn't create but simply used in thier own jurisdictions.

Claiming that doing things that are good simply because they are good is the epitomy of ethical, moral behavior has some logic and reason in it but requires us to ignore the context of our mortal existence, in addition to ignoring that all truth (including logic and reason) comes from the same source

I think it is wrong to frame morality in a way that is entirely devoid of self-interest.  If doing good did not benefit the doer in some way, then it would not be good, by definition, for that person and motivation to do good would be a hard sell.  Any system that teaches morality without appealing to self-interest in some way is not pragmatic and would be less effective at eliciting progression in moral behavior from good, to better, and eventually for the best reasons.  I honestly cannot even think of a way to teach morality that is entirely void of self-interest and personal desire, as any appeal to a person is to make moral behavior seem desirable to the person in some way.  Even if doing right purely for the sake of doing right is the only reason a person acts, it is still centered in self-interest as doing right in and of itself is a demonstrably desirable maxim and priority for that person or he wouldn't do it.  For a highly moral person to act contrary to his conscience and moral maxim would be undeniably undesirable for that person. I believe that morality is intrinsic to the self, and thus in our self-interest.

To love God and to love others as we love ourselves is the highest expression of morality.  Something that a lot of people don't recognize is that self-love is a central to that moral and critical for a healthy expression of love towards others.  For example if one was void of love for self, and the command is to love others as the self, then obedience to that command would lead to no love for anyone. 

 

Edited December 10, 2019 by pogi

[nuclearfuels]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

if one was void of love for self, and the command is to love others as the self, then obedience to that command would lead to no love for anyone. 

Excellent point, @pogi. I agree 100%

[Ahab]

19 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

So I heard some LDS people started reading Jillette's writings and left the Church / faith.

It's a trick.  Some kind of vanishing act. They're not really gone they just went somewhere else for a moment.  He can bring them back if and when he wants to.  He is a fairly adept at magic.  I've seen him make all kinds of things vanish, or appear to have gone away.

[mfbukowski]

If you feel no guilt in killing someone, then you do not have a problem.

I chose that because it is a serious crime that would induce guilt in most folks, in fact I would define one who feels nothing after committing murder a "psychopath" which is recognized as a disorder psychologically.

The fact is that most atheists believe in morality and those who don't ...?   Well decide for yourself.

Here is Christopher Hitchens, noted atheist, speaking about the Light of Christ though he would never even think to use that term.

Religion is for people who feel guilt.   If they don't, they don't, but I would hope they are getting some treatment.

The questioner here is kind of a jerk, but then again he is talking to Hitchens who has a similar reputation. 

 

 So this is the key

We need salvation from sin and guilt, and that is built into us as humans.

Is it rational to believe in a narrative which delivers that need, and people have experiences which "verify" the existence of paths to accomplish that need.

As William James and many others have shown, religious experience is as "valid" an experience as any we can have.  My siggy below quotes Rorty- himself an atheist- showing how it is that experience justifies "truth" and there is NO way of getting around Rorty's argument here.

Neither Hitchens nor Rorty can answer these questions about their own personal understanding of guilt and why they feel it.

Ultimately, they have no case for atheism basing it on morality.

That is a dead end.

If one feels guilt, one can feel the spirit.   It's really that simple.  Feeling guilt IS feeling the spirit telling you that you messed up.

It is how we get through life socially. 

Pragmatically we need such rituals to find our purposes in life.  

It can be deciding to apply to Yale or Harvard and going through the rituals required.  Why do we do that?  To achieve meaning in our lives.  "I will be a great attorney and help others"   Fill in the blanks with what has meaning in your life- a doctor who cures cancer- a police officer who helps others- a firefighter, soldier, etc etc.

It can be a line drawn in the sand that one has to step over to be "part of my team", or wearing a special team shirt.  Why do people wear sports regalia?  To help them define who they are and what they stand for!   Why uniforms of any kind?  Same thing.

We all want our lives to have meaning and THAT is the motivation behind all this!

And "meaning" is defined by the individual.  Even mass murderers are seeking "meaning" in their lives by becoming famous or changing the world presumably for the "better" by getting rid of the "bad people" because they are _____"

That blank could be a race, an economic status, someone who goes to a different school or something totally wacky.

But what they have in common is an EMOTIONAL need to be recognized, to help others, to change the world, to know something in one's heart which gives them peace and the ability to anticipate death etc etc.

To ignore emotional needs is to ignore the basic needs of humanity and is itself "irrational" because such needs are the primary drivers of all human action.

Edited December 10, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

If doing good did not benefit the doer in some way, then it would not be good, by definition, for that person and motivation to do good would be a hard sell.  Any system that teaches morality without appealing to self-interest in some way is not pragmatic and would be less effective at eliciting progression in moral behavior from good, to better, and eventually for the best reasons.

Totally agree

And again I would insist that being rid of guilt is a large motivation, feeling peace, and understanding your place in the universe are both enormous.

And these feelings are not created by "facts" but are emotional.  Nothing wrong with that at all.  We NEED emotional fulfillment to be fully human.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Thanks for all of your responses. 

I read the BoM and see something of a causal relationship: do good - get blessings. Do evil - don't get blessings.

That seems like an objective administration of eternal laws which God Himself and His Ancestors probably didn't create but simply used in thier own jurisdictions.

Claiming that doing things that are good simply because they are good is the epitomy of ethical, moral behavior has some logic and reason in it but requires us to ignore the context of our mortal existence, in addition to ignoring that all truth (including logic and reason) comes from the same source

Penn & Teller give awards to fellow magicians who are able to fool them (Penn & Teller).  Incredulity is a worthy objective in that vein.  However, as objective reality, incredulity is not a true measure of truth or falsity.

Bertrand Russell was unable to find any logical reason for moral judgments.  In his opinion, atheists (including him) could not make value judgments on any objective basis.

[Ahab]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If you feel no guilt in killing someone, then you do not have a problem.

I chose that because it is a serious crime that would induce guilt in most folks, in fact I would define one who feels nothing after committing murder a "psychopath" which is recognized as a disorder psychologically.

The fact is that most atheists believe in morality and those who don't ...?   Well decide for yourself.

Here is Christopher Hitchens, noted atheist, speaking about the Light of Christ though he would never even think to use that term.

Religion is for people who feel guilt.   If they don't, they don't, but I would hope they are getting some treatment.

The questioner here is kind of a jerk, but then again he is talking to Hitchens who has a similar reputation. 

 

 So this is the key

We need salvation from sin and guilt, and that is built into us as humans.

Is it rational to believe in a narrative which delivers that need, and people have experiences which "verify" the existence of paths to accomplish that need.

As William James and many others have shown, religious experience is as "valid" an experience as any we can have.  My siggy below quotes Rorty- himself an atheist- showing how it is that experience justifies "truth" and there is NO way of getting around Rorty's argument here.

Neither Hitchens nor Rorty can answer these questions about their own personal understanding of guilt and why they feel it.

Ultimately, they have no case for atheism basing it on morality.

That is a dead end.

If one feels guilt, one can feel the spirit.   It's really that simple.  Feeling guilt IS feeling the spirit telling you that you messed up.

It is how we get through life socially. 

Pragmatically we need such rituals to find our purposes in life.  

It can be deciding to apply to Yale or Harvard and going through the rituals required.  Why do we do that?  To achieve meaning in our lives.  "I will be a great attorney and help others"   Fill in the blanks with what has meaning in your life- a doctor who cures cancer- a police officer who helps others- a firefighter, soldier, etc etc.

It can be a line drawn in the sand that one has to step over to be "part of my team", or wearing a special team shirt.  Why do people wear sports regalia?  To help them define who they are and what they stand for!   Why uniforms of any kind?  Same thing.

We all want our lives to have meaning and THAT is the motivation behind all this!

And "meaning" is defined by the individual.  Even mass murderers are seeking "meaning" in their lives by becoming famous or changing the world presumably for the "better" by getting rid of the "bad people" because they are _____"

That blank could be a race, an economic status, someone who goes to a different school or something totally wacky.

But what they have in common is an EMOTIONAL need to be recognized, to help others, to change the world, to know something in one's heart which gives them peace and the ability to anticipate death etc etc.

To ignore emotional needs is to ignore the basic needs of humanity and is itself "irrational" because such needs are the primary drivers of all human action.

Yep, our main reason for being here, I think.  To show ourselves and others what kind of person we want to be, who we want to be like, who we want to fit in with. Choosing our own version of the "cool crowd", if that's what we want to call it.

To be or not to be______________,  That is the question.

[Robert F. Smith]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

.........................

We need salvation from sin and guilt, and that is built into us as humans.

Is it rational to believe in a narrative which delivers that need, and people have experiences which "verify" the existence of paths to accomplish that need.

As William James and many others have shown, religious experience is as "valid" an experience as any we can have.  My siggy below quotes Rorty- himself an atheist- showing how it is that experience justifies "truth" and there is NO way of getting around Rorty's argument here.

......................................

If one feels guilt, one can feel the spirit.   It's really that simple.  Feeling guilt IS feeling the spirit telling you that you messed up.

It is how we get through life socially. 

One could even say that, as human animals we are imprinted both genetically and by socialization (just like other animals) with certain types of behaviors.  One could even say that those behaviors are a result of natural selection for survival value over time -- survival of the fittest -- cooperation with others being of prime value in that human effort to survive.  The same applies to a wolf pack.

The difference is that we reflect upon it intellectually and imagine that we are in "control."

[Ahab]

40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One could even say that, as human animals we are imprinted both genetically and by socialization (just like other animals) with certain types of behaviors.  One could even say that those behaviors are a result of natural selection for survival value over time -- survival of the fittest -- cooperation with others being of prime value in that human effort to survive.  The same applies to a wolf pack.

The difference is that we reflect upon it intellectually and imagine that we are in "control."

Control as in having the ability to act, rather than having no choice and we can only be acted upon.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Ahab

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Control as in having the ability to act, rather than having no choice and we can only be acted upon.

Yes.  People usually think of that in terms of acting and not being acted upon, which suggests free choice.  However, atheists and naturalists are convinced that everything is mechanistically determined and that there is no free choice. Our "control," therefore, being illusory.

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One could even say that, as human animals we are imprinted both genetically and by socialization (just like other animals) with certain types of behaviors.  One could even say that those behaviors are a result of natural selection for survival value over time -- survival of the fittest -- cooperation with others being of prime value in that human effort to survive.  The same applies to a wolf pack.

The difference is that we reflect upon it intellectually and imagine that we are in "control."

There has been a problem with social constructivism dealing with the contingency of the individual- essentially the question is if we are all "programmed" by culture- how can we have free will?

The actual argument is much more complex but is derived from the "death of man" hypothesis.  https://www.quora.com/What-did-Foucault-mean-by-Man-is-dead-or-disappearing

Chantal Bax has in my opinion overcome this argument successfully by essentially arguing as you have above, that on one hand we are "pragmatically" free- we can do whatever we want and it sure seems that way, so the distinction becomes essentially meaningless in terms of behavior- as well as that the decision process is so complex including emotions and individual peculiarities that the individual does exist and cannot really be coherently be shown to be entirely contingent.  https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/subjectivity-after-wittgenstein-9781441144102/

So the argument that the carrot and stick idea voids morality doesn't even work because we all have different carrots and different sticks.  Our emotional needs are too complex to come up with such a simplistic argument.

A simple proof of that is the assassin who kills for fame- his carrot is obviously not "heaven"- his heaven is fame regardless of how it is obtained.  So we all have our carrots and sticks but whether or not your main motivation in life is going to heaven is an open question, especially when it requires faith to even believe heaven exist.

Yet we are still driven by carrots and sticks- Penn's carrot is obviously being a clever writer/entertainer and his stick is failure.

In this instance I think he gets the stick. 

 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes.  People usually think of that in terms of acting and not being acted upon, which suggests free choice.  However, atheists and naturalists are convinced that everything is mechanistically determined and that there is no free choice. Our "control," therefore, being illusory.

Satan has them fooled, hasn't he.  That's what Satan proposed doing, contrary to God wanting us to continue to have and use our agency, so it makes sense that people who deny what God wants think  they do not or should not have a choice in what they do.

Who we learn from determines what we believe and those who deny God are choosing to deny what God wants them to know and believe.

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes.  People usually think of that in terms of acting and not being acted upon, which suggests free choice.  However, atheists and naturalists are convinced that everything is mechanistically determined and that there is no free choice. Our "control," therefore, being illusory.

The mere fact that we have courts of law shows that no one actually takes that position seriously.

No crime would be possible if we actually believed and acted as if that is true.  

And determinist philosophers still pay their parking tickets though they could not do otherwise than leave the car there too long. 

 

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The mere fact that we have courts of law shows that no one actually takes that position seriously.

Well, they would like it to be different but they just don’t have a choice in the matter.

[mfbukowski]

Meh.  It was supposed to be a funny post, but it wasn't that funny.  Deleted.  😎

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The mere fact that we have courts of law shows that no one actually takes that position seriously.

No crime would be possible if we actually believed and acted as if that is true.  

And determinist philosophers still pay their parking tickets though they could not do otherwise than leave the car there too long. 

Yes, but all those beliefs and actions are themselves predetermined and purely mechanical, everyone going thru the motions as though we really do have free choice.  A mass delusion, if you will.  Game theory reigns supreme.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

Satan has them fooled, hasn't he.  That's what Satan proposed doing, contrary to God wanting us to continue to have and use our agency, so it makes sense that people who deny what God wants think  they do not or should not have a choice in what they do.

Who we learn from determines what we believe and those who deny God are choosing to deny what God wants them to know and believe.

If we do in fact have a core of eternal "intelligence" (nous or entelchy), then we could indeed have free choice based on our noetic capacity, rather than just a physical, natural brain which is mechanistically determined in every way.  However, both atheists and normative Judeo-Christians deny that we have any such eternal nature.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There has been a problem with social constructivism dealing with the contingency of the individual- essentially the question is if we are all "programmed" by culture- how can we have free will?

The actual argument is much more complex but is derived from the "death of man" hypothesis.  https://www.quora.com/What-did-Foucault-mean-by-Man-is-dead-or-disappearing

...........................

If Foucalt is right, then the "death of man" could be of even more consequence than the "death of God."  Could that be an existential threat?