Just as easy (and hard) to be good (and bad) without God

"i have faith (but not 100% certainty...)that peter will diligently make his way through the posts."

You have more than I do. But I have a shred of hope.

pam,
i have faith (but not 100% certainty...)that peter will diligently make his way through the posts.

the gaddy thread has closed. let's continue that conversation here:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_k_smith/2009/11/shootings_will_promote_more_bigotry.html

i will post links to out last two threads there to help peter remember.

"Oh, I think he got your point. He is obfuscating because he knows he can't really argue against it. He is in a corner."

I've noticed, not just over the last couple of months, but also in earlier discussions with Peter, that when it comes to the really tough questions, he can't find the time to post. By the time his schedule eases, he's conveniently forgotten them. Yet he always manages when the discussion is on his favorite turf - a need for an absolute source of moral right and wrong.

Notice that he posted at length on this thread, but didn't find the time to answer anything much on the Gaddy thread.

WalterIFC:

"i'm not sure you got my point in mentioning shakespeare."

Oh, I think he got your point. He is obfuscating because he knows he can't really argue against it. He is in a corner.

peter,
i'm not sure you got my point in mentioning shakespeare.

you said,
"Shakespeare never intended his plays to be historical accounts...[but]...the Bible does. Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:3 are two of many examples. And people who have thoroughly investigated the truths of these people, places and events have come away believing in the truthfulness of Scripture. I'm thinking of Sir William Ramsey..."

my point is IT DOESN'T MATTER if the people and cites and events check out.

like pam said, the book of mormon mentions a few real historical people, places and events - and we all know that book is just a bunch of silliness, right? the book of mormon even makes the self-referential truth claim, so they're both pretty similar in a number of ways (though the book of mormon was actually written much closer to the time of the events it portrays, so maybe it's MORE reliable....).

BUT if the story has any chance of being true, historical facts MUST check out. this logical necessity rules out the o.t. as being true. the quirinius census calls the birth story of luke into serious question.

schaum, you said,
"...do not argue over whether something is true or not but whether it is outmoded..."

well, ok, i may not be quite clear on "outmoded", but i'll try. given that jesus DID NOT return "on a cloud" "with trumpets" etc...in his listeners' lifetimes, AS PROMISED, i would say it's outmoded.

peter, you said,
"...what these eyewitnesses passed on is empirical evidence for they took to writing accounts of what they had seen and were witness to."

passing on eyewitness evidence doesn't make it "empirical". and why'd they wait AT LEAST 20 years (but in many cases longer) to begin "writing accounts of what they had seen and were witness to"?

"Shakespeare never claimed his plays were actual true historical narrative/accounts of the events and peoples, the Bible does. Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:3 are two of many examples.

self-referential....

i imagine to you "luke" and "acts" seem like great evidence. to me it's just "he said, she said." in fact, given that we have NO original manuscripts of ANYTHING written in the bible, it's more like "the early church fathers said 'he said, she said'."

WalterIFC:

""eyewitness evidence" IS NOT empirical evidence. empirical evidence would be something like a "transitional" fossil or jesus' sandals. eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable."

I am reminded of the advice an elder devil gives to a younger devil in one of C. S. Lewis’s books–namely do not argue over whether something is true or not but whether it is outmoded since this is
practical propaganda that is more difficult to counteract.

Hi Walter,

I have no time tonight except for a quick browse in which I noticed your one comment on my statement,

ME: "eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ. That is empirical evidence that many find compelling and adequate."

WALTER: ""eyewitness evidence" IS NOT empirical evidence. empirical evidence would be something like a "transitional" fossil or jesus' sandals. eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable.
you said,"

True, but what these eyewitnesses passed on is empirical evidence for they took to writing accounts of what they had seen and were witness to.

ME: "...the evidence is all around, by the internal integrity of the actual people, places, events described in the Bible."

WALTER: "by this logic, shakespeare's stories are true: they mention real people and places an events. this kind of "evidence" (real historical people places and events), is very dangerous for apologists. it can ONLY disprove the story."

Shakespeare never intended his plays to be historical accounts of real people, but of fictionalized characters based on historical figures. There is a difference between the two types of writings. Shakespeare never claimed his plays were actual true historical narrative/accounts of the events and peoples, the Bible does. Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:3 are two of many examples.

And people who have thoroughly investigated the truths of these people, places and events have come away believing in the truthfulness of Scripture. I'm thinking of Sir William Ramsey for one, who set out to prove the Book of Acts was fiction. Google his name and find his statement on the history of Acts if you are interested.

Sorry, I don't have time to comment further tonight.

schaum,
here's the home page:

http://www.yahwehism.com/

here's a link from the home page to an article:

http://www.jesus-messiah.com/studies/yahweh-full-copy.html

jeez...i never knew there was a MODERN yahweh cult. people are weird. in that second link, it seems like there might be a grain of truth, but it's buried in lots of "conspiracy theoryish" thinking. i don't know nearly enough about ancient near east history/language to make anything of it.

onofrio, you said,
"I must say the accompanying commentary at the link is crankworthily *eccentric*..."

i totally agree. the "webmaster" seems not entirely reliable. and i really wasn't talking about the "i" and "j" stuff at the end. i'm interested in the idea that yahweh had a consort. anything to that?

WalterIFC:

"what do you make of this?"

Fourth paragraph: "One thing is certain, the real God of Israel was not Yah or Yahweh as we are led to believe."

Perhaps I am missing something...WHY is this one thing certain?

pam, you said,
"And is that guy in the back sitting on a grocery cart? Was he homeless?"

omg! roflmaowpimp! you've solved it! grocery cart! of course...it's so obvious now.

Must be away, work oppresses.

Later!

Walter,

I'm familiar with this fascinating fragment. I must say the accompanying commentary at the link is crankworthily *eccentric*...

Tangentially - the Egyptian *J* he cites had become a hard D by the New Kingdom (think Moses), moving on to a T in Coptic.

Desus! Tease us!

Pamsm,

Thee:
"Not to mention that the gospels were written much later than would be believable for apostles - especially John."

The attribution of the Fourth Gospel to John son of Zebedee, Galilean fishmonger, is a case of pious myopia. The tract's putative author, the *Beloved Disciple*, is implicitly identified in the text with *Lazarus* of Bethany. This Lazarus - so very special - is absent from the Synoptics. Odd omission, given that he was supposedly resurrected publicly. Yea, verily, the Petrine gang were present, yet not a whisper of it from the other *eyewitness* inspired accounts...

Smells very ichthus...

"speaking of asherah, what do you make of this?"

Wow, some picture! Speaking of scrotums and schlongs...

And is that guy in the back sitting on a grocery cart? Was he homeless?

schaum, onofrio,
speaking of asherah, what do you make of this? re: the not-so-monotheistc roots of yahwehism?

http://www.yahwehism.com/html/yahweh-samaria.html

onfrio, you said,
"What's offends me - it eschews la femme. No womb there in the triunity, nor bounteous boodadas; only scrotums and schlongs."

true, most religious trinities are along more traditional family lines of father/mother/child - which in a weird anthropocentric way, kind of makes sense. i've often thought of the holy spirit as being the motherly one...

i guess when considering the unity of the trinity, christians didn't want to behold a hermaphrodite god...or something...

Schaum,

Mere scraps! A human, albeit apotheosised, quart hardly rates.

I'm thinking Asherah.

Noli me tangere, says the faux gardener to the rapt Magdalena, in vulgate tones; Don't touch me. But go tell my homies; I'm about to let them probe my womb-wounds with their fishy mits. Their doubt must have its wicked way, and beget on me a wombless, prickless world. So settle sister; I'm keeping it for the boys. Risen indeed!

Onofrio:

You should investigate Christian Science. They have the Holy Quartet: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Mary Baker Eddy.

Walter

Thee:
"the trinity - not logical"

I don't mind the illogicality.

What's offends me - it eschews la femme. No womb there in the triunity, nor bounteous boodadas; only scrotums and schlongs.

Infame!

Peter,

You said: "God has testified about Himself through the human writers, some of whom were eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ. That is empirical evidence that many find compelling and adequate."

How do you know this? The gospels were anonymous and undated, and there are no originals. The words "according to Mark (or whichever)" weren't added until well into the 2nd century. Nowhere in them do the authors claim to be apostles.

They were written in Greek - a language that it's extremely unlikely that an apostle (if such existed) could have written. Reading literacy in that place and time was 10% or less, and writing literacy was only 2-3%.

"Mark" may have been Roman, or at least writing for a Roman audience. He calculates time using a Roman method (4 watches instead of 3), his language contains Latinisms, and he has a faulty knowledge of Palestinian geography (5:1, 7:31, 8:10).

Not to mention that the gospels were written much later than would be believable for apostles - especially John.

Do you believe in The Book of Mormon? It was supposedly given directly by an angel, so if not, why not?

schaum,
"Bleattitudes?"

that's funny! i'll keep it in my mental "keep file".

peter,
you said,
"God has testified about Himself through the human writers, some of whom were eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ. That is empirical evidence that many find compelling and adequate."

"eyewitness evidence" IS NOT empirical evidence. empirical evidence would be something like a "transitional" fossil or jesus' sandals. eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable.

you said,
"...the evidence is all around, by the internal integrity of the actual people, places, events described in the Bible."

by this logic, shakespeare's stories are true: they mention real people and places an events. this kind of "evidence" (real historical people places and events), is very dangerous for apologists. it can ONLY disprove the story.

by citing this evidence, you're confusing two aspects of storytelling - "setting" and "plot". the n.t. mentions "pilate" as a character in the story. this is just a detail about the setting. but, for the story to be true, this detail ABSOLUTELY MUST "check out". and it turns out there really was a "pilate" who ruled at the "right" time for the story to be true. so this detail does not disprove the story. note that this doesn't prove anything about the PLOT of the story either.

on the other hand, if the bible says quirinius and herod were rulers at the same time when jesus was born (it does), and we later come to find that they NEVER ruled together (we have)...well...then..the plot is disproven.

Onofrio:

"bleats of certainty."

Bleattitudes?

WalterIFC:

"an atheist has no "higher authority""

Exactly! This is just more of the tyrant Huff's desperate obfuscation.

"it also gets an atheist in the mindset of caring for others - just for the sake of caring for others, with no promise of heaven. it's arguably a "higher" kind of morality than just following god's rules."

Following the because the christer is AFRAID not to! Excellent point. I've copied it to my KEEP file.

peter, you said,
" point to the Christian's highest authority, for He has spoken to His creation through the pages of the Bible. The atheist points to his highest authority, evolutionary science, his god..."

an atheist has no "higher authority". there's no pointing going on. i know that sounds scary to you. we look inward (i know that sounds egotistical to you) and outward. we make up our morals (scary, again, i'm sure), basically based on what we'd want done to us.

sound familiar? it should - if you've read ancient the chinese philosophies of buddha, lao tse and confucius. 500 years later jesus, bless his heart, said it too. "doing unto others" probably IS harder without the carrot/stick of heaven/hell, but it seems to work for most atheists. (any study of criminals etc... shows atheists "behave" at lest as well as christians.) it also gets an atheist in the mindset of caring for others - just for the sake of caring for others, with no promise of heaven. it's arguably a "higher" kind of morality than just following god's rules.

on something peter said ravi said dallas said,
"Ravi Zacharias borrowing from Dallas Willard's thoughts (I think) lists three tests for truth, 1) logical consistence, 2) empirical adequacy, and 3) experiential relevance."

i think christianity totally fails on the first 2 tests, and partially fails on the third.

1)logical consistence:
what's logical about cursing all mankind for the sins of one, waiting 4000 years, then sending your "son" (or possibly, sort of, yourself...) to be sacrificed (killed for god) back to you (or sort of back to yourself) to even up the "sin tally sheet", then waiting 2000 (and counting) years to make good on your "son's" clear promise to be back "soon"? there's really nothing in there that's logical.

among other flaws, it has jesus taking the blame for past and future sins. not logical. the trinity - not logical (even christians admit this). according to the story, the relevant thing for all of us is that there's eternal heaven or hell awaiting our time here on earth. so our lives here are sort of an audition, a tryout. surely if this were logical, gandhi would go to heaven and pat robertson would go to hell. but no, the director-on-high evaluates on the basis of belief in him. not logical. (i can imagine peter here saying well, i'm judging "logicalness" by human standards. well, that's all we have. presumably those are the standards ravi said dallas was using.)

2)empirical adequacy:
i don't see that either. certainly based on empirical evidence there was no creation week, no flood, no exodus, no joshua, no king david. there's exactly as much "empirical adequacy" for osiris, baal and zeus.

as for jesus, who knows? excluding self-referential biblical "evidence", there's nothing. i suppose, in contrast to the o.t. there's really no evidence against jesus' mere existence...so there's that... going to the self-referential biblical "evidence", the main thing jesus predicted/promised DID NOT HAPPEN. anyone can predict their death, it's the second coming part that would have made it special.

3)experiential relevance:
i'll grant that christianity has this - at least in the minds of believers. prayers don't work (see http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ ). you'd think that would clue people in, but christians are clever: aunt martha survived because i prayed for her OR even though i prayed for and martha to live, god taught me a better lesson by letting her die. anyway, christianity DOES have experiential relevance to christians.

Stuck on dull repeat

the nyah nyah absolutist

bleats of certainty.

3.

JTTN: "Existence of God fails these three tests, as do most presumptions of truth. God may pass a level of muster on #'s 1 and 3, though clearly not fully or well. On #2 forget it."

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched - this we proclaim concerning the Word of Life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete. This is the message we have heard from Him and declare to you: God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with Him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light,as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin." (I John 1:1-7)

God has testified about Himself through the human writers, some of whom were eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ. That is empirical evidence that many find compelling and adequate.

AS for me, I have no higher authority to appeal to other than God's revelation of Himself to the world. Take it for what it is worth. His testimony is real, but the Holy Spirit is the One who can convince you, not I, and only by His grace. But again the evidence is all around, by the internal integrity of the actual people, places, events described in the Bible.

Simon Greenleaf was an expert on evidence as it relates to eyewitnesses and the law. See how he rates the eyewitness accounts or read Frank Morison, Who Moved the Stone? if you are interested in pursuing the evidence from a Christian perspective.

Today comes early. I have to go to bed.

2.

JTTN: "I am not against faith or belief in God, but it simply is not defensible from a rational and logical perspective."

It is the only rational and logical perspective.

JTTN: "Defense of Biblical accuracy is assigned to.... the Bible. That is, as Walter said, self-referential. And obvious."

Yes, if the self-referential Being is God, no if it is ourselves. With ourselves as the final relative/subjective reference point who are you to believe? With human beings, as I said earlier, belief in something is always relative unless there can be shown something that is objective and outside ones subjective perspective. That necessitates God, the only valid self-referential reference point. Logically, how can you appeal to anything higher than an omniscient, omnipotent, immutable, objective, absolute God? You can't. So you either take God at His word - His revelation to us - or you are left with one relative view point opposing another, which in turn opposes another, all built on knowledge passed down from one limited, fallible human being to another, with no certainty that the views now held are true.

ME: "On the impossibility of the contrary. Daniel12's two part post on atheism points out some glaring deficiencies in your world view."

JTTN: "I am not sure what glaring deficiencies you are speaking to, but I am sure that, regardless of ones' world view, it is incomplete. Unless one is omnipotent, (I am sure you are hungry to bite at this opening!), then the assumption of perfection suggests that none hold a complete and perfectly balanced worldview."

With the exception of God who knows and comprehends all things. In order to think this through truthfully we/they cannot contradict His revelation to us. So in order to arrive at truth we must think God's thoughts after Him to the extent that He has revealed them to us in His written revelation to us.

JTTN: "And, an omnipotent God has not been proven to exist, much less be the Creator of All. So... it is all assumption and presumption."

For the believer it is an experiential knowledge. Are you trying to tell me that my relationship with God does not exist? If so, it is an assumption and presumption on your part, not mine. God is not a God who is irrational, but His ways are higher than the mind of man, so is His power and ability which is limitless. You rely on the seen and temporal realm - taste, touch and see - whereas God is from the eternal, unseen, spiritual realm, for He is Spirit. Both realms are real, one is greater than the other, and that is not the realm we live in at present bodily.

ME: "Ravi Zacharias borrowing from Dallas Willard's thoughts (I think) lists three tests for truth, 1) logical consistence, 2) empirical adequacy, and 3) experiential relevance."

Hi Walter and Justillthennow,

"ME: "Actually, it is not self-referential for it refers to Someone outside ourselves who is necessary for anything to be known objectively. God is the reference."

WALTER: "how do we know god is as described in the bible? the bible says so. that's self-referential"

Sorry, I thought self-referential was in reference to myself. The Bible refers to other than self although granted it does refer to the self-referential God, the God that is the final reference point in matters of truth. Jesus said He was the way, THE TRUTH and the life.

JTTN: "Walter has a point here that is difficult to get around, following rational processes at least an independent of vested emotional interests."

There is nothing rational in where the atheist comes from - life from non-life, intelligence originating from something other than being, random and I would argue chance processes that bring intent and purpose, something coming from nothing. The atheist has much vested emotional baggage he carries with him too.

JTTN: "You make an unsupported assertion that defines "God" without validating, or evaluating, God."

The Bible makes the revelation of who God is and what He is like, the Almighty, sovereign Lord. I point to the Christian's highest authority, for He has spoken to His creation through the pages of the Bible. The atheist points to his highest authority, evolutionary science, his god, made in the image and likeness of relative human testimony. Is that rational, to base evidence on shifting, relative inferences of facts that no one was there to know exactly how they came to be or how they are interrelated? No, evolutionary science is not based on repeatable results that can be obtained/verified in a lab or from scientific data. From the fossil evidence the evolutionary scientist implies the way things came to be, and that belief is always changing and being modified. It is an implied faith based on knowledge gathered and modified from other human beings, who base it on yet other human beings with similar thought processes, but it had its starting point in core values, for the atheist, that what came into being came into being apart from being.

JTTN: "The assertion that the only way to know something objectively is because of an existent God is a leap that cannot be validated. So, back to the cover of "faith"."

There are many reasonable proofs, which the unbeliever will probably slough-off because he views at all things from a naturalistic outlook.

Are objective moral values possible without God? Not according to Walter and a host of others. From a world view that stems from matter to concepts that are intangible and immaterial, how is this all based on contingency, on something that does not originate from intent?

HOW DOES THE ATHEIST EXPLAIN HIS OWN EXISTENCE? Why does he exist in the first place? Follow that down the chain of events to his origin and that of the universe.

That was made obvious by your comment:

"A brain computer interface? Like a mechanisms that plugs into your brain?
I don't think so"

"I don't think so" would suggest that you think you DO know ssomething about it.

"You obviously don't have a clue what is going on in the development of nanotechnologies."

So? You're the one who brought it up, not me. I don't pretend to know anything about it.

DITLD:

Here is a clue for you on brain-computer interfaces.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15118045/Brain-Computer-Interface-

Pamsm:

"Do you even know the definitions of the words you're using? "

Of course he does not! Don't you remember his diatribes against his teachers in school, rebelling against their teaching of the "rules" of his various subjects? Preferring to let his "original thinking" dominate? His "genius" compensating for the fact that he really knows nothing?

DITLD:

"It doesn't sound very plausible."

Hahahahah. You obviously don't have a clue what is going on in the development of nanotechnologies.

A brain computer interface? Like a mechanisms that plugs into your brain?

I don't think so.

(Is that going to be covered under the public option?)

It doesn't sound very plausible.

Daniel 12,
What a lot of utter (and repetitious) tripe you've been spewing.

YOU: "...why is intelligence so important? Why an increase of intelligence over the ignorant--especially the religious? Why intelligence so important when everything has arisen without any intelligence behind it?"

Do you even know the definitions of the words you're using? "Intelligent" and "ignorant" are not opposites - not even mutually exclusive. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, intelligence is, among other things, a capacity to acquire and utilize knowledge.

Cro Magnon man was as intelligent as we are, but far, far more ignorant.

YOU: "Is it not a contradiction to aim for intelligence when everything arose with no intelligence behind it?"

Others have dealt with the "aiming" part, but, pray tell, what has one to do with the other?

That things got to be the way they are without the direction of an active intelligence has nothing whatsoever to do with whether intelligence is a good survival strategy (clearly, it is - at least in the short term). You are, as usual, comparing apples and oranges. Or, in your case, more like snow peas and kumquats.

My (unwanted, I'm sure) advice: Study more, pontificate less.

'When technology advances far enough, we’ll be able to build minds far surpassing human intelligence. Current, primitive beliefs in "god" will be superfluous.'

A link here that amplifies Schaum's POV -
Pretty good reading!! And one more link for all you futurologists.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

http://singularity.com/KurzweilFuturist.pdf

daniel12, you said,
"...if one does not believe in God then automatically there is no correct, fixed and true viewpoint. Without God one is in a relativistic world, and all views should be considered tentative. All the science of today might be viewed as inaccurate thousands of years from now. In fact if things are relativistic--if there is no absolutely true viewpoint (because of course, again, there is no God, no central truth to the universe)..."

you're treading on dangerous peter huff ground here.

1)who says god is absolute? or that he communicates with us? or that he lays out absolute rules for us to follow? or that he's eternal? or that he's still alive (granting that he once was)? or that he's paying attention to us?

those are just YOUR conceptions of god. there have been 1000s of other ideas about god(s) over the ages.

2)there are a few absolutes, even without god - just not MORAL absolutes. a tree DOES make a sound (defined as air pressure variations) whether we, or god, hears it. a rock has certain absolute physical characteristics, whether we or god exist or measure them. as for moral absolute - we make those up. they are conventions to help humans coexist in crowded societies.

i think "truth" means something different to you than to me. is "truth" one of those christian "code words" like "death" and "life"? when you say "central truth to the universe", what's that?!

by "truth" do you mean "purpose" or "meaning"? those are different than truth - to the extent truth means "that which is true".

when you say "All the science of today might be viewed as inaccurate thousands of years from now", you imply that what we know now is false. you imply that science just kind of randomly flits from one "truth" to the next. i have no doubt that our scientific understanding will be better in 1000 yrs (if we haven't "extincted" ourselves) than it is now. and i also have no doubt that our scientific understanding is BETTER now than it was 1000 yrs ago. the "truths" of science we have today are the best we've got, so it's reasonable (per schaum's post) to hold them as tentaive truths with appropriate levels of certainty.

'When technology advances far enough, we’ll be able to build minds far surpassing human intelligence. Current, primitive beliefs in "god" will be superfluous.'

A link here that amplifies Schaum's POV -
Pretty good reading!!

http://singularity.com/KurzweilFuturist.pdf

... and another thing!

This whole question seems based on the idea that religious people are good.

But religious people are not good. They are plenty bad indeed. They are as bad as atheists. Their belief in God and fear of punishment does not work, for as I said, they are bad.

And atheists are good; they are as good as religious people. So not believing in God and not fearing punishment does not prevent them from being good.

The nature of good and evil, or of "being good" and of "being bad" is not as simple minded as the idea that belief in God makes a person good, and not believing makes a person bad.

For it is a simple minded and childish idea.

Go back and read the title of Susan's article. It is a very good and desecriptive title which says alot.

It seems highly likely that there will be a computer-human brain interface. That will be an ultrafast mind with molecular nanotechnology -- and that would be enough power to reshape the Earth, the solar system and the Miilky Way. There will be an explosion of intelligence.

If we say that an intelligence explosion might yield enough power to move every atom in the solar system to an exact new location, that may sound a little silly, a little ridiculous. If we say that it’s enough power to take all the excess carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and ship it to Mars, or alternatively, ship Earth’s entire atmosphere to Pluto, it may sound a little far-fetched. But try convincing a hunter-gatherer from ten thousand years ago that someday man would invent an improved bow and arrow called a “nuclear missile” that wipes out everything in a ten-mile radius.

Intelligence is ridiculously powerful -- literally so, in the sense that, over and over again, intelligence has accomplished things that once sounded ridiculous. And we’re not talking about a jump like the one from hunter-gatherer society to the Internet; that’s merely ten thousand years of subjective time with no differences in brain architecture. An intelligence explosion would be a much bigger jump. It could and probably will reshape the entire world. Can we prevent an intelligence explosion from ever happening? This seems pretty unlikely to me. Would one want to?

If you try to balance a pen exactly on its tip, it’s very difficult because if the pen tilts a little, gravity pulls it over a little more, and the process accelerates. In the same sense, if technology improves intelligence a little, it becomes easier to invent even more powerful cognitive technologies, and again the process accelerates.

Alternatively, a civilization can wipe itself out - that would be a stable state, the ashes of a dead planet forever circling the Sun. It seems to me that sooner or later, a civilization is bound to wander into one region or the other- a superintelligent region, or a dead planet region.

When technology advances far enough, we’ll be able to build minds far surpassing human intelligence. Current, primitive beliefs in "god" will be superfluous.

DITLD:

"If you believe in God, then you must have a reason."

Operant conditioning, based on anticipated/feared negative consequences, is not reason, it is reaction.

This is one of the serious negatives of allowing a mental tyrant such as Peter Huff to come into contact with an unformed and logically inept mind such as Daniel12.

Persiflage:

Oh, yes, German grandmothers and the old tales! That seems so long ago.

"And one day Ragnar heard of Thora, and he wanted her for his wife. She was his reward for slaying the great serpents. He decided to win her by mighty deeds...."

Schaum,

A brief salute to German grandmothers!

I'd have never made through childhood without mine!! Fairytales of the Teutonic kind continue to inform my worldview in suble ways.... all thanks to that wonderful lady :^)

Daniel12

You whole approacth to belief in God vs atheism is wrong, since it is founded on political necesity. But the truth of the matter recognizes no such necesity. Things just are, or they are not.

An athiest does not need a reason for being an atheist, just as you do not need a reason for got going out for ice cream this evening. Atheism means "not believing in God."

What about that don't you get?

If you believe in God, then you must have a reason. But if you do not, then why is a reason necessary? Atheists just don't. period! What is so hard about that?

All of the bad motivations that you attribute to atheists are just plain not true. You have a very bad and negative attitude towards your fellow man, which of cousre, includes atheists.

Maybe there is an individual atheist that you do not like, or maybe even a little band of them that you do not like, but it is just simple-minded to attribute negative qualities of an individual or a few to a whole group, which is something else that you also seem to have a problems with, for example, your many posts on the current threat to the white race, which I find puzzling and engimatic, even as I try to puzzle through your arguments all dressed up in my white skin, and "caucassion" brain.

"Why is intelligence important?" you ask? That is a nonsense question. You are locked up in a room alone, with no one but your reflective, intelligent self, so you should know the answer to that question, shouldn't you?

Political arguments about the need to believe in God do not represent a true "existential" curiousity about the nature of man or of God. Just plotting around the troop movements of man on earth and noting all the good or terrible things that we do to each other has nothing to with the true nature of "existence."

I think you should face it, that there is alot that is utterly and completely beyond our capacity to understand. What we want to know most of all is just out of our reach, irretrievably and forever, locked away in a place where we can never go.

Persiflage:

Never mind. I finally found it on the internet. Early 16th c. in Italian, and first 1/3 of the 17th C. in English:

"The first English-language book to make a clear distinction between I and J was published in 1634 (Ref). Its use in the English alphabet followed, the letter J was the last of the 26 letters to be added to the English Alphabet. Its emerging distinctive use dates back to Middle High German, originally being a typographical flourish or swash character on the Roman i. The Italian: Gian Giorgio Trissino (1478-1550) was the first to explicitly distinguish I and J as representing separate sounds in 1524 with his "Trissino's epistle about the letters recently added in the Italian language."

WalterIFC:

Thanks.

"And precisely for this reason not only religion and ignorance and delusion might be preferable than knowledge for assuring the human race's survival..."

I'm not arguing that religion is necessarily bad, but I don't understand how the argument above equates to a defense of religion? Is the implication that people who seek to live longer should choose to believe in a religion? I question whether one can choose a belief.

Also, the argument assumes that the survival of the human race is a good thing. I'm not arguing the opposite, but it's worthwhile to examine the assumption to appreciate the subjectivity of value. We may see our survival as a good thing, and we may be justified in doing so, but that's only our viewpoint. It doesn't mean that our survival is inherently or objectively a good thing. A house cat might see humans survival as good, but a frog whose species is going extinct from overforestation might not agree.

schaum,
very nice post a few posts back about "reasonableness is a matter of degree".

Persiflage:

Perhaps you know...when did the letter "J" enter our alphabet? Wasn't it around the end of the 13th or beginning of the 14th century?

My grandmother, who was German, used to assure me there were 25 letters in the alphabet, and never came to terms with the idea of 26. When she was young, German school's didn't recognize 'J' as a separate letter. They taught it only as a variant of the letter 'I'.

Schaum,

Agree that faux reductionist might have been a better appellation e.g. his frequent contrasting of atheists and religious believers/theists, without the obvious detailed distinctions inherent even within these two broad categories - much less between the two.

Reducing complex issues to utterly simple black and white distinctions is well, kind of simple-minded, IMO. It's a very gray world, for the most part.

Persiflage

Intelligence is the most powerful force in the known universe, intelligence is our trump card as a species, it’s the human superpower. But we all have the same superpower so it doesn’t seem very important. I've heard it said that “intelligence is no match for a gun”, as if guns had grown on trees. People say that intelligence doesn’t count for as much as money, as if mice used money. You won’t find many great novelists, or military generals, or politicians, or scientists, who are lizards. Intelligence is the foundation of our power as a species, it’s the strength that fuels our other arts and the sciences. Advertisers want you to believe that the word “futuristic” means gleaming chrome and blinking lights, fascinating gadgets and expensive toys, because that’s what they want to sell you. Imagine, if you like, that future biotechnology produces artificial red blood cells that let you hold your breath for four hours. So what? Humanity did not rise to prominence upon Earth by holding its breath longer than other species. The future technologies that will really matter are the technologies that impact upon the mind: Neurotechnology, brain-computer interfacing, and, of course, the purest form, Artificial Intelligence.

"an atheist (me anyway) holds that there is no evidence yet which can ONLY be explained by the existence of god. there's plenty of evidence that could be explained by god..."

That's my own position as well, with the clarification that it encompasses not just the Abrahamic "God" but all claims about deities and miracles. However, I don't consider myself an atheist. I only use that term for people who profess a belief that gods don't exist. I'm actually less interested in splitting hairs about the definition of atheism than in making a distinction between believing that gods exist/don't exist and not holding a belief.

"They on one hand say everything arose by no intelligence but the unconscious method of natural selection then on the other hand say intelligence should exist over ignorance--that especially religious ignorance should be overcome by the scientific viewpoint."

That's only a contradiction if one believes that the importance of something is determined by the universe. It doesn't matter whether the universe favors or disfavors intelligence or whether it's indifferent on the issue. What matters is that we as humans value intelligence.

WalterIFC:

"this is just silly. "all views" are not equal. should we give nazism "its due" as a valid alternative morality in civics class?"

The more I read of his drivel, the more convinced I become that voting and reproduction should both be restricted to those persons who have tested positive for IQs of at least 115. Why should every person have the right to vote/reproduce merely because he is a citizen? Even driving a car requires a certain level of demonstrated skill, proficiency and licensure.

daniel12,
"At the least one should be humble about all views--give each its due. This is all I ask of atheists."

this is just silly. "all views" are not equal. should we give nazism "its due" as a valid alternative morality in civics class?

daniel12, you said,
"At the very least they should reflect that according to their very views it might be a better survival advantage to remain ignorant. Certainly there are many species which have lived and are now living much longer than man has lived."

paradoxically, humans may have become too "smart". this is a valid concern. we are the only species that has ever become smart enough to "extict" ourselves.

this technological development (WMD) is not a product of our biological evolution. technology is carried along on our "cultural chromosome". sitting here typing, it's easy to forget how fast our cultural chromosome evolve. 130(?) years ago, it didn't have electricity. the cultural chromosome evolves much faster than our biological ones. along with technology, our cultural chromosome caries "morality genes". we used to have morality genes that made us kill people of other religions (you can add tribe, race, color, sexual orientation here, if it helps you stay focused on the point). who can doubt that had joshua and the amalekites (or osama bin laden) had nuclear weapons they'd have used them?

as an atheist, i can only hope our morality genes catche up with our technology genes.

daniel12,
i think you are playing fast and loose with the word "intelligence".

you said,
"But dear atheists, then why is intelligence so important?"

intelligence is humans' best thing. many other animals have it but humans have more. it's gods' gift (...) via evolution.

"Why an increase of intelligence over the ignorant--especially the religious? Why [is] intelligence so important when everything has arisen without any intelligence behind it?"

i don't understand (maybe because i'm not as intelligent as most atheists...) what you mean by an "increase of intelligence over the ignorant...". if your criticism here is that atheists favor intelligence (knowledge) over ignorance...well...you got me. but i don't think favoring knowledge over ignorance is strictly an atheist thing. many people like knowledge.

"Is it not a contradiction to aim for intelligence when everything arose with no intelligence behind it?"

no. i don't see the contradiction. sorry. but maybe i don't understand what you mean by "aim" for intelligence. the human species didn't "aim" for intelligence. we just evolved that way. individual humans alive today can strive(aim?) to be learned (pure "intelligence" is probably largely a "gift" that can be nurtured to some degree). i think that's a good thing.

"Is it not better to try to remain as ignorant as possible, because so far as we can see everything arose by precisely not being intelligent and not knowing what is occurring to itself? But do these thoughts occur to atheists? Not at all!"

correct. i don't think it's a virtue to remain ignorant - especially intentionally.

"The atheists. A group which constantly not only says it is for intelligence but boasts of its intelligence..."

i think you've confused "intelligence" here with "evidence". atheism is a position arrived at by considering the evidence. atheists love evidence.

an atheist (me anyway) holds that there is no evidence yet which can ONLY be explained by the existence of god. there's plenty of evidence that could be explained by god. for instance, god could have made dan snyder the owner of the redskins to curse me, but there are other, simpler, less walter-centric explanations for that.

Persiflage:

"Your reductionist view is quite premature..."

Interesting. You think he is a reductionist, really? It appears to me that he hath not the requisite grasp of causality.

Merely inferring the existence of anything (in his case, god) because you desperately NEED it/him to exist is not sufficient. Things will still go bump in the night.

Why bother thinking, if contradiction is not grounds for rethinking? It is most illogical and unreasoning to accept a contradiction.

1.

Reasonableness is a matter of degree. Beliefs can be very reasonable (Japan exists), fairly reasonable (quarks exist), not unreasonable (there's intelligent life on other planets) or downright unreasonable (fairies exist).

There's a scale of reasonableness, if you like, with very reasonable beliefs near the top and deeply unreasonable ones towards the bottom. Notice a belief can be very high up the scale, yet still be open to some doubt. And even when a belief is low down, we can still acknowledge the remote possibility it might be true.

How reasonable is the belief that God exists? Atheists typically think it very unreasonable. Very low on the scale. But most religious people say it is at least not unreasonable (have you ever met a Christian who said "Hey, belief in God is no more reasonable than belief in fairies, but I believe it anyway!"?) They think their belief is at least halfway up the scale of reasonableness.

Now, that their belief is downright unreasonable might, in fact, be established empirically. If it turned out that not only is there no good evidence of an all-powerful, all-good God, there's also overwhelming evidence against (from millions of years of unimaginable and pointless animal suffering, including several mass extinctions - to thousands of children being crushed to death or buried alive in Pakistan earthquake, etc. etc. etc.) then it could be empirically confirmed that there's no God.

Would this constitute a "proof" that there's no God? Depends what you mean by "proof". Personally I think these sorts of consideration do establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no all-powerful all-good God. So we can, in this sense, prove there's no God.

2.

Christers are fond of saying it is impossible to "scientifically" disprove God's existence. If they mean prove beyond any doubt they are right. But then hardly anything is provable in that sense, not even the non-existence of fairies.

The fact that something cannot be conclusively proved either way doesn't mean the two theories are equally reasonable. It may still be that one theory is overwhelmingly confirmed and the other discomfirmed.

So, if theists wish to continue to maintain that their belief is at the very least "not unreasonable" (and they pretty much all do) the onus is on them to come up with some half-decent arguments for God's existence, and to deal more effectively with what appears to be overwhelming evidence against their belief. If they cannot do that, then they can't consistently maintain their belief is "not unreasonable".

Is atheism a "faith" position? If by "faith position" we mean can't be proved beyond all doubt, then yes, it is. But then so is the belief that there are no fairies and that the sun goes round the Earth. It doesn't follow from the fact that both
theism and atheism are "faith positions" in this sense that they are equally reasonable.

If by "faith position" we mean can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt, then I certainly don't accept that atheism is a "faith position". The evidence for atheism is overwhelming (though of course not everyone can see the evidence is overwhelming - this sort of evidence-blindness is an interesting feature of religious belief. That religion certainly does have the power to blind people to the obvious is demonstrated by the fact that in just 50 years, some 100 million US citizens have come to accept both that the entire universe is six thousand years old and that this is consistent with the empirical evidence).

Some say there's "no question" of science "proving" anything re ultimate questions.

If by "prove" one means ‘prove beyond reasonable doubt’,he's just plain wrong. I daresay Daniel12 doesn't believe in an all-powerful, all-evil God. Why not? Presumably, because the evidence against is overwhelming (there just too much good stuff in the world). But then Daniel12 must concede that there could conceivably be equally compelling evidence against his all-powerful, all-good God.

If by "proof" the evil tyrant Huff means ‘proof beyond all doubt’, he's right -- science can't "prove" anything re ultimate questions. But that's because it can't "prove" anything at all!

In any case, the fact that there is no evidence to prove the existence of god (the evil Huff notwithstanding) settles the matter beyond reasonable doubt..

Farnaz: "The system is hermetically sealed, self-referential, occludes conflicting evidence, facts, etc."

Yes, of course it is...despite the tyrant Huff's lies and self-serving manipulation of logic and its rules -- a damage-control technique which christers perfectedd long ago.

self-referential - adjective
/ˌself.ref.ərˈent .ʃəl/
/-əˈrent -/
A self-referential book, film, play, etc. contains a reference to itself, its writer or other work by that writer

(Definition of self-referential adjective from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

Daniel12,

Here's a suggestion that's long overdue - while you're busily impugning atheists vs religious folk, do keep in mind that non-theists are of a varied lot.

Garden variety material realist atheists are only one kind of flower, while there are other varietals out there that you've failed to recognize. There are even religions that are fundamentally non-theistic, for example.

Any kind of non-theistic approach to the mysteries of life implies the conviction that there is no personal and autonomous being/creator behind the great phantasmagoria out there in front of you - and that is the only thing that the burgeoning polyglot crowd of non-theists might actually have in common.

Your reductionist view is quite premature, not to say inaccurate and exclusive of important distinctions. Write less and think more, as our good friend Schaum might say albeit more pointedly - he would probably prefer to draw blood with that rapier wit :^)

Persiflage

Hello Peterhuff,

Thee to Walter IFC:

"ME: "Actually, it is not self-referential for it refers to Someone outside ourselves who is necessary for anything to be known objectively. God is the reference."

WALTER: "how do we know god is as described in the bible? the bible says so. that's self-referential"

Walter has a point here that is difficult to get around, following rational processes at least an independent of vested emotional interests. You make an unsupported assertion that defines "God" without validating, or evaluating, God. The assertion that the only way to know something objectively is because of an existent God is a leap that cannot be validated. So, back to the cover of "faith".

I am not against faith or belief in God, but it simply is not defensible from a rational and logical perspective. Defense of Biblical accuracy is assigned to.... the Bible. That is, as Walter said, self-referential. And obvious.

"On the impossibility of the contrary. Daniel12's two part post on atheism points out some glaring deficiencies in your world view."

I am not sure what glaring deficiencies you are speaking to, but I am sure that, regardless of ones' world view, it is incomplete. Unless one is omnipotent, (I am sure you are hungry to bite at this opening!), then the assumption of perfection suggests that none hold a complete and perfectly balanced worldview.

And, an omnipotent God has not been proven to exist, much less be the Creator of All. So... it is all assumption and presumption.

"Ravi Zacharias borrowing from Dallas Willard's thoughts (I think) lists three tests for truth, 1) logical consistence, 2) empirical adequacy, and 3) experiential relevance."

Existence of God fails these three tests, as do most presumptions of truth. God may pass a level of muster on #'s 1 and 3, though clearly not fully or well. On #2 forget it.

Hi Walter,

ME: "Actually, it is not self-referential for it refers to Someone outside ourselves who is necessary for anything to be known objectively. God is the reference."

WALTER: "how do we know god is as described in the bible? the bible says so. that's self-referential"

On the impossibility of the contrary. Daniel12's two part post on atheism points out some glaring deficiencies in your world view.

Ravi Zacharias borrowing from Dallas Willard's thoughts (I think) lists three tests for truth, 1) logical consistence, 2) empirical adequacy, and 3) experiential relevance.

http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=66

Atheists constantly criticize the religious. The argument typically revolves around the supposed ignorance of the religious. And in general atheists say they are against ignorance and for truth--truth typically discovered through the scientific method.

And one of the great truths atheists uphold against the religious is that life needs no creator behind it. That complexity can arise without something of greater complexity behind it creating it.

Fine. There is no creator or intelligent designer behind existence. But dear atheists, then why is intelligence so important? Why an increase of intelligence over the ignorant--especially the religious? Why intelligence so important when everything has arisen without any intelligence behind it?

Is it not a contradiction to aim for intelligence when everything arose with no intelligence behind it? Is it not better to try to remain as ignorant as possible, because so far as we can see everything arose by precisely not being intelligent and not knowing what is occurring to itself?

But do these thoughts occur to atheists? Not at all! They on one hand say everything arose by no intelligence but the unconscious method of natural selection then on the other hand say intelligence should exist over ignorance--that especially religious ignorance should be overcome by the scientific viewpoint.

A flat out contradiction! At the very least they should reflect that according to their very views it might be a better survival advantage to remain ignorant. Certainly there are many species which have lived and are now living much longer than man has lived.

At the very least atheists should pause and not be so sure in their views against religion. In fact science demands tentativeness. But do we see this among atheists? Not at all. Their favorite sport is criticizing and laughing at the religious.

The atheists. A group which constantly not only says it is for intelligence but boasts of its intelligence--when according to their very views everything arose with not the slightest bit of intelligence behind it.

Dennett in his speech on Darwin at Edge.org (issue 300 celebration):

"Darwin inverts the centuries old view that any thing needs something greater than it to have created it. Darwin holds the view that no creator is necessary to create the wonderful complexity before our eyes. Life is self-organizing. No consciousness is necessary let alone creator."

Exactly. And precisely for this reason it might be that delusion, ignorance, religion is better at assuring the human race's survival than increasing in knowledge, scientific knowledge.

Dennett again: "Turing is similar to Darwin. Darwin said no consciousness let alone creator is necessary for life to be produced and evolve. Turing observed that to calculate no consciousness is necessary. A machine can exist which can do anything human calculation can do. Thus the computer was born".

Exactly. And precisely for this reason not only religion and ignorance and delusion might be preferable than knowledge for assuring the human race's survival, it might be the human should strive to be completely unconscious.

Yes, the scientific view might be more correct, accurate as to things than the religious view, but it might be better for survival to have never had the correct, conscious, scientific view at all.

But present such thoughts to atheists--the implications of their very reasoning. The predictable answer will be that science is more correct than religion--religious views are false concerning so many things, if not everything. Therefore religion should be eliminated. No further argument is possible.

But we can see that without God not only are things relative--no absolute scientific view possible at all--but that it might be better to take the road of the more ignorant relative views than the more correct ones, scientifically speaking.

At the least one should be humble about all views--give each its due. This is all I ask of atheists.

Persiflage,

"JMR does seem like a sincere type"

Yes, he does, but is he? If he is, he is dangerously naive. If not, dangerously cynical.
---------------
You know, I'd like to know ColinNicholas's thoughts on the current question. Hope he has a chance to comment before the next topic is posted....

Farnaz, what can I say about Pico? I've reached a point now where 'everything is all brand' new on a daily basis :^)

JMR does seem like a sincere type, but I sometimes wonder what a thoughtful person does, when having cerebrated to near exhausion, they throw in the towel and reach for the God conclusion....well, then what? Not referring to the fundamentalist breed of course, so much as genuine thinkers.

Do they expect to meet God one day, or will they seek a mystic's satisfaction as did Meister Eckhart, declaring that the eye with which he saw God, was the same eye with which God saw him? Not likely...

Oh, Oh, maybe I shouldn't have posed that particular question! I think there may be an answer lurking nearby.

Will catch up on the morrow....

Persiflage

Part one.

Probably the best way I can put the reflections on atheism that I have posted recently--reflections on how atheists tend to be just as certain, just as dogmatic as the religious,--that the atheists oppose to religion a view which they consider quite fixed and correct and of course based on science--is to say if one does not believe in God then automatically there is no correct, fixed and true viewpoint. Without God one is in a relativistic world, and all views should be considered tentative. All the science of today might be viewed as inaccurate thousands of years from now. In fact if things are relativistic--if there is no absolutely true viewpoint (because of course, again, there is no God, no central truth to the universe)--then what is true for the human race can only be what guarantees its survival. No ultimate truth can be sought, so by default one turns to the next best thing, what guarantees survival. And what would guarantee survival could very well be that which is quite incorrect from the scientific view. The atheists say the religious are incorrect. But from the relativistic view--that the correct view is that which guarantees survival--the religious have far more evidence on their side, for man has lived by religion for millenia. On the other hand, atheism is relatively recent, has no track record of being a view which guarantees the human races survival. It could be deadly to not believe in God. And if so, then that is the incorrect view no matter the scientific evidence one has against the religious view--because this evidence cannot be considered absolute, for there is no absolute viewpoint. Something of this is what I am trying to say to atheists.

Part two.

But atheists keep responding to me by saying there is no God and the science of today is correct and religion has been wrong--completely misunderstanding the parameters of the argument. If atheists want to disbelieve in God they have to give up the view of an absolute scientific truth. They cannot have one without the other. But atheists always act like they can have the one without the other. They constantly posit their "correct" scientific views against the religious, as if these views are absolute. But all is relative without God, and this means what is true can only be what guarantees the human race's survival, whether that be delusion or not. And again, religion has a much better track record for assuring man's survival. Science and atheism are relatively new and by no means have the track record of religion in assuring the human race's survival. This is not to say atheism and science is the worse viewpoint--atheism and science might be better than religion at assuring the human race's survival--but you would think atheists would be a little bit more humble and be not so certain of their "correct" views. In fact science demands that all views be considered tentative. But atheists do not act like that at all. One either believes what they believe or one is stupid. That is all I am trying to say. One would think, the atheists being for science, they would be a little bit more humble before the mystery of the universe.

Persiflage,

John Mark has assured me that he will not go on a Crusade. (I guessed as much, in fact.)
Can't help but say he's a good sport. I know some will say that even Hitler could be playful with Eva Braun, but there is something okay in JMR, I think.

Persiflage,

Thanks for the link, but not so obscure, I think! Studied him in college, didn't you? Think back.... :]

Speaking of that golden era, here's a fascinating if obscure Renaissance figure that studied the Kaballah in depth, but also became a follower of the mad monk, Savanarola - later burned at the stake.

The world seems to have been vastly oversupplied with genius of all kinds during those halcyon days!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Pico_della_Mirandola

Persiflage,

In the flush of Renaissance discovers, science threatened to displace God, did in fact, in some quarters, as you know. Many, of course, tried to reconcile the two, some not convincingly. The sense that Science could not replace religion went hand in hand with the view that it could not replace or dictate morality. The latter is a much more complex problem than most, at first, realize. A lot has been attempted to see if it would work, a lot done because it could be. Both motives have led, at times, to atrocities.

This type of discussion is difficult to conduct given our current right/wrong, either/or, binary way of thinking. If one attempts to venture into the domain I have, she will soon be met with all sorts of diatribes against religion, along with omnibus evasions.

Sort of like attempting to discuss Obama in the round during the elections. One was either a racist or a neocon--good or bad, depending on one's interlocutor. Frightening, I think, this assault on err Reason, by, among others, the Reason vs. Religion crowd, that is, the enlightened left.

Aaaggrrrhhh!

Persiflage,

You posted this link on JMR's thread? I don't want to venture there because I'll be too tempted. At all events, it's a good definition. I think there are dangers in scientism, even if the term, and it is term, IMO, is abused by religionists.

Persiflage,

I found it compulsively necessarily to post links on both energy and the vacuum state on the other thread :^)
-------------------------
Bless you, Persiflage! I fully understand the "compulsion." Shall read your post.

Thanks for the heads up on the foe's use of scientism. However, as you know, the term has currency among other types, including, of late, some scientists and not the faithy kind, either.

Interesting comments on creatio ex nihilio. Of course, as you pretty much say, it presupposes a creator, certainly, it, in no way, synchronizes with Buddhist thought. Still, it does represent a kind of radical thinking....

It was well used by Shakespeare in "Lear." Remember Lear to Cordelia: "Nothing will come of nothing: speak again."

One can view this assertion proleptically, and in two ways, both of them ironic. Nothing almost unmade the Lear cosmos. Or, something did, indeed, come from nothing. In either case, I suspect Old Will had creatio ex nihilio in mind, when penning his immortal dialogue, which also came from nothing. :

Hi Farnaz,

Ref. Scientism and religion - in the wiki link below, Dennett points out that every time religion/religious folk run across a science fact that contravenes religious dogma, it becomes 'scientism'....I had no idea the concept went all the way back to the Enlightenment :^)

Actually, I remember your posting something about this very thing awhile back - e.g. my first link below on Habermas, et al.

Regarding your earlier point on creatio ex nihilo....in my best understanding of Buddhism, 'appearance' would replace 'creation' in this schema, and indeed would be from nothing (that could ever be identified as a source or origin, per that first Middle Way sutra we were discussing).

Since the universe has been continuously appearing,disappearing, and reappearing from nothingness since beginningless time, no creator has ever been necessary - from the Buddhist view. Without uncreated nothingness, there could never be somethingness.

And since perception exists, certain rare individuals will always be able to experience this direct insight into essential emptiness - having always done so.

In my relatively limited understanding of physics, this idea is curiously becoming more and more tenable as time goes on, although I'm not so sure we'll get past the niggling details of the Big Bang anytime soon :)

But I'm not sure if that was the direction you were headed with creatio ex niliho!

I found it compulsively necessarily to post links on both energy and the vacuum state on the other thread :^)

Persiflage

http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Schaum,

Correction to previous post: Ethnic "management," as it were, has been disastrous.

Schaum,

Postcript: You see, he is partly correct. Scientism did take flight in the Englightenment, and, in fact, has been responsible for some avoidable disasters. Take Hiroshima, for example. Or, take less catastrophic, less disastrous, though harmful and/or ineffective applications of "Science" and the rational, e.g., quasi-positivist approaches to psychology and education; ethnic err management.

The impoverished discourse, following Sam Harris, that pits Reason against the Irrational is, in fact, straight out of a certain segment of the Renaissance. It is a one-dimensional critique that had its day many, many years ago.

Farnaz:

"but I believe he's sincere"

The greatest harm comes from the fanatic. We may not doubt the sincerity of the fanatic but often he has the irresponsibility of a lunatic. The fanatic is the greatest enemy of mankind.
---- Swami Vivekananda
-------------------------
Except that I don't know that I would call him a fanatic. I'm not quite sure what to call him; therein, lies the problem.

Gotta agree with Schaum on this one. I think JMR is sincerely an idiot.

Farnaz:

"but I believe he's sincere"

The greatest harm comes from the fanatic. We may not doubt the sincerity of the fanatic but often he has the irresponsibility of a lunatic. The fanatic is the greatest enemy of mankind.
---- Swami Vivekananda

Persiflage,

I actually like JM Reynolds. I don't understand his thinking one iota, but I believe he's sincere, and, hopefully, will not set off on a Crusade next week. What troubles me is that he is a philosopher.

See his most recent post, which appeared eleven minutes ago. Oh, poor Englightenment, not poor owing to confusion of terms, but poor because he spawned "scientism," not science.

Poor Bartleby, more impoverished than we knew.

Did you see my post on creatio ex nihilio? I know the apologists had something different in mind, but....

Farnaz

pam,
:-)

"...i mean, scientists are generally smart people..."

Fifty percent of them, anyway...;)

pam, you said,
"They [scientists] don't all necessarily agree with one another, and some of them (few, but some) are even believers."

i saw a recent pew poll that said about 50% of scientists are "believers".

from the poll:
"Most Americans profess a belief in God (83%), and 82% are affiliated with a religious tradition. Scientists are different. Just a third (33%) say they believe in God, while 18% say they believe in a universal spirit or higher power..."

not sure why they distinguish between "god" and a "higher power", but that makes 51% who "believe". kind of throws a wrench in peter's notion that scientists are presuppositionally disposed to "discount god". also, that 50% number is very interesting regarding peter's view of evolution as atheistic. it is actually a testament to the robustness of evolutionary theory that of the 50% of scientists presuppose god, 99% conclude evolution.

that same poll DID indeed indicate that scientists are more likely to be "liberal" than "conservative", politically. makes sense...i mean, scientists are generally smart people... ;-)

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549

Daniel 12: "The atheists a group which destroys all religion for the lockstep of conventional scientific viewpoint."

Lockstep?? And what exactly is a "conventional scientific viewpoint"?? Do you mean believing, conditionally, in that which the evidence indicates is true? How benighted!

There are many branches of science, and many individuals who work on small pieces of those branches. They don't all necessarily agree with one another, and some of them (few, but some) are even believers.

Daniel 12: "So far as I can tell, there is so little diversity as to atheist that saying atheist and liberal is the same thing."

That would come as a great surprise to my brothers, who are as atheistic as I am, but unlike me, are politically very conservative.

AZDAVID, you said,
"Yes, murder is an easy question (well, for most people hopefully), but what about the other choices we have to make that don't have such a significant, direct result (i.e., death)? And how can we make decisions based on our "own observations about what behavior produces conditions that foster human happiness, liberty, achievement, and safety," when we may not know the results of societal behavior for many years down the road?"

well, it's true, real morality involves a bit more thinking than following the [insert favorite scripture here]. following rules from god is not morality. being good for god is not morals. morality is here on earth - and it's between humans, maybe when god's not even looking.

"'If you don't believe in God, what's to stop you from committing murder?' I am no longer surprised by this stupid question, but I still find it utterly ridiculous. It has actually never occurred to me to murder anyone . . . I derive my values from my own observations about what behavior produces conditions that foster human happiness, liberty, achievement, and safety."

Yes, murder is an easy question (well, for most people hopefully), but what about the other choices we have to make that don't have such a significant, direct result (i.e., death)? And how can we make decisions based on our "own observations about what behavior produces conditions that foster human happiness, liberty, achievement, and safety," when we may not know the results of societal behavior for many years down the road?

I wish I knew the future. (For example, knowing the future about tobacco use might have led to fewer people dying from lung cancer.) But I don't. I believe that certain practices that are becoming more and more commonplace, such as pornography and teenage sex, will have terrible future effects on society, but my "own observations" on those issues may come too late to be of any use.

I believe a God exists who wants me to know how I can teach my children now, despite my lack of knowledge of the future.

peter,
i said,
"i see all the various beliefs about god as evidence that, at best, ALMOST EVERYONE IS WRONG about god."

you said,
"Almost!"

note that i said "at best". this was just to leave open the logical possibility that ONE mutually-exclusive belief MAY be true.

to conclude, from the 1000s of religions that have EVER existed, that you've got the right one has got to be be the ultimate in hubris. it's funny to me, because you easily spot the silliness of OTHER religions, which differ only in details. you correctly see muhammad's "night flight" as silly fantasy, but earnestly believe elijah's chariot of fire. remove the plank, man.

peter said,
"Actually, it is not self-referential for it refers to Someone outside ourselves who is necessary for anything to be known objectively. God is the reference."

how do we know god is as described in the bible? the bible says so. that's self-referential.

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "also, why would you want diversity of opinion? i see all the various beliefs about god as evidence that, at best, ALMOST EVERYONE IS WRONG about god."

Almost!

WALTER: "logically speaking, if these different religions propose different, mutually incompatible, things about god, then AT MOST only one religion could be right."

That is a great and true conclusion! I'm on your side there. Logically speaking either one or none, but never all or most because of the contradictions in what they claim.

And I would say that atheists are numerous in their disagreements also. In the subject of origins alone, some believe in the Big Bang, others in the Steady State Theory, others still in the Chaotic Inflation theory, and so on.

Hi Farnaz,

FARNAZ: "Yes, of course, you're correct. (NO offense, intended, Peter.) The system is hermetically sealed, self-referential, occludes conflicting evidence, facts, etc."

"Correct?"

Actually, it is not self-referential for it refers to Someone outside ourselves who is necessary for anything to be known objectively. God is the reference.

Before you go ripping the Bible or God apart ask yourself how you came to determine what is valid and what is not? You opinion is just another in the line of a subjective list, self-authenticating and self-authoritative and yet never really absolutely certain about anything. You are throwing the dice, speculating on events that you were not there to witness, so it is just the best you can determine the evidence to be. Therefore it is your conjecture based on how well your limited mind is able to evaluate the evidence for or against.

Certainty can only come with an objective omniscient reference point. God is necessary to make sense of anything, because for something to be known as true it has to be based on certainty.

FARNAZ: "But we see this sort of think, everywhere, do we not? Not merely in religion. There is a general resistance to thought, evaluation."

Yes, the double standard that is applied to someone else but not to oneself.

FARNAZ: "Not only has grey ceased to exist, but off-white, off-black have vanished, as well."

Again the double standard.

FARNAZ: "In Susan's book on freethinkers, there is a dearth of comment on atheistic conservatives, although they existed, were not all "evil."

It depends on your definition of evil and to what extent you are measuring it, and to what source you measure it against. Whose authority or measure do you use? For any qualitative measure the question becomes who is your highest authority and standard that you can reference? You answer would determine how objective your statement is. And that is the problem of a world that rejects God; it's all a matter of how many people you can get to side with you, not on whether what you are saying is true.

daniel12, you said,
"Show me diversity of atheist. And no, do not tell me all atheists are different from each other and are similar only in believing in no God. Show me differences as to the big question....Show me the wide world of atheism to indeed match the diversity of religion"

that's a weird request: "differences as to the big question"? how many different non-beliefs can there be? if you're looking for diversity, perhaps it would help to think of atheists as non-christian, non-jewish, non-islamic, non-zeus, non-baal, non-ra etc, etc...

it's only when one invents gods that one can have diversity of opinion about them.

also, why would you want diversity of opinion? i see all the various beliefs about god as evidence that, at best, ALMOST EVERYONE IS WRONG about god. logically speaking, if these different religions propose different, mutually incompatible, things about god, then AT MOST only one religion could be right.

that applies through time too. the "choice" from among the diverse religions extends back into time. from a theist perspective, it could be that the ancient egyptians had it right or maybe the australian aborigines or the druids or the navahos or...well, you get the point, i hope.

Dear Daniel 12

I do not consider myself to be an anteist. But I understand atheism, and I am not threatened by the existencee of atheists or of atheistic thought. And when I see mean-spirited Christians or Moslems trashing atheists, then I stick up for them and defend them, and I criticize false religious theology for what it is.

You are one of those people who has a great deal of hostility towards atheists, which is political in nature. For, other than the politics of power and control, why should it matter to you that there are atheists in the world, as long a you, yourself, also have your freedom to believe as you will, which you do?

You have hostility towards atheists, and towards me, because you assume, wrongly, that I am atheistic, merely because I do not side with you in your unreaasoning fear of atheists. Almost every assumption you have about atheists and their motivaitons is wrong, wrong, WRONG!!

Boiled down to its essence, atheists do not believe in God. If some atheists are in a bad mood over the whole religion quesiton, it is because of the rudeness of Christians and Moslems towards atheists, and their complete and total disprespect that they show towards atheists, and the very, very cold and unloving shoulder that they give to atheists.

Farnaz,

I couldn't resist a few digs of my own over on the JMReynolds thread! Thanks for the tip.....

'Nor does you develop' = 'Nor do you develop'.

Farnaz:

It would appear to me that Clearthinking1 should replace John Mark Reynolds!

Daniel12:

" No one knows what it is or how it began. Some say God made it. The "brighter people" say it is gases, elements, "material". No one really knows anything about it and there is not the slightest reason to object that it might be something we do not even comprehend to people thousands of years from now."

No one? You mean YOU, of course.

You jump from unjustified conclusions to presuppositions with the agility of a jackrabbit on amphetamines, generating inconsistencies, absurd results and just plain nonsense as fast as you can type.

Many of the defects in your thought processes could be corrected if you understood any organized method of inference. Nor does you develop any thought beyond an initial exploratory phase, which I suspect is directly tied to your inadequacies with inference.

Your thinking/writing never evolves beyond the exploratory – and even that is difficult to read, without extensive editing, because of your lack of understanding of, and consequent infelicity toward, grammar and syntax.

I’ve never encountered anyone who so consistently paints himself into corners. One is left to wonder whether euthanasia is necessarily evil.

Lion's Den to me below.

"Almost all of your discussions on the existence of God, more than anyone else on these threads, have to do with the politics of power and control, as though one must believe this or else that would happen, which is really totally and completely apart form the truth of any matter."

Oh right, so now I am the great dogmatist, the dictator telling what is right and wrong.

Here is what I say: Before my eyes is this stupendous thing. It spans light years and light years. It creates stars and planets. It moves continents together and separates them. It lives billions of years and perhaps longer. It began how? big bang? God? It makes life and takes it away with equal ease. No one knows what it is or how it began. Some say God made it. The "brighter people" say it is gases, elements, "material". No one really knows anything about it and there is not the slightest reason to object that it might be something we do not even comprehend to people thousands of years from now.

But atheists say whatever it is, the religious are rigid and not to be trusted. The religious rigid? By atheists own admission there have been countless Gods to various peoples--countless ways of worshipping. But how many types of atheist are there? So far as I can tell, two: the both are scientific but one differs from the other in talking about morality without God being better than in any religious age. The other is not so much concerned about morality, recognizes that without God actions can be quite flexible and one can be quite at liberty--meaning immoral.

Two types of atheist. And they often get along. A gathering of atheists calls itself tolerant, flexible, curious--but we find a group with really no individual differences as to the big question. All atheists love to get together and talk about elements, gases, DNA, etc. And atheists are typically liberal politically. All this curiosity but one group. One group decided there is no God and life can "just self-organize".

The atheists a group which destroys all religion for the lockstep of conventional scientific viewpoint. If any atheist objects to these words, please give me only four or five types of atheist to match the religions Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc.

Show me diversity of atheist. And no, do not tell me all atheists are different from each other and are similar only in believing in no God. Show me differences as to the big question. Succeed at that and then perhaps tell me I am all about power and control. So far as I can tell, there is so little diversity as to atheist that saying atheist and liberal is the same thing.

Show me the wide world of atheism to indeed match the diversity of religion--and go one step further if you can and show me all the ways to be stupified by existence--which is stupifying. Then I might be better reconciled to atheism.

Persiflage, Schaum,

You might want to check out John Mark Reynolds' thread on this blog. Admitted dualist, JM, takes on our own Clearthinking, among other bloggers.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_mark_reynolds/2009/10/is_there_good_without_god.html

Persiflage,

But, then, there is the notion of creatio ex nihilo.

Interesting....

Persiflage,

Thanks for the link on Brown. My sources are, if I'm not mistaken, a book, which is somewhere, and a journal article, the journal also somewhere located. Will find when time becomes more plentiful.

Re the Sutra. I think Science will be better able to come to terms with a lack of origins than the other disciplines, although scientISTs may have a hard time.

With the quest for origins comes the need for certainty, purity, priority claims. That is why it was necessary for the Christians to rewrite the Tanakh, the Muslims the Tanakh and NT. Etc., etc., etc.

Origins will kill us all one day. (Sorry to be negative. :[ )

'He was indeed a hero to abolutionists in the North.....'

...make that abolitionists. John Brown was also treated heroically by African Americans of later generations.

Farnaz, I'm further reviewing your Middle Way link, a truly superb resource.

A description of just the first sutra out of 152....

'In this difficult but important sutta the Buddha reviews in depth one of the most fundamental principles of Buddhist thought and practice: namely, that there is no thing — not even Nibbana itself — that can rightly be regarded as the source from which all phenomena and experience emerge.'

What can this mean? The mysteries to be found in Buddhism are as profound as anything the human imagination has birthed - this is emptiness, the nature of all.

Science will never get this, or much else in these sutras, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility that such insights can be experienced - and have been.

thanks again

Farnaz, this is essentially the (abbreviated) story that most folks have either heard or read about, with regard to John Brown at Harpers Ferry. He was indeed a hero to abolutionists in the North.....

The details regarding the alleged murder of pro-slavers in Kansas by Brown and sons is not covered in any detail here, but he was hung for treason based on his attempt to take over a federal arsenal, as were several of his men.

A ridiculous trumped up charge, but just as effective as being declared a witch in Salem, MA.

Always glad for any links you care to send!

http://www.wvculture.org/History/jnobrown.html

Persiflage

persiflage,
well, cool about "zataomm". i read "lila", to and was disappointed. for me, zataomm was about "what is good?" or what is "quality" - is it inherent in a thing, or do we imbue it with quality. i was an architecture student trying to figure out what makes a "quality" building (or any designed object). loved it - took copious notes...

re civil war. i am amazed at how people around here are still obsessed with the civil war - especially "confederates". my high school was named after a civil war general. one of my in-laws is a real "civil war nut". he knows all the battles and strategies and statistics. it's kind of weird to me. it seems like all the "civil war nuts" are sympathetic to the south. like they can't move on. it's like they secretly hope the south shall rise again or something. anyway, i'm not a civil war "buff", and i guess i'd have been "rooting for" (if not fighting for) the north.

Hi Persiflage,

Thanks for your reply.

"Agree that John Brown was hung as a scapegoat, rather than as a man truly guilty of out and out murder."

What I've been trying to say is that he was far more than not guilty. He was innocent.

As you may have noticed, I'm not a self-deceiving, naive, liberal, revisionist loon. Brown's letters indicate that he had specifically taken avoiding violence into his calculations. Those involved in thwarting his plan did not.

Further, his diaries do not show him to have been a fanatic in any way. At some point, when I have more time, I'll dig up my Brown stuff, post sources, etc.

On Gettysburg: I was there quite awhile ago. But maybe we should go back. Take child, buy hats :]

Walter,

You've inspired me to re-read Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance .

Also picked up Pirsig's more recent book,
Lila - an Inquiry into Morals .

Alleged to be his view of life in the 1990's in much the same way as the first was a commentary on cultural exigencies of the 70's.

If this goes well, I'm going to re-read all of my Charles Bukowsky and Raymond Carver next ;^)

Howdy Walter,

We posted over on Kessler's thread re. John Brown, Harpers Ferry, etc. and it now appears that and most other threads have been all but put out of commission by our perpetually present blog terminator/spammer/all around threadomaniac - he who will not go away and stay away.

I'd complain, but can't send a comment through Outlook - they really have to start keeping the threads free of this garbage with more vigilance - sorry about the miffed response...just ventilating.

Ref. the Civil War, John Brown's body, Robert E. Lee, et al. Comments?

persiflage,
"I warrant Walter in Falls Church has a thing or two to say about all of this!"

you mean the civil war stuff?

Farnaz, thanks for the Middle Way link - saved for some in depth review later.

Just perused a small book by J. Kerouac entitled Awake - one of two books he is known to have written on the subject of Buddhism. This book could have been taken directly from the Middle Way sutras.

He was criticized by Gary Snyder and Alan Watts as a man with Zen flesh but no Zen bones - because of his preference for the Mahayana view, as opposed to the stark Zen approach favored by other of the early beatniks - Kerouac maintained that 'beat' was short for beatific!

He was of course a schooled Catholic, known for his devotion to both Jesus and Mary. A rare bird that made it all stick together, much like Thomas Merton. Also recommend The Way of Chuang Tzu by Merton.

Agree that John Brown was hung as a scapegoat, rather than as a man truly guilty of out and out murder.

Per my post, he has long suffered the role of the anti-hero spoiler post mortem, while the history books paint General Robert E. Lee in glowing terms, a hero to both sides.

When in fact he just looked better all gussied up with white flowing mane, snappy grey military uniform (love the color) and astride a very large white horse - but was more treacherous than Brown by far...having thrown over his considerable debt to West Point and the Union Army for a less than noble cause - leading the Confederacy.

He died of old age.........some 600,000 causalties later.

I warrant Walter in Falls Church has a thing or two to say about all of this!

I recommend a visit to Gettysburg if you can ever swing it - the battle reenactments alone are worth the trip.

Buy a genuine Kepi and wear it back to NYC - the charming if unusual little hat worn by field troops on both sides....Lee favored the more distinguished and gentlemanly Stetson, of course.

Schaum,

Re: Your last post on Perter Huff

Yes, of course, you're correct. (NO offense, intended, Peter.) The system is hermetically sealed, self-referential, occludes conflicting evidence, facts, etc.

But we see this sort of think, everywhere, do we not? Not merely in religion. There is a general resistance to thought, evaluation.

Not only has grey ceased to exist, but off-white, off-black have vanished, as well.
During the elections, Obama was a saint. Anyone who wasn't busy erecting monuments was either a racist, a neocon, or a health care fanatic.

In Susan's book on freethinkers, there is a dearth of comment on atheistic conservatives, although they existed, were not all "evil."

Schaum,

Re: Religion and morality

Often, I think of Peretz's perspective. An atheist, he thought that society needs religion, as a reference point. Each generation must have it to reject its damaging effects, draw from and modify its ethics/morality.

This paradox fills his work. Controlled implementation would, of course, be difficulty. HOw would we assure an adequate number of doubters, ultimatel to become atheists? Whom to sacrifice to the gaping jaws of REligion? Allowed to exist, would we not always risk changing into food for the Beast?

Just wondering. . . .

PeterHuff,

Thanks for your reply.

Farnaz

Hail Persiflage,

Found this wonderful link to "The Middle-Length Discourses." What say you?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/index.html

Also, re another thread. What I wrote about John Brown is correct. Had things gone as he planned, there would have been no violence, let alone deaths.

The source is among the many documents, books (five thousand remaining), in this smallish apartment, and I've neither the time nor the inclination to locate it for CCNL's benefit.

I hope you can take my word for it, since it's fact, sourced, with documents in Brown's hand.

Another fascinating, though generally unkown fact about the raid. Although the number of Jews in the US was negligible at the time, four were among John Brown's men.

RIP, John Brown, Noble Man

Disposing of the religious tyrant, Peter Huff:

It's generally a waste of time to challenge his statements; they are, to him, hermetically sealed truth and, to everyone else, vacuous -- unless you simply challenge them because they're both “true” and vacuous. (That would be a full-time job, because he makes so many of them, all of which are referentially interchangeable, since they refer to nothing provable as they stand.)

On that count, the deal-breaker in the whole of his statements would of course be
the unfalsifiable proclamations that god “is”. This a random postulate to be flushed down the toilet with the rest of thousands of years' worth of moral philosophy and epistemology.

But still, if his statements entail anything amenable to empirical falsification (under reasonable-seeming assumptions that help to make the statements intelligible in the first place), that would be the first way to challenge them -- if one were so inclined and had tons of time on one's hands.

One obvious entailment, just off the top of my head, is that individuals
choose to accept or reject god. That assertion could be falsified by
finding a significant number of people who make no such choice.

There are other, far more complex, entailments -- those that suggest the
kind of person one would be who holds his postulates, and those that
suggest the kind of world we would live in if a significant number of
people held his postulates. His statements could then be challenged by
challenging the advisability of being a person like him or of wanting to
live in a world like his.

Huff says: "This is not just my personal view, it's Absolute Truth."

Daniel12 should try that.

People instinctively seek the maximum reward for the least amount of effort. Hence "faith alone" keeps the christers in business. Well, faith AND fear.

Persiflage:

"As for poor navigation on the sea of reason, knowing what you don't know has never been a quality much in evidence, on the ship of fools for Christ....."

How clearly you phrase it.

'And Huff, Jesus's mouthpiece, unable to persuade, resorts to the oldest christer trick of all: emotional tyranny, threats! Hahahahah. What a conman.'

You nailed it Schaum. As if the self-serving piety weren't enough, the 'I'm saved and you're not' routine is classic christian hubris of the worst kind - no less the supreme religion-based narcissism that has long discredited religion in general. Thinking folks just don't buy it, but con artists pander to a much larger crowd.

As for poor navigation on the sea of reason, knowing what you don't know has never been a quality much in evidence, on the ship of fools for Christ.....

'And Huff, Jesus's mouthpiece, unable to persuade, resorts to the oldest christer trick of all: emotional tyranny, threats! Hahahahah. What a conman.'

You nailed it Schaum. As if the self-serving piety weren't enough, the 'I'm saved and you're not' routine is classic christian hubris of the worst kind - no less the supreme religion-based narcissism that has long discredited religion in general. Thinking folks just don't buy it, but con artists pander to a much larger crowd.

As for poor navigation on the sea of reason, knowing what you don't know has never been a quality much in evidence, on the ship of fools for Christ.....

"For centuries, the mystics of spirit had existed by running a protection racket - by making life on earth unbearable, then charging you for consolation and relief, by forbidding all the virtues that make existence possible, then riding on the shoulders of your guilt, by declaring production and joy to be sins, then collecting blackmail from the sinners."

-- Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual]

"Catch up with you later Walter. I need some sleep."

How about eternal rest. Now there's a thought...

Catch up with you later Walter. I need some sleep.

In fact, man has only one choice to make in life: to think, or not. That is how his "virtue" is gauged.

Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality — not the degree of a man's intelligence, but the full and relentless use of his mind; not the extent of his knowledge, but his acceptance of reason
as an absolute.

Ah Walter,

I guess I'm older and wiser than you are then. (^8

WALTER: "after i die, i'll be dead. you too."

The difference is there is no sting to death for the Christian. It matters not when his body dies, for then he is with the Lord in the eternal realm, where he is already positioned in Christ Jesus as he goes about this life, for Christ is united with us and is our life (John 17:2-26 will give you a better idea of what I am saying). Eternal life is God's life. Or as Paul put it in Galatians 2:20-21, well I'll let him say it rather than repeat it.

Persiflage:

"i'm 45. after i die, i'll be dead. you too."

Yeah...but he will also be disappointed.

WalterIFC:

Heed these words, Walter:

"Did you not disclose your age a while back? If you are as old as I think you said then you are very sharp, but also one foot closer to meaninglessness, at least from the atheist perspective. It will have all been in vain."

And Huff, Jesus's mouthpiece, unable to persuade, resorts to the oldest christer trick of all: emotional tyranny, threats! Hahahahah. What a conman.

Hi Farnaz,

FARNAZ: "You not only posit the existence of God (recognize it as obvious, if you prefer), but the existence of Christianity, and, to boot, a very specific apologetics, thereof."

Yes, the existence of God is obvious from what has been made and men/women are without excuse when they deny Him, as per Romans 1:18-25, plus a host of other verses that say much the same thing. The fool is the one who says "there is no God." He denies the obvious and thus fools himself.

FARNAZ: "How are those who have never heard of Christianity, much less presuppositionalism supposed to come to Jesus Christ "on His terms"?

By "on His terms" I mean in submission to His will, not having God submit to your will for you are not the greater, wiser, purer, truer, better, etc.

By the teaching and preaching of the Christian message. You've heard it, and it is steeped in Judaism for Jesus was born through the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel) and was prophesied about in the Jewish Scriptures, the Old Testament (you are Jewish, or am I mistaken?). The gospel has gone out into all the world (Matthew 28:19-20) and faith comes through hearing the message (Romans 10:17) as the Holy Spirit opens it up to those who are being saved.

For those who do not hear it or have never heard it, they will be fairly judged by God on their own merit and shortfalls, rather than on the merit and perfect standing of Christ.

FARNAZ: "(I'm sure you will not say that they can read them in the Book of Nature.)"

They can know there is a God by nature, but it is only through the Son - the Lord Jesus Christ - that anyone is saved and comes to a knowing and loving relationship with God through Him. Knowing about God and knowing/experiencing God are two different things. You know about God but you don't have an experiential understanding and relationship with Him.

In the same sense you can know about me by the things I reveal on these posts, but you can't share/experience an intimate knowledge and relationship unless you lived with me or interacted with me on a regular or even daily basis, just as the disciples did with Jesus and the Holy Spirit does with believers (John 14:15-17; 16:7-15; Revelation 22:17, if you wish to hear more on this matter).

peter,
i'm 45. after i die, i'll be dead. you too.

persiflage,
thanks.

Clearthinking1:

"Now is the time for science, logic, and deeper & truer spirituality - not supremacist, intolerant cults like Christianity and Islam that proselytize and force their views on others. This results in conflict, violence, and suffering."

Here here! Well said.

Hey Walter,

Peter Huff is forever warning folks that 'It will have all been in vain.' without Jesus, etc, etc,........

Reminds me of the typically glum Christian Reformed types that I ran into occasionally in Grand Rapids, MI a good many years ago - a veritable hotbed of Calvinist progeny.

Usually I was stumbling out of a bar at the time and caught unawares. The End is Coming!! The End is Coming!! Boy, didn't I know it?!

But in the here and now, I wish to compliment you on your splendid artistry - your beautifully rendered (but melting) ice sculptures are the perfect metaphor for a life well-lived. You must be a fun kind of dad to have around!

Salutations!!

Persiflage

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "i can't speak for pam, but i work at home - lets me work/play with some flexibility."

Did you not disclose your age a while back? If you are as old as I think you said then you are very sharp, but also one foot closer to meaninglessness, at least from the atheist perspective. It will have all been in vain.

Fortunately for the world, science has successfully undermined the simpleminded religions - the Abrahamic cults, mainly Christianity and Islam.

Christianity and Islam have had a good 2000 year run preying on ignorance and the ignorant. This ended for Christianity in Europe with the development of science. It is now looking for the ignorant and uneducated in Africa and South America.

Islam - a strange combination of ignorance and intolerance - has been picking the lowest lying fruit for a 1000 years as apparent in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Now is the time for science, logic, and deeper & truer spirituality - not supremacist, intolerant cults like Christianity and Islam that proselytize and force their views on others. This results in conflict, violence, and suffering.

Now is the time for Vedanta & Hinduism. After 1000 years of anti-Hindu propaganda, many are not prepared to hear the wisdom or absorb the deep & complex monistic philosophy which is consistent with science. Now is a good time to start; at least some will benefit.

A new age of rational spirituality is again arriving, and Hinduism and Vedanta will lead the way again.

pam,
it's difficult... thanks for your concern. at least they won't lose this weekend. lately my sunday ritual, dare i say religion has been a bit like that of those those self-flagellating monks...

i've often noted how i the sports realm, i'm very superstitious. i believe my watching and especially cheering at home actually affects the games. wearing certain clothes can help too.

also, irrationally, i keep believing they'll win, or that snyder/cerrato will have an epiphany or something....

"here's my halloween effort:"

Love it! I was wondering how you were holding up as a 'skins fan. Not well, I see. :)

"I'll use the marshmallows on a butternut squash casserole at Thanksgiving."

Sounds good. Save me some.

here's my halloween effort:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58171957@N00/

If interested, you will find Dawkins' thread, the one from this week's essay, alive and well.
He added a bit to it a couple of days ago....

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2009/10/give_us_your_misogynists_and_bigots.html

Farnaz:

Thanks for the link. I didn't see it, no. Are you having a happy halloween?
--------------------
I like Halloween. My daughter loves it. :]

Pamsm:

"Sorry, Schaum, he just wasn't worth that much ire."

I'll use the marshmallows on a butternut squash casserole at Thanksgiving.

Interesting. Most people who write what they like to think of as 'essays' actually make an effort to write about what they KNOW. He seems to prefer to write about what he presupposes. He may be opening an entirely new era in literature. No doubt this is his genius manifesting.

Farnaz:

Thanks for the link. I didn't see it, no. Are you having a happy halloween?

"I brought marshmallows and skewers for nothing?
You sure know how to disappoint a sociopath."

Sorry, Schaum, he just wasn't worth that much ire.

Schaum,

Did you catch this in the Times, t'other day?

"Ayn Rand's Revenge"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/books/review/Kirsch-t.html?em

Is there such a thing as "stream of semiconsciousness"?
---------------------
D12 has channeled James, maybe?

Am rereading Flannery O'Connor.

Farnaz:

Just read Daniel's latest expression of genius again.

Is there such a thing as "stream of semiconsciousness"?

"Jeeze, Daniel 12, what a diatribe!"

Thats IT????

I brought marshmallows and skewers for nothing?

You sure know how to disappoint a sociopath
--------------------
Bummer.

Btw., Emerson thought "miracle" monstrous--thinking of Pamsm's recent posting....

"Jeeze, Daniel 12, what a diatribe!"

Thats IT????

I brought marshmallows and skewers for nothing?

You sure know how to disappoint a sociopath.

"i can't speak for pam, but i work at home - lets me work/play with some flexibility."

I go to an office, but have a fair amount of down time at work. Some days are busier than others.

Jeeze, Daniel 12, what a diatribe!

I think I "know everything" about the universe??? Are you kidding?? I'll be the very first to admit that I know very little about astrophysics, and virtually nothing about quantum theory. I don't know what existed before the Big Bang, or even whether there definitely was one. Not that I'm not interested.

The beauty part of science is that there are always fertile fields for inquiry. How boring it would be to have the answers to everything, as the religionists claim to do.

And awe? I'm in constant awe of nature and fascinated by it.

All the same, Daniel, I can say that for you to believe that there's something out there in the universe that's anthropomorphic, and that cares whether you commit murder, is hubristic and self-aggrandizing in the extreme. But then, you're used to that.

Susan Jacoby, "Freethinkers"

http://books.google.com/books?id=dj_BPwOrOn8C&dq=Susan+Jacoby&printsec=frontcover&source=an&hl=en&ei=pXPsStWrNIjKlAe_m9j_BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Alles,

Recommended reading, accessible on googlebooks (partly). Purchaseable at Amazon, available at libraries:

Jennifer Hecht, "Doubt: A History"

http://books.google.com/books?id=QJb16_AAePkC&pg=PP1&dq=jennifer+hecht#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Susan Jacoby
Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism - 2005 - 452 pages

Wild Justice: The Evolution of Revenge - 1983 - 408 pages

The Age of American Unreason - 2008 - 384 pages
books.google.com - More book results »

Schaum,

Ah. You noticed the little contradiction thingy. Just ignore it -- like the catholic church. No need to think.

BTW: Monster are energy drinks, as you know, and evidently come in a variety of flavors. I've had one. Tasted good--it was cold, I was hot--but they are FULL of sugar and caffein. Not sure that they are good FOR you.
-------------------
Greetings Noble Hoofnagle!

Yes, I noticed that "thingy" many years ago. Christianity is not alone among the religions whom it plagues.

Re: Monster
Thanks very much for the info. It was highly recommended to me as a "healthy" energy drink, although caffeine inspirited, vitamin fraught. Commenders were unaware of any sugar content.

Know of any healthy energy drinks/concoctions? Not looking for more protein bars; they get me too hyper.

Farnaz

WalterIFC,

as you no doubt know, some believe those who haven't heard the gospel through no fault of their own might get to heaven anyway. it's those who've heard it and rejected it that god really hates.

from this perspective, the worst thing you can do to someone is share the gospel with them - lest they reject it and be thereby sentenced to eternal hell. similarly, someone here once pointed out that the best way to make sure someone gets to heaven is to kill them as babies - they've yet to reject the gospel...
----------------------------
"SOME believe" (precisely). Others do not. Moreover, although I understand what you say in your second paragraph, I know of no Christians (incl. Catholics--I don't distinguish them), who think it not a good idea to spread the "good news."

Wonder what PeterHuff thinks. Hope he replies....

Farnaz

WalterIFC:

"best way to make sure someone gets to heaven is to kill them as babies - they've yet to reject the gospel..."

Ah, purest logic! Wonder why RCC is so opposed to abortion? Oh..yeah..they lose future income.

schaum, farnaz,
as you no doubt know, some believe those who haven't heard the gospel through no fault of their own might get to heaven anyway. it's those who've heard it and rejected it that god really hates.

from this perspective, the worst thing you can do to someone is share the gospel with them - lest they reject it and be thereby sentenced to eternal hell. similarly, someone here once pointed out that the best way to make sure someone gets to heaven is to kill them as babies - they've yet to reject the gospel...

Sorry:

"like the catholic church." should read "like the catholic church and its doctrine of invincible ignorance."

Farnaz:

"How are those who have never heard of Christianity, much less presuppositionalim supposed to come to Jesus Christ "on His terms"?"

Ah. You noticed the little contradiction thingy. Just ignore it -- like the catholic church. No need to think.

BTW: Monster are energy drinks, as you know, and evidently come in a variety of flavors. I've had one. Tasted good--it was cold, I was hot--but they are FULL of sugar and caffein. Not sure that they are good FOR you.

Hi PeterHuff,

You not only posit the existence of God (recognize it as obvious, if you prefer), but the existence of Christianity, and, to boot, a very specific apologetics, thereof.

How are those who have never heard of Christianity, much less presuppositionalim supposed to come to Jesus Christ "on His terms"?

(I'm sure you will not say that they can read them in the Book of Nature.)

peter, to gimpi you said,
"I understand your difficulty [in believing] well. I was there once."

are you saying you weren't always a believer? or weren't always a literal fundamentalist? how were you raised (religion-wise)?

i asked you once way back on one of those threads which (of the 50 or so inerrant english) bible version you use.

'How do you suggest that the first and last sentences in what you have written are not at odds with each other? If there is no evidence that any construct whatsoever points to what is irrefutably true, how can the construct, “This is not mysticism, but the simple unvarnished cognitive truth” be true by your logic?'

Hi RonR4,

Words can be tricky, no? My point was that words are only nominal conventions/inventions, and are never the 'thing in itself' that they point to.

Consequently, there's lots of room for misunderstanding (vast spaces actually) even where words, implied meanings, and associated values are found in the common vernacular of a culture....all is transient, relative, and subject to change. Imagine the problems that exist when transiting between languages/cultures!

Cognitively speaking, we should be aware of the limits of what we actually know, and are able to factually express - and why mathematics, the language of science, is arguably the most pristine form of language.

We should know that we (subjectively) condition/shape our own truth by acts of conscious perception. And then, words often lose their meaning along the way.

The relative world of words is hardly a place for the 'irrefutable truth' to reside conjointly... a pretentious term that approaches the absolute - relatively speaking.

How many times has the incontrovertible truth been overturned and replaced with a better truth, one wonders? Although such a thing may exist in and of the moment, it is too soon gone.

That's not to say that great truths don't exist - but they may be beyond expression/categorization/classification.

Einstein was right about relativity :^)

regards, Persiflage

peter, you said,
"Walter and Pam must have already retired for I can't keep up to the frantic efforts."

i can't speak for pam, but i work at home - lets me work/play with some flexibility.

GIMPI: "I feel if you really want to understand anything, you need to see all of it, not just the small section that you are first drawn to."

That is impossible for anyone but God.

GIMPI: "It's not a matter of "suppressing the truth of God." I'm just, for want of a better way to put it, "hard-wired" to view the world that way."

Yes it is and yes you are.

GIMPI: "As I said, that's part of what drew me to this site. Since I really don't understand the process of "having faith" I'm interested in how it works."

The Christian faith is a trust, a dependence, a reliance on, the Person and work of Jesus Christ on our behalf in meeting the needs of a just and holy God to whom we will one day all give account, some on their own merit, others on the merit of Christ, "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:23-24)

GIMPI: "But my "hard wiring" will probably always make it hard for me to understand your kind of belief, just as I'm sure you don't really understand my difficulty in grasping what seems to be so obvious to you."

I understand your difficulty well. I was there once. And, yes it will be hard, I'd say impossible unless God is merciful to you and gives you ears to hear the simple, life changing message that can change your heart and understanding to believe. What you need is a new spirit, a new nature. You are dead to God in your old one (Romans 8:6-9; Ephesians 2:1-10 if you are interested?).

GIMPI: "It would be a boring world if we were all the same, after all."

That is the wonder of God, He created each one of us unique yet with the ability to love and share what is worth sharing - His Good News!

Hi Gimpi,

GIMPI: "I apologize for not getting back sooner. Deadlines again. I do graphic design, desktop publishing and web design, and I make it a point not to blog on a client's time."

I have a similar problem. I'm not quite at retirement age yet so I'm still working for a living while juggling all the common everyday chores and trying to fit a few minutes in to reply to some of these posts. The problem is reading through the reams of bloggers to find the last post that is relevant to me.

Walter and Pam must have already retired for I can't keep up to the frantic efforts.

GIMPI: "I have to say, I really don't understand that kind of faith, and I think that's just a part of who I am."

The old self-fulfilled prophecy. You don't understand God because you refuse to come to Him on His terms. You want to dictate to God on the way things should be, while keeping Him at the furthest distance possible so as to justify your autonomy. It is the same old problem.
"Did God really say?"

GIMPI: "I don't think we even mean the same thing when we use the word "faith."

Here is a simple definition,

" 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs."

I'll say that 1,3,6 definitely apply to you. I'll also admit that # 2 applies to some Christians, although our faith is based on a Person and relationship with Him, and it does rest on logic and reason and proof. Again, not the kind of proof an atheist will accept, for that would mean dismantling his high held world view.

GIMPI: "(Witness the discussion on altruism on this very thread.) One thing that has always stuck in my mind is a fairly extensive personality test I took years ago as part of a college class. It purported to measure several traits, such as submissiveness to authority, desire for power, empathy, creativity, objectiveness and, yes, faith. I came out as low as possible in having faith."

It is amazing how we let these things mold us into what we become. Ideas always have consequences.

Gimpi:

"" An atheist would say there is no God so theoretically murdering someone would result in penalty only if one's fellow humans catch one."
Posted by Daniel 12

Actually, I've never heard any atheist say any such thing."

Nor has anyone else -- except Daniel12, who seem to 'divine' many things that nobody else knows anything about. Perhaps he is God's other son.

WalterIFC:

"the difference is, largely, that atheists are content to not understand and/or wait for more evidence."

And I think I can say, at least of my fellow athiests with whom I am directly acquainted, that most 1) accept that nothing can be KNOWN beyond question, and 2) there are clear logical and scientific distinctions between evidence and proof!

For me, no belief system that is not based in science would ever be satisfactory.

Imagine the fool who proposes to tell Pamsm what she does and does not think and believe! I wonder whether she will use an accelerant...

daniel12 said,
"You do not so much disbelieve in God as believe you know what the universe is about. You believe all is really rocks, gases, stars and life which just arose from really nothing (self-organizing). You might think yourselves intellectual and curious and so much smarter than the religious, but you are not really."

oh brother... theists regularly accuse atheists of thinking we're smarter than everyone else, or smarter than god, or trying to be like god or blah, blah, blah...

atheists are very comfortable with not understanding the universe. it's theists, actually, who claim to know more than evidence would justify.

what atheist claims knows why the big bang? what atheist claims to know why particles and atoms and molecules have the properties they have? what atheist claims to know why the universe exists? theists have (invented) answers to all these questions.

the difference is, largely, that atheists are content to not understand and/or wait for more evidence. it's theists who jump right to "god did it".

Justillthennow,

Cheers, and a stream of rich, dark, beery insight to you, sir. It is a night for WS Sonnet 30, certes, and for flowers through green fuses, and water through rocks.

You may be pleased to know I didn't cantanker against some hapless posse of faux ghouls...

Daniel12:

You are joking right? Your entire previous post is a whine!

Let me understand: you think that a proof has to be convincing for everyone in the world, otherwise it isn't true?

Good, clear, sound thinking Daniel...the hallmarks of all your writing/whining. My guess is you are about to get your tailfeathers singed.

Schaum,

Nongod bless your egg-beating a*se, O naughtical Greek! :^)

It's nearing midnight here, and I've set the moon dancing with a skinful of spirituous liquors...

To your health!

" An atheist would say there is no God so theoretically murdering someone would result in penalty only if one's fellow humans catch one."
Posted by Daniel 12

Actually, I've never heard any atheist say any such thing. People uncomfortable with atheism are always saying atheists would feel that way, but the atheists themselves sure don't seem to.

Also, on the idea that the only penalty for doing violence is getting caught and punished, I can say that, for myself, that's not at all true. At one point in my life, I had to fight in my own defense. It didn't come to having to kill, (thank providence) but it left me scarred. Having to perform an act of violence, even very justified, damages you. Witness the latent trauma many soldiers feel after war.

"Gimpi: Are you looking for something to believe? Or are you looking for a religion?"
Posted by schaum

Neither, really. I'm interested more in why people believe what they believe, than the beliefs themselves. I can't quite accept a "my way or the highway" deity, (since people are so different, why would there be only 'one way'?) so I'm not really religion-shopping. It's more a matter of innate curiosity. Since simple faith in an unseen force just does not seem to be part of my mental framework, I'm curious how it works. This general curiosity has given me a moderate overview of many religious beliefs, and I greatly enjoyed Smith's contribution, but thanks for the reference. I have also enjoyed all of Campbell's works. If you haven't read him in a while, here's a link:
http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Joseph+Campbell&source=an&ei=6SDsSrT4PIbOsQP7m-zhBw&sa=X&oi=book_group&ct=title&cad=author-navigational&resnum=7&ved=0CCQQsAMwBg

Schaum, I am well aware of such proofs as you mention, but obviously for all proof they are not proof--or you and every other non-believer would believe. And where you get that I am whining I have no idea. I remember also another post when I said I was poor you said something about playing the violin (sad story) and to stop asking for pity, something like that. All in your mind friend. I neither whine nor ask for pity. I am actually quite happy with my life.

Daniel12:

"There is no proof of God"

Oh for christ sake of course there are proofs of God. Read Aquinas' Summa Theologiae and stop whining about proofs of God. It was written for people like you. Don't let debunking of those proofs discourage you. Only stop going on about the lack of proofs of God!

Excuse a couple of obviously poorly written sentences in last post. I was listening to music and that affected my writing. But the meaning should be clear enough.

To Lion's Den and Pam. You miss the point completely about what I last wrote on the problem of God. And the reason why you do is so obvious: despite the universe being so vast and mysterious you feel there is nothing you really do not know about it. You can argue all you want against the sentence I just wrote but that is exactly what you believe. You do not so much disbelieve in God as believe you know what the universe is about. You believe all is really rocks, gases, stars and life which just arose from really nothing (self-organizing). You might think yourselves intellectual and curious and so much smarter than the religious, but you are not really. You believe you know everything, and no, do not dispute that sentence. All your materialism, etc. is an overarching philosophy which despite any further advances in human knowledge you believe to be permanent. Your minds are pretty much impermeable to a great breakthrough--even one within your own materialistic view. All I was saying is that we really know nothing so it pays to watch one's words and actions. There is no proof of God, but neither is there any evidence which makes certain your overarching philosophy is certain. That is all I was saying and you cannot even grant that. So much for curiousity and the very awe you so much insist does not need religion to back it. You are in awe of nothing. Your philosophy removes awe, your certainty in it. And no, do not say that is not true. By definition to be awestruck is be amazed, bewildered, flabbergasted, fascinated, and yes, uncertain. I have never seen any evidence of wonder in anything you two have written. And on the part of Lion's Den, your paranoia is quite amusing. All this talk of me being about power or whatever it is you mean. You two should get together and step on a balcony together and look at the stars. You can trot out all the talk of gases, materials composing stars, etc. and bask in your understanding. No doubt there is really nothing more than what you already understand. You can die happy and full of knowledge.

Ronr4:

"How do you suggest that the first and last sentences in what you have written are not at odds with each other?"

In the first sentence he spoke of irrefutable truth; in the last he spoke of cognitive truth. You can google to determine the distinctions, and that will answer your question.

DITLD:

I was raised Southern Baptist.
I sat through the entire Roman Catholic Catechism
I sat through the entire Missouri Synod Catechism
I sat through the entire Anglican Catechism, and became an Episcopalian
I studied and practiced Buddhism
I studied and practiced existentialism
I renounce christianity
I deny the existence of God.

Other than iterating these facts, I have no iota of interest, nor do I propose to bother myself, in trying to prove anything to you.

Hows that for free will?

"The Commandment no murder coupled with an absolute absence of God...but still the universe so vast...I pretty much catch myself, do not trust I know what will occur if I murder someone."

A few possibilities - either you'll be caught and punished; caught and fool the jury, going free like OJ; or not caught, and spend the rest of your life feeling panic every time someone knocks on the door.

Out in the universe are stars like our Sun, some with rocks orbiting them, some of which, by the odds, probably harbor some kind of life that couldn't care less who you murder here on Earth.

Persiflage,

You wrote, “Where is the evidence that any construct whatsoever points to what is irrefutably true? There is none, since all is in the mind. This is not mysticism, but the simple unvarnished cognitive truth.”

How do you suggest that the first and last sentences in what you have written are not at odds with each other? If there is no evidence that any construct whatsoever points to what is irrefutably true, how can the construct, “This is not mysticism, but the simple unvarnished cognitive truth” be true by your logic?

Daniel12

An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. An atheist, like everyone else, does not choose what to believe by free will. An atheist believes, like everyone else, what seems true. A person cannot choose what seems right. That depends on perception, sensory acuity, sharpness of mind, and all the previous experiences that lead up to the present moment.

So why are you so bothered by people that do not believe in God? Just because there are some people who do not believe in God does not mean that you cannot believe in God, if you want to.

Almost all of your discussions on the existence of God, more than anyone else on these threads, have to do with the politics of power and control, as though one must believe this or else that would happen, which is really totally and completely apart form the truth of any matter.

For all the people who proclaim that they have chosen their beliefs by free will, for Peter Huff, for example, prove your free will to believe by chosing to believe something else. If you are a devout Catholic, then prove to me you free will to believe as you wish by being an atheist for a day.

Or, Mr. Shaum, prove to me that you really do have free will to choose your own beliefs by choosing to be a devout Catholic for a day. If you cannot do such a simple thing, then, I think you have demonstrated that free will is an illusion.

"I posited a negative: there is not such thing as altruism."

Ahh, but not entirely. You posited that someone committing an apparently altruistic act is getting benefit from it, greater than his love of life. That's a positive, and yours to prove.

"Suggest you submit your theories to SCIENCE."

Unnecessary - been done, long merry ago, by those more credentialed than I.

A thought on the existence of God, whether he exists or not...I can understand there is no proof of God. I can even understand there is great evidence such a being cannot exist--at least cannot exist and be perfectly good, for there is so much evil in the world. But the problem I have is that so far as I can tell the universe is not only mysterious, but vastly mysterious. All one has to do is contemplate the age of the earth and observe that South America was once connected to Africa, etc. So despite no proof of God, despite so much evidence of evil, still, one knows nothing--and this cannot help but make one respectful and careful, that is, if one is not a blind atheist out for blood against religion. In other words, I fail to understand how atheists can be so certain there is no God--for that is what they assert even though they stress they merely disbelieve in God and that God might exist. This is not to say I am a member of a particular religion, but how can one just toss all religion aside and be so certain before this grand mystery that there is no higher being? How can one say this when the difference between one's intellect and what lies before the senses is so great? An atheist would say there is no God so theoretically murdering someone would result in penalty only if one's fellow humans catch one. But how can one say this when the universe is so vast, so beyond comprehension? How can one be sure there is no penalty beyond that inflicted upon oneself by one's fellow humans? Certainly when I consider what would occur if I murdered someone I do not comfortably feel the only penalty can come by the hand of my fellow humans. I step on the balcony, look at the stars, wonder if there is some sort of trick. The Commandment no murder coupled with an absolute absence of God...but still the universe so vast...I pretty much catch myself, do not trust I know what will occur if I murder someone. And one does not have to be religious to understand this. One is just applying common sense. For example, pretend one is a general about to attack an enemy. One has considered all the possible outcomes. But is one absolutely certain of victory? Of course not. One does not know everything. So it is in every day life. One cannot be certain one knows all that will occur if one takes a certain action. The human race is not just ignorant but plain stupid when faced with the majesty of the universe. One might not believe in God, but if one has any sense at all one will hedge the bet and try to be careful in one's actions and words. There might be a God or something just waiting for one to fall into the trap, to be arrogant and take an action which is immoral, because one thinks nothing is there. This is something of religion I believe any sensible atheist can understand. And if a religious person is sensible I believe he can live with atheists and hold this position. In other words, here I believe atheists and the religious can agree on God.

"To me, creator is the universe. All sentient beings are parts of the universe, and have been since the big bang. Therefore, all sentient beings are part of the creator."

I like all of this. The further extension of this is, of course, all sentient beings ARE the Creator.

God as a term is convenient, if not loaded. In the western world and consciousness it speaks to spiritual and supernatural and (sorry) divine even as it carries a heavy weight of image and interpretation. Potent inertia.

'I'm going to an animal shelter fund raiser costume party. I think I'll go as a greek motorboat. Nude, with an eggbeater sticking out my a$$.'

Persiflage is right with the class act compliment, and hardly lower. Any greek motorboat is a hard act to follow. All the more if the first mate is a swarthy macaque with a sailors cap on! Cheers to you, Schaum!

Does anyone know anything about a drink called "Monster"? Is it "good" (as in healthy)?

Schaum,

I do get your point, and find it reasonable. Now I bid all "Good Night, Bonsoir, and pleasant dreams".

Wiccan:

"Why would you use "creator"?

If you've read many of my posts, you know that I consider eyewitness evidence to be one notch above useless. Yet, that is precisely the evidence I use to support MY concept of a higher power: I observe creation, and from that I infer a creator. There is no other evidence, good/bad/scientific/suppositional, for the existence of a creator. It is bad evidence. Yet it is sufficient for me. To me, creator is the universe. All sentient beings are parts of the universe, and have been since the big bang. Therefore, all sentient beings are part of the creator. We have all always been, we will all always be. This obviates the need for "god" -- all knowing, all powerful, all controlling, angry, demanding slavish worship, etc. etc....all things that one has come (perhaps erroneously) to associate with "The Divine." I have no need to be created by, nor be in partnership with a creator who is, an allpowerful, allknowing, angry, jealous...etc, etc. You get the point.

Besides, divine is a word drag queens use a lot, and I can't tell you how NOT into drag queens I am.

Schaum,

Why would you use "creator"?

Wiccan:

"I find it very hard to see the Christian viewpoint of Man as "Sinner", separated from God, because my eyes see the Divine in everything (at least I try to!). I think Peter Huff would tell me I'm blind. ;-)"

He might. I wouldn't. I agree with you right down the line. Except I'd use the word 'creator' instead of 'Divine'.

Persiflage:

"You're a class act - who could deny it??"

Yeah...lower class.

Gimpi: Are you looking for something to believe? Or are you looking for a religion?

One of the best guides to religion is Huston Smith's "The World's Religions." You can still buy it, or you can read it online at this address:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1G4eNRWYT6gC&dq=books+on+world's+religions&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=HHzrSte5H4mtlAerquj_BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

'I'm going to an animal shelter fund raiser costume party. I think I'll go as a greek motorboat. Nude, with an eggbeater sticking out my a$$.'

Schaum,

You're a class act - who could deny it??

Gimpi:

"People's minds truly do work differently, and the differences have always intrigued me. But my "hard wiring" will probably always make it hard for me to understand your kind of belief, just as I'm sure you don't really understand my difficulty in grasping what seems to be so obvious to you."

If you will allow, I will quote myself from a post in the first days of this forum:

One of the science channels had a program on how animals experience the world, and one part made a big impression on me. Bees do not see in our light spectrum; they see in ultraviolet, which we cannot see. The program showed a picture of a field of beautiful red and yellow flowers, then it showed how it would look to a bee, and now the flowers glowed blue-white. Same flowers, different realities.

I find it very hard to see the Christian viewpoint of Man as "Sinner", separated from God, because my eyes see the Divine in everything (at least I try to!). I think Peter Huff would tell me I'm blind. ;-)

Onofrio:

"cenobites"

My god. I'd forgotten this word. Thank you.

JTTN:

"And are you dressing up for the night, or just going out as you are? what is scarier than a young monk and nun indeed.."

I'm going to an animal shelter fund raiser costume party. I think I'll go as a greek motorboat. Nude, with an eggbeater sticking out my a$$.

Onofrio:

""For reasons I can't define, I find this frightening."

Actually, guy, I think I DO know what frightens me: those costumes were not hand made, they were commercially available.

Hmmmmm..... good/bad/evil/altruism/energy and so forth. None are real, all are nominal abstractions. Where is the evidence that any construct whatsoever points to what is irrefutably true? There is none, since all is in the mind. This is not mysticism, but the simple unvarnished cognitive truth.

There is no evidence to the contrary - constructs are true only in so far as they have commonly accepted meaning. They are never substantially in any sense what they imply. Terminological meaning drifts from culture to culture........

Proof to the contrary is always welcome.

Gimpi:

" I find people have lots of different reasons for why they believe what they believe."

Indeed. But where "god" and "religion" are concerned, most people's "reasons" begin and end with mommy.

Farnaz:

"Karl Marx: "Capitalism has left between man and man no other nexus than naked self-interest."

Yes. Look at the healthcare battle in this country.

Schaum (Vulnavia):

"In this system, the majority would, I would think, rule in making decisions about good/bad/evil, and base its decisions on what provided the greatest economic good for the majority."
--------------------------
Jeremy Bentham.
------------------
Karl Marx: "Capitalism has left between man and man no other nexus than naked self-interest."

Onofrio,

Just the site of the mini holy ones wandering the dusk with crimson stigmata dripping from the endages of appendages, proud and beaming parentals carrying red soaked gauze, a halo of other worldly light emanating from their visage---- it moves me is what it does.

"When a coin in the candy-can rings, a soul from purgatory springs!"

You have a way of stirring the twinkling memories of long slumbering Childhoods Christmas Past. Are you spirit or man, Oh Onofrio?

And speaking of beery repose, on of my most favorite subjects, I as well intend to raise a glass to those that came before and have sadly or otherwise gone along. Dark Imperial droughts do this work best. North Coast Old Rasputin never fails to quench, but many come to mind when speaking of the heavies.

Good cheer on you. Temper your ogreish play with that same good cheer, (would ye like a wee dram, little imp, fer yer treat?). You never know which one may come back to convert the next generation to the Good News.

Justilltennow

"lollygagging"

New to benighted me. Zesta!

"Oh, sure you do -- you are intelligent. That aphorism was/is perpetuated by people, fearful of the lack of a 'higher power' who can/will protect them from destruction, who have identified for themselves what they believe is the ultimate authority/power. By (at least verbally) aligning themselves with this perceived entity, they can vicariously share in the power/authority they think they have identified. And anyone who does not agree with them and their perceived higher power is a threat to them -- against which they publicly defend themselves by anemic means, such as producing idiotic aphorisms. Long-winded explanation for paranoia."
Posted by: Schaum

Thank you for the response, and the compliment! Perhaps you're right about many people, but I find people have lots of different reasons for why they believe what they believe.

Trying to figure that out is part of what drew me to this site in the first place. And I always find their responses interesting, even when they don't seem to be very self-aware. People often reveal things about themselves that they themselves don't know, don't you find?

Peterhuff
I apologize for not getting back sooner. Deadlines again. I do graphic design, desktop publishing and web design, and I make it a point not to blog on a client's time.

To respond to your assertion:
"We all have faith. It is just what it rests on. Your faith rests on your authority and the authority of limited, finite men whose truth keeps changing (the shifting standard). Your faith rests on what you can see, touch, taste, smell, hear - on the temporal realm; mine rests in the unseen, eternal, unchanging realm through the grace and mercy of God."

I have to say, I really don't understand that kind of faith, and I think that's just a part of who I am. I don't think we even mean the same thing when we use the word "faith." (Witness the discussion on altruism on this very thread.) One thing that has always stuck in my mind is a fairly extensive personality test I took years ago as part of a college class. It purported to measure several traits, such as submissiveness to authority, desire for power, empathy, creativity, objectiveness and, yes, faith. I came out as low as possible in having faith. (also submissiveness to authority and desire for power) and very high in empathy, creativity and objectiveness. I have never seen the world in absolutes, only probabilities. I not only don't see the world in black and white, I find shades of grey too limiting. There's blue, red, yellow, and every mix in between. I feel if you really want to understand anything, you need to see all of it, not just the small section that you are first drawn to. It's not a matter of "suppressing the truth of God." I'm just, for want of a better way to put it, "hard-wired" to view the world that way.

As I said, that's part of what drew me to this site. Since I really don't understand the process of "having faith" I'm interested in how it works. People's minds truly do work differently, and the differences have always intrigued me. But my "hard wiring" will probably always make it hard for me to understand your kind of belief, just as I'm sure you don't really understand my difficulty in grasping what seems to be so obvious to you. It would be a boring world if we were all the same, after all.

Schaum,

"For reasons I can't define, I find this frightening."

So will many of those entreated for treats, I daresay. Who knows what ancient traumas might be goaded awake?

Perhaps, to augment the dread, the parents could add stigmata, in crimson texta, to the hands and feet of their wee cenobites.

To extend his pastorate of all souls, Papa Ratzinger could co-opt this grassroots suburbane faith-initiative, fast-track the sainthood of the founders (shouldn't be hard, now the *devil's advocate* is no more) and harness it to fill heaven and raise funds:

"When a coin in the candy-can rings, a soul from purgatory springs!"

This Hallow's Eve, as is my custom, I shall be invoking my dead ancestors, and drinking to their memory...

And I shall thoroughly enjoy playing the ogreish spoilsport to any trick-or-treaters that disturb my beery repose.

"My interests lie at the other end."

Ah, that is delightful! You have a foot fetish!

Well then, I am sure your macaque is flat on his back and ful filled. For, what monkey doesn't want his toes played with?

Of the 464 Congressional Medal of Honor winners in WWII, 266 were awarded posthumously.

The Claymore mine needs a load.

"A nice goat cheese with water crackers would go well with your whine."

I'm in the mood for something a bit more substantial, thanks, though a good goat cheese is divine.

As long as it doesn't come from an old one...

And are you dressing up for the night, or just going out as you are? what is scarier than a young monk and nun indeed...

" One reason is you appear to be getting a fixation on my mouth"

Do you get any exercise other than jumping to conclusions.

My interests lie at the other end.

"The big problem I see here, so far, is that the minority will never have their needs met, since it would be the majority that decided good/evil. Is there a way around this?"

No, unless the minority went off and made their own society where they were the majority. Or they resort to the evil they are, (assuming here that their 'needs' exist far outside of the common 'good' as it is usually defined by a majority).

What is considered good by the majority is usually very similar in it's fundamentals. And then, conditioning does a world of work to bring the newly indoctrinated, (into any system), in line with the thinking of the system. So the indoctrinated now define good based on conditioning.

For many of western ancestry the conditioning give us a white bearded Deity defining good and evil.

Takes time to scrub off what is more than skin deep.

"Actually, I was going to offer you the opportunity to clean and load the claymore, provided you agreed to put it in your mouth and pull the trigger afterward."

A billion thanks for the offer, but I have to respectfully decline. One reason is you appear to be getting a fixation on my mouth, and you know what Freud would say about the trigger. But you have now gone way off base with the whole claymore thing, giving it a trigger that can be pulled. This is no longer sarcasm!

No, you are just gonna have to hand the claymore over to the minkey. Off to the minkey, now.

"As opposed to some of you lot in here that never seem to go away and appear to have become one with the virtual walls of these Hollowed Out Halls,"

A nice goat cheese with water crackers would go well with your whine.

"my neighbors, devout Catholics, are letting their 7 and 8 year old children go begging for candy dressed as a nun and a monk."

Alms for the poor (and young and brainwashed)?

Schaum,

Thank you for the clarification on claymore as sarcasm. No, I did not see that, several threads back. As opposed to some of you lot in here that never seem to go away and appear to have become one with the virtual walls of these Hollowed Out Halls, I do have a life, one with duties that disallow lollygagging around here paying attention to all quips on each and every thread.

I gotta pay attention to the "larger world", now and then. But don't you worry about such inconveniences, Schaum.

"The suject is closed to me because it is clearly decided."

The "suject" is not the thing that is closed, Schaum, and though it is clear enough it is not decided. It need not take much to open up what is closed, though in your case I wouldn't say that with conviction.

There is little that is absolute, and altruism, if defined as action having NO benefit to the actor, would be difficult if not impossible to prove. We are all enmeshed in the "larger world", certainly in out societies and tribes. When actions cause them to benefit, we do as well. It is intertwined. Individuals and their actions are not insulated from the great whole.

Which brings your next question into mind.

For Halloween -- a night given over to witches, gobblins, demons and satans -- my neighbors, devout Catholics, are letting their 7 and 8 year old children go begging for candy dressed as a nun and a monk.

For reasons I can't define, I find this frightening.

Jttn:

"One suggestion would be to allow that macaque to do the loading and cleaning of the claymore."

Actually, I was going to offer you the opportunity to clean and load the claymore, provided you agreed to put it in your mouth and pull the trigger afterward.

Your act might possibly be a trifle less tedious if you added a couple of dancing bears.

Pamsm:

"What proof have you offered?"

I posited a negative: there is not such thing as altruism.

Negatives are not proved. Only positives. Surely you are more logical than that.

"I can't type, run the spell checker and load my claymore all at the same time. Good god."

You see, it is not possible to separate valuing good from god...

Perhaps you could hand off some of your duties. One suggestion would be to allow that macaque to do the loading and cleaning of the claymore.

Unless it's last name is mine.

Pamsm:

"Where's that spell check?"

I can't type, run the spell checker and load my claymore all at the same time. Good god.

Pamsm:

Suggest you submit your theories to SCIENCE.

Wiccan:

"Something that did not benefit the majority nor harm it would not neccessarily be "bad"."

But...I am suggesting that economics (value added, as it were) can be used as a substitute for a 'higher authority' in determining what is good, bad, and evil.

In this system, the majority would, I would think, rule in making decisions about good/bad/evil, and base its decisions on what provided the greatest economic good for the majority. Would not anything which failed to provide economic benefit fail also to be identified as "good"? Would not anything which neither added nor detracted from the greater economic good be labled as "bad"? And would not anything which was openly detrimental to the greater public good be labled "evil"?

By the way, I am not making a hypothesis -- yet. I am asking questions. I am trying to discover a way in which a system of good/bad/evil can be implemented and sustain itself without recourse to a "god" or "higher authority". The big problem I see here, so far, is that the minority will never have their needs met, since it would be the majority that decided good/evil. Is there a way around this?

"Thank you for yet another unproven opinion."

Proven experimentally. Remember the rhesus macaques? Proven by observation. What proof have you offered?

"The suject [sic] is closed to me because it is clearly decided. As I said, if others wish to continue it I have no objectin [sic]."

Clearly decided only by you. Sorry, insufficient. Where's that spell check?

"I notice how frequently you and others, like edbyronadams, use words like 'had' and 'must' and 'have to' in propounding arguments and explanations, without also offering proof to explain why anything 'has to/have to', 'must'..."

I only used "had to" in saying that behavior had to exist before it could be selected. I think that's obvious on the face of it. Can you select an item from a set in which that item is not contained? Surely you're more logical than that.

Schaum:

"I would further assert that "good(ness)" would be determined to be that/those thing(s) which offer greatest benefit to the majority. For such determinations to be made, "god" is neither necessary nor even useful.

Would it follow that "bad" would be that/those thing(s) which do not benefit the majority, and that "evil" would be anything which actually detracts from the welfare/security of the majority of the community?"

First, I agree that "god" is not needed for your hypothesis, but I think that's too broad a brush you paint with. Something that did not benefit the majority nor harm it would not neccessarily be "bad".

Also, sometimes actions/things that benefit only one may be considered good. Don't you remember your Star Trek?

Pamsm:

Thank you for yet another unproven opinion.

The suject is closed to me because it is clearly decided. As I said, if others wish to continue it I have no objectin.

I notice how frequently you and others, like edbyronadams, use words like "had" and "must" and "have to" in propounding arguments and explanations, without also offering proof to explain why anything "has to/have to", "must"...

Ah well.

Any thoughts about the economics in "good(ness)"?

Schaum,
(Since you're tired of the subject, you needn't answer, if you don't wish.)

I don't recall using meerkats as an example. Clearly, since they have burrows to dive into, helping their fellows comes at no cost to themselves, so they are not an example of altruism, they're just basic good guys. However, that is not the case with the species under previous discussion.

Instinct (which I believe is also what drives the two human examples - they don't stop to ask "Oh, gee, will I feel sad if I don't do this?) is a legitimate form of altruism. Where do you think instinct comes from? God? It's a behavior that has been so rigorously selected for by nature, that it is now hard-wired.

The behavior had to exist before selection could take place.

I would further assert that "good(ness)" would be determined to be that/those thing(s) which offer greatest benefit to the majority. For such determinations to be made, "god" is neither necessary nor even useful.

Would it follow that "bad" would be that/those thing(s) which do not benefit the majority, and that "evil" would be anything which actually detracts from the welfare/security of the majority of the community?

JTTN

Since you clearly have not been paying attention to what goes on here...as I suspect you do not to what goes on in the larger world...my sarcasm was in reference to Arminius3142's assertion some threads back that he had his "claymore locked and loaded."

Try to keep up.

"One does not clean and load a Scottish sword, either the single or double edged varieties"

Evidently even simple sarcasm is beyond you. Again: no surprise.

Absent any acknowledgment of "god" or a "higher moral authority", I would think "good(ness)" would be determined by the majority behavior/opinion of the individual community. It should therefore lend itself to some economic evaluation.

Hello Schaum,

Hey, thanks for the recent heads up on my spelling blunder. Yes, I must pay better attention! Sparing is hardly sparring! Though I cannot say that is is as great a sin of attention deficit as has been bandied about here. At least I read, as you know...

Knowing you I am sure that offering the lesson had a zero sum evaluation in terms of benefit to other, as you have made clear that it is only self interest that drives your choices.

Oh, hey, since you were so interested in correcting my blunder, perhaps I could return the favor. Warning call, one might say.

"Excuse me now. I must clean and load my claymore. Fighting the Nazi's after cocktails..."

One does not clean and load a Scottish sword, either the single or double edged varieties. I can see cleaning the bloody thing, but then one does want to keep a weapon in shape. No sense mixing blood, (as you have made clear as well in previous posts!). But you do not load it. You 'sheathe' it.

Then you would be all prepared to go out with it and do some sparring...

A happy day to you, Schaum.

Altruism does exist. Saying someone runs into a burning building in order to avoid some kind of psychic pain begs the question. Why does seeing someone burn cause psychic pain? There must be a selective process that underpins behaviors. There must be a selective process that makes people instinctively try to save others. Most of the time these actions are pretty much unhindered by the thought process. It is instinctive reaction and there must have been payoff on a genetic level for those instincts to exist. That is why I say there may be payoff on a molecular level that negates altruism but there are other levels of analysis. On an individual organism level, it is pure altruism.

There are probably more people who let the thought process stop them from the rescue attempt.

"animal humanism" = animal altruism.

I have dealt, both philosophically and with scientific evidence, with the absurd myth of human altruism, and the equally absurd concept of animal humanism. See postings below. The question is settled for me. I have nothing more to say on the subject. Anyone with differing opinions is, of course, welcome to perpetuate both the conversations and the myths.

Anyone want to discuss the economics of goodness?

edbyronadams, you said,
"However, this does not negate the altruistic acts because humans have the ability to chose to act on instinct or not. So to say that altruism does not exist is true on a molecular level, but in humans, the overdeveloped cerebral cortex or spiritual devotion can override genetic programming."

absolutely! humans are the animal MOST able to overcome genetic/instinctual behaviors. but, our grotesquely large brain is both a blessing and a curse. we're so clever we can wipe ourselves out...

Altruism does exist. Individual bees and ants give up the ability to reproduce in order to serve a higher social order. So do individual cells in higher order organisms. When they fail to limit their reproduction, it is a malignancy.

Humans display altruism, from giving to charity, to serving in the military or running into a burning building to save someone, they display altruistic behavior. Darwin's rules say that this altruism must be repaid in the propogation of commonly held genes. The selfish gene rules. In humans, donation of energy or life must spring from the same Darwinistic rules that favor bees' more fundamental altruism. The higher structure, society, must benefit in a way that makes common genes survive and/or proliferate.

However, this does not negate the altruistic acts because humans have the ability to chose to act on instinct or not. So to say that altruism does not exist is true on a molecular level, but in humans, the overdeveloped cerebral cortex or spiritual devotion can override genetic programming.

We had better hope so because that altruistic streak comes at a price. We are a tribal species, sprung from some very closely held tribes, and that close genetic association with our kinsmen is what provided the genetic selection for our instinctive self sacrificial acts. The closely held nature of our tribal past came at a price, an equally held instinctive xenophobia of the "other" tribes and if we can't overcome that, we are doomed.

schaum,
"I agree. B&W has a 'mystique' which color lacks. It is almost a different reality."

well, on a technical level, b&w (film anyway) is able to capture more tonal subtlety. and BECAUSE it's not in color, it is at least another step removed from reality. things resolve into forms and patterns not generally noticed in color. like when you turn a painting/photo upside down (remove it from reality), you can see "pure composition".

ruby, you said,
"...do you think our friend King Saud is interested in freedom of speech, equality between the sexes or gay marriage?"

interestingly, opposition to those human rights usually comes from religious quarters...

ruby, hi. you said,
"“We” do not decide what is good. Not only do people in our society fail to agree with each other on a common standard of goodness, but we cannot even speak to each other in civil tones anymore. Look at the ongoing debates...."

those debates are really around the edges. you if ask any extreme "left" or "right" politician (or person) whether they support freedom of religion or "don't murder" are "good" ideas, they'll agree. even dictators pretend they don't violate human rights with contorted rationalizations and suppression of dissent.

you said,
"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is flawed because the United Nations is flawed. The General Council of the United Nations gives equal voice to dictators and democracies."

just because the u.n. is flawed (i agree, btw) that doesn't mean the UDHC is flawed. those are the principles we have decided are "good". like i've said, even dictators pretend to support those principles. the fact that oppressive dictators sit on human rights councils is shameful. but that is a flawed implimentation of good principles.

you said,
"...do you think our friend King Saud is interested in freedom of speech, equality between the sexes or gay marriage?"

well, don't get me started on the "islamic world". they're about 500 years behind the rest of us. there's been no enlightenment. "freedom of religion" means sunni AND shiite... (BOTH kinds...country and western! remember? from the blues brothers?). and separation of mosque and state is not even on the radar. it's funny/sad: you should read iraq's brand new constitution. parts of it are beautiful. they talk about rights and freedoms (even "neighborliness"!), but it STARTS OUT by saying "we are an islamic country"....and "no laws can contradict islamic laws". ugh...

you asked,
"How many atheists would work to support Article 18,..." [freedom of religion]

if your biggest complaint with the UDHR is that atheists won't support "freedom of religion", then i think i've made my point. just about every atheist has learned to get along with religion. i mean it's everywhere. just about every atheist happily supports freedom of religion along with the associated idea that religion can't be imposed or forced on anyone in the public arena.

Au revoir, Vulnavia Hoofnagle! Godspeed!

Farnaz:

"Vulnavia Hoofnagle?"

But of course. However, here you probably know me best as Arminius3142.

Excuse me now. I must clean and load my claymore. Fighting the Nazi's after cocktails...

Farnaz:

"It wasn't difficult. You were the only Vulnavia Rand listed in all telephone directories for Tennessee."

Ha!!! You are a charlatan! Rand was my maiden name. I long ago took the name of my lover, Hoofnagle.
-----------------------------
Vulnavia Hoofnagle?

Farnaz:

"It wasn't difficult. You were the only Vulnavia Rand listed in all telephone directories for Tennessee."

Ha!!! You are a charlatan! Rand was my maiden name. I long ago took the name of my lover, Hoofnagle.

ANIMAL ALTRUISM MYTH EXPOSED

(published in the journal SCIENCE)

The co-operative mongoose, long held as a prime example of heroic altruism in the animal kingdom, is a selfish as the next beast, a study has revealed.

Professor Timothy Clutton-Brock: "Guards alert the others"

Standing guard just gives it more time to save its own skin.

The discovery could lead to a better understanding of how humans succeeded in learning to look after one another.

Mutual benefit

Why some creatures risk their lives for the benefit of others is a puzzle for scientists, because it contradicts an animal's instinct for survival.

Feeding meerkats are vulnerable to attack

Meerkats are often seen doing guard duty while others in their group forage for beetles and larvae in the dusty earth. Scientists thought the guards did this because they benefited from a lookout when they themselves came to feed.

But research in South Africa has shown this is not true.

If the meerkats' behaviour was truly altruistic, the scientists reasoned, then:
Guards should be more likely to be killed
There would be a rota of guard duty among the animals
Meerkats living alone would not do guard duty

However, the scientists from the UK and South Africa saw that none of these things actually happened, after watching 18 different groups of meerkats in the Kalahari Gemsbok Park, SA.

Not one meerkat guard was attacked by a predator in 2,000 hours of observation.

They did sound an alarm upon spotting an eagle or jackal, but they were also the first to dash into a nearby burrow. Standing guard gives a meerkat extra time for saving its own skin.

The team also saw that the animals would only stand guard when they were not hungry and when no other meerkat was already on watch. There was no fixed rota of duty.

Human kindness

Professor Timothy Clutton-Brock, from Cambridge University, led the research and says it may explain some aspects of human behaviour too.

"It may provide a potential explanation for the evolution of co-operation behaviour between unrelated individuals and of course the animal which has the most elaborate forms of co-operation is man," he says.

"So possibly this general approach to animal behaviour will in the very long run provide some additional links between the evolution of human co-operation and the distribution of co-operation in animals."

----

Bernard Mandeville:
"There is no merit in saving an innocent babe ready to drop into the fire. The action is neither good nor bad, and what benefit soever the infant received, we only obliged our selves, for to have seen it fall, and not strove to hinder it, would have caused a pain, which self-preservation compelled us to prevent."

Altruism does not exist. All human behavior, however abstract, serves self.

"You may or may not be a man, German, or Russian."

You've found me out. I am in fact Ayn Rand's illegitimate lesbian daughter. My real name is Vulnavia.
------------------------
It wasn't difficult. You were the only Vulnavia Rand listed in all telephone directories for Tennessee.

"You may or may not be a man, German, or Russian."

You've found me out. I am in fact Ayn Rand's illegitimate lesbian daughter. My real name is Vulnavia.

"I am distraught. "

You'll live.
--------------------
I hope so, and hope the same for you. All should be well with you so long as you confine your battles with nazis to the web.

I am off to battle.

Farnaz

Farnaz:

"I am distraught. "

You'll live.

Shockingly, though you are a math adept, a computer expert, shockingly, I say, you are out of your depth with moi, a mere humanist. You cannot reason your way out. Your argument from nominality falls short.

You are well lost. You may or may not be a man, German, or Russian.

I am distraught. My sole consolation is that you are not out fighting nazis.

Farnaz:

"Beside the point."

You are in no position to make that judgement. It might be beside YOUR point...who can say.

Farnaz:

"Btw., "man" is a noun. You say you are a "man." Just because you attribute that noun to yourself, as a predicate nominative (nominative subective complement), does not mean you are a man or that a man exists."

Entirely true. Also entirely obvious. What is your point?

Actually, though of Russian birth, Rand was an American. As I, of German blood, am also an American. I presume the same holds true for you.

Shall I invite you to the wedding? Would you be a witness? I could change my name to Jehovah...
-------------------
Beside the point.

Also, just because you say you're of German birth does not mean you are. German is a noun. Just because German is a noun does not mean that Germans (pl.) exist. The analogy in the present case is to Russians. See below.

Farnaz:

"and considered changing my post to read that communism never existed. And, in fact, it did not."

True enough. Communism has never existed.

"HOwever, I was thinking of the Russian, Ayn Rand, and your Randianess "

Actually, though of Russian birth, Rand was an American. As I, of German blood, am also an American. I presume the same holds true for you.

Shall I invite you to the wedding? Would you be a witness? I could change my name to Jehovah...

Schaum,

Pamsm:

"Therefore, their actions are completely altruistic"

No. Their actions are instinctive.
-------------------------------------
Altruism, by definition, may include instinctive behavior, as my pastes and links demonstrate. The animals' behavior is altruistic by instinct.

Btw., "man" is a noun. You say you are a "man." Just because you attribute that noun to yourself, as a predicate nominative (nominative subective complement), does not mean you are a man or that a man exists. Also, see my post on "Russian" and "Russians."

WalterIFC:

"i think everyone should learn to take pictures using black and white. anyway..."

I agree. B&W has a 'mystique' which color lacks. It is almost a different reality.

GIMPI: "I just don't understand the "God says it, I believe it, that settles it," idea."

Oh, sure you do -- you are intelligent. That aphorism was/is perpetuated by people, fearful of the lack of a 'higher power' who can/will protect them from destruction, who have identified for themselves what they believe is the ultimate authority/power. By (at least verbally) aligning themselves with this perceived entity, they can vicariously share in the power/authority they think they have identified. And anyone who does not agree with them and their perceived higher power is a threat to them -- against which they publicly defend themselves by anemic means, such as producing idiotic aphorisms. Long-winded explanation for paranoia.

persiflage, you said,
"...shades of gray.... always loved that color - looking forward to the Ansel Adams photo exhibit..."

i learned photography from his 3 books: the camera, the negative, and the print. i developed my own film and prints (only black and white) back in the day.... he used a "zone system" for exposure. we are to imagine 10 steps of gray between 100% white and 100% black.

what's challenging, and a HUGE difference between how we see things and what a picture can capture is that each step from eye to negative to print the "zones" become compressed. your eye can see more contrast than the negative can hold, and the negative hold more than the paper can reproduce - you can't get "pure" black or white onto the paper... i think everyone should learn to take pictures using black and white. anyway....

Pam(long on opinion/short on proofs)sm:

All your so-called altruistic human acts can be explained by the simple need of the human to avoid the pain (a self-serving end) of failing to behave in the manner which is incorrectly identified as altruistic.

Bernard Mandeville phrases it perfectly:

"There is no merit in saving an innocent babe ready to drop into the fire. The action is neither good nor bad, and what benefit soever the infant received, we only obliged our selves, for to have seen it fall, and not strove to hinder it, would have caused a pain, which self-preservation compelled us to prevent."

Altruism exists, for you, in your mind. Nowhere else.

Pamsm:

"Therefore, their actions are completely altruistic"

No. Their actions are instinctive.

From the article, Susan Jacoby writes:
"If you don't believe in God, what's to stop you from committing murder?" I am no longer surprised by this stupid question, but I still find it utterly ridiculous. It has actually never occurred to me to murder anyone, though I can certainly imagine killing in self-defense or to defend the life of someone I love......
No sane person could deny that humans are born with a capacity for evil as well as good, but the fact is that most of us have an instinctive sense that it is wrong to inflict the kind of pain on others that we do not wish to endure ourselves.
--------------------------------------
Is that true? Perhaps. But let's look at a hypothetical possibility. What if a woman has a one-night fling and realizes somewhat belatedly that she is now pregnant. It is past the first trimester. By the end of the first trimester, the child already has a beating heart and firing synapses in the brain. He/she also has all internal organs and the bones are growing. The fetus also has eye color and the fingerprints that will identify the individual in the future. What's more is that the child can feel pain; which means that if an abortion is done, the child will feel the procedure What does a DNC do, anyway? So in this hypothetical example - If the woman could foresee that having a baby at this time might hinder or destroy her plans for the future, would she be willing to inflict pain and death on her own child to avoid having to alter her lifestyle?
Would cigarette company executives be willing to let others die to maintain their businesses and lavish lifestyles? Woud gang-bangers be willing to pull the trigger on rivals to protect their operations?
Would political leaders be willing to assassinate rivals to gain or maintain power?
Would soldiers or tribes be willing to commit genocide against others on orders?

We just want it to stay in its proper place. Out of government, and let it remain in the private lives of its followers, not forced on society as a whole. We want it to remain something that people who feel a need for it can seek out but not have it pushed at them.

Rubytuesday63

“How many atheists would work to support Article 18, which states that each person have the “Right to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

I would imagine that most would since Article 18 also grants atheists the protection FROM religion being forced upon us, or from being harassed by people trying to evangelize at us.

“Most atheists I know want religion marginalized, not manifested.””

Not at all. We just want it to stay in its proper place. Out of government, and the private lives of its followers not forced on society as a whole. We want it to remain something that people who feel a need for it can seek out but not have it pushed at them.

Pam, I agree with you that when a parent species can occupy a niche that a variant of the species does not then the both can coexist. But as you said, when both compete in the same environment then the variant exterminates the parent species. Darwin said the greatest competition a species faces is really itself and closely allied species because of the competition for the same niche. Where I got the ideas is from Darwin page 291, bottom of first page of chapter nine in the Origin and more extensively spoken of in the chapter titled natural selection pages 165-72, the last pages of the chapter. In the natural selection chapter Darwin refers one to the diagram in the book showing variants of a species wiping out all the lower branches in the tree from the common ancestor, and occasionally some variants coexisting and occasionally parent and variants coexisting and occasionally a species just persisting for millions of years with no variation. But the most common trend seems to be parent forms wiped out by variants. Certainly this is the story of the human race. Fossils turn up left and right of man's evolutionary history. Branches here and there. But apparently we wipe out our ancestors. We alone exist. And it seems we differ primarily in intelligence from ancestors. Comparing other current primates to modern humans it seems there is really not much difference so far as morality. We have evolved toward greater intelligence while remaining relatively static as to morality. Arguably we should develop morality to catch up to intelligence. What would we be like if our morality had improved over millions of years as dramatically as our intelligence? Can we even imagine such a thing? A pretty nice thing to contemplate.

Finally,

GIMPI: "I just don't understand the "God says it, I believe it, that settles it," idea."

That is because the highest authority you can appeal to is your mind, your subjective self, or that of another subjective being. You are the judge, you are your own god. You will not let God be who He is by trusting what He says, so His word can never be your highest form of authority. But what your mind thinks does not stop God from being who He is.

GIMPI: "But that doesn't mean that I'm not interested in what you think."

Thank you! And this might seem like a harsh response to you, but I offer it to you out of a heart that cares enough about you to risk your anger and wrath in the hope that God is calling you and will open the understanding of your heart that you may know Him, and once you know Him, to know Him better (Ephesians 1:17).

To know God only comes through a relationship with Jesus Christ. (John 17:3 with 14:6; Acts 4:12 and Revelation 22:17, 21)

Continuing,

GIMPI: "As to the "anything goes" idea you refer to, I'll try again to make this clear: I do have a standard, it's harm. If I hurt someone, that's bad. Sometimes I may have no choice. Then the "lesser of two evils" idea comes into play. I will always try to minimize harm. I will always prefer more freedom for the individual, as long as no harm to others is involved."

That is just the point, without any standard outside oneself that is objective everyone bases their ideal on themselves as the final reference point. If my feelings about harm are different and in conflict with yours, which I'm sure they are, who decides? If you want to give me as much freedom as possible (as you have said you do) then perhaps you are going to have to submit to my standard or risk hurting me. That may possibly hurt you. Which are you going to do?

GIMPI: "Many times, people, devoted to dogma, have caused a great deal of harm. (Heresy trials, anyone?) I feel that was wrong. Do you?"

Yes to all.

GIMPI: "Perhaps we really just can't understand each other."

No, I understand you for I look at you from the wisdom of God. You suppress the truth of God in your unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-3:19)

GIMPI: "Faith seems to be the center of your life. I, on the other hand, was drawn to this site to try to understand faith."

We all have faith. It is just what it rests on. Your faith rests on your authority and the authority of limited, finite men whose truth keeps changing (the shifting standard). Your faith rests on what you can see, touch, taste, smell, hear - on the temporal realm; mine rests in the unseen, eternal, unchanging realm through the grace and mercy of God (Ephesians 1:3-23).

GIMPI: "I don't seem to have the mindset to accept anything on faith."

Sure you do, just not faith in God. You live by faith in yourself, your own reasoning, in your ability to determine for yourself what is true, rather than relying on the One who is true.

Hi Gimpi,

GIMPI: "The other point I would question is your assertion that: "Does not the Creator have the right to determine how His creation/creatures live and act?" To that, I'm afraid I would say a firm "no."

If I make something do I not have a right to determine what I will do with it or how it will be used? Just because you refuse to recognize the sovereign Lord does not make Him any less real.

GIMPI: "I don't feel any divinity (assuming one exists) has the right to hand down unreasoning, arbitrary rules to their creation, any more than parents have the right to hand down unreasoning, arbitrary rules to their adult children."

There again, they are not arbitrary or unreasonable. There is a good reason. They were put in place for our good. The Ten Commandments, for instance, are a standard that is good.

GIMPI: "Sapient beings are free to follow their own hearts, so long as they don't harm anyone."

If there is no objective standard then anyone can make "harm" fit to their world view. Again, I bring up the question of abortion. Taking that life does harm, yet people do not want to recognize this fact. When you follow your heart, without the wisdom of God as your guide there are going to be a lot of things that are evil and harmful being called good. And again I make the point that you are not able to see all the consequences of following your heart. Does the intent not to harm after you have done so make it okay in your books, just because you thought your actions were not hurtful?

GIMPI: "Any parent who tried to control their adult children's choice of spouse, vocation, or ideals would be out of line. For me, that same rule goes for the divine. In fact, I can't imagine worshiping any force that wanted such control."

Since God is good, as well as just, majestic and almighty, sovereign, eternal, all knowing and Creator, He deserves the worship and adoration of His creatures, instead of them thumbing their noses at Him and taking for granted all He has given them, including their very next breath.

I'm sure your earthly parents have told you many things that you did not like that were said for your own protection and good, things that you did not think would harm you, but in the end they did because you did not listen.

Hi Gimpi (October 29, 2009 6:05 PM),

GIMPI: "To your feeling that any employed person is "enslaved," I would just point out that I can quit my job any time I like, slaves had no such rights."

Well, there are different degrees of bondage or slavery. A person is enslaved to whatever has mastery over them or controls them. Jesus Christ came to set the captives free.

Yes you can quit your job any time. That is one difference between the two analogies. But there are consequences to doing so.

Because of Adam's sin human beings are in bondage to a sinful nature - that is slavery. Only God through Christ can give you a new nature.

GIMPI: "I also notice you didn't get to my references to divine right of kings, domestic violence or vaccinations."

God has appointed who will rule and when. He is sovereign (Acts 17:24-28). I don't know what domestic violence or vaccinations have to do with this thread. The vaccination thing sounds like the ever changing JW doctrine.

GIMPI: "The church has also changed it's position on arranged marriages, the status of Jews, the selling of indulgences, I could go on and on. I don't say this to condemn either your church or beliefs, just to point out that many "unchanging truths" have a way of changing over time."

What makes you think these are God's truths? Truth does not change. The body of Christ (the church) is submissive to the head (that is Christ). It only follows Him in as much as it obeys His truth and teachings, not makes up its own set of rules.

The animals (bees, ants, birds, monkeys, etc.) that exhibit altruistic behavior are entirely unconscious of any benefit to themselves (and probably wouldn't consider it a sufficient benefit if it could be explained to them). Therefore, their actions are completely altruistic. That a net genetic benefit can accrue, in no way alters this fact. Nature selects for altruism in social animals, but the altruistic behavior must first exist before it can be selected.

I think the same applies to the Marine and the person pushing a stranger's child out of the way of a car, resulting in loss of his own life. A split second of feeling good about themselves (if there's even that) would not outweigh the loss of their lives.

As was pointed out, Marines are not trained to fall on grenades, and people certainly aren't trained to jump in front of moving vehicles.

Daniel 12 says:
"Go back and read the origin of species. Darwin said exactly what I said. I have the book now in my car. I have been reading it. There is even a diagram in the book which shows variants radiating from the parent species--and true, sometimes radiating as a bush. But the parent species are replaced by the variants. Homo Sapiens exists now. All the 'human' connections to what we are now are extinct."

Daniel, try Chapter 11. You know that dogs came directly from wolves, don't you? That dog DNA is indistiguishable from wolf DNA? Yet there are still wolves (no thanks to Sarah Palin).

If a daughter species arises that out-competes the parent species in the same environment, then yes, the parent species will gradually be replaced. But if the daughter species finds a new niche, or a single population is geographically divided and begins to evolve in different directions, then both species will go on happily co-existing. There are many examples.

Of course, no species is static, so if you look at deep time, it will appear that all ancestral species (of anything) have become extinct. Yet the types remain (fish, sea cukes, etc.). You mustn't be tempted to look at straight-line evolution as though there were a goal, and no collateral species count.

I take it, then, that you did not go out and fight nazis?

1) why would I?
2) I'm not QUITE that old.

Though a noun, altruism exists, and it is a behavior, I would think.

Why would you think of it as a philosophy, though?

And for the record, quoting parts of Ayn Rand that agree with my point of view does not make me an objectivist or a Russian. I am definitely existentialist. And I borrow heavily from Wittgenstein.

And Rand was correct about altruism.
--------------------------------------
Was not.

Also, just because you say you aren't Russian doesn't mean you aren't. Further, Russian is also a noun, a proper one at that, and, hence, Russians (pl.) may not exist.

DITLD:

Yes, altruism would be a behavior, not a philosophy, if it existed.

Selfishness is a noun with a fairly standard definition. Even so, it doesn't necessarily exist.

I take it, then, that you did not go out and fight nazis?

I am glad. Nazis could never appreciate you, Schaum, and what is the point of having it out with dolts, I ask? Also, they have no sense of humor about themselves.

And for the record, quoting parts of Ayn Rand that agree with my point of view does not make me an objectivist or a Russian. I am definitely existentialist. And I borrow heavily from Wittgenstein.

And Rand was correct about altruism.

So according to this definition, altruism is not a philosophy; it is merely a description of behaviour.

That makes sense. To me, a philosophy is a well-thougt out, logical system of thought that describes the nature of the world or of existence or of experience.

I can imagine an "altruistic" person who really would not have a clue about the philsophy of altruism, nor even of any kind of philosophy at all.

To answer the question, a person can have a good heart, and be a good person without believing in God. You don't really need a rigorous proof of this point, but just go out into the world and mix around with people; it will be obvious.

Farnaz:

'ALTRUISM
–noun'

Quote it again. Won't make altruism a fact.

DITLD,

Very ancient Greek, in part. Harmony, balance, beauty.

HOwever, this, I think, is facile:

I believe what the Germans did, anyone, anywhere could do. That is why we should be on guard against the "Nazis" among us, and even such impulses inside of our own hearts.

That is why it is sometimes necessary to invoke comparisions to the Nazis in commenting our own modern world, why it may not be out of line to mention "shades of Nazi-ism" when discussing the former Bush administration, for example.

Such comparisions are not over the top, but merely recognize that the evil of Nazi Germany is an evil that can appear in any country, and in any person.
---------------------
Bush was not the equivalent of Hitler; neither, in fact, was Saddam, as many of the more lucid journalists remarked, few though the lucid were and are.

Nazi Germany was a historical event, whose occasion had been prepared for centuries. Ditto, the technically nonNazi perpetrators, ordinary church-going folks whom the Nazi soldiers had to check since their genociding was disorderly (so much for the Greeks): Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukranians, Poles.

Then, there were those the nazis didn't stop: ordinary Rumanians, French, Hungarians, Yugoslavians, Slovakians, etc.

A long list of Catholics, Lutherans, and Russian Orthodox.
----------------------
Just as the way was paved for the Shoah, it was paved for the AmerIndians, whose genocide continues, the aborignal peoples (first nations) of Canada, Australia, etc., slavery, etc.

Then there were the Ugandans, Rwandans, Cambodians, are the Sudanese whose war criminal leader our PResident Obama wishes to conciliate with, etc.

Each genocide is a specific historic event.
-------------------------------
Not every German was capable of being a Nazi. Some eg., the White Rose, died as a result, died willingly.

I do agree we must look to the evil in ourselves, absolutely. But we must also look to the good.

Onofrio,

Merci. From Dylan a perfect pome. Wish Schaum like lofty lyrics. Sigh.

Onofrio:

"No human action is devoid of self-interest, and that is as it should be - the font of the good."

Exactly.

I think that good and evil relate directly to our own personal lives, to sustaining our bodies in good health and safety, and to acquiring a rythmic equilisbrium in our minds.

What is good contributes to wellbeing in general. Building up and creating is good. Building a civilization, building a world is good. Solving and overcoming problems is good. Helping others to maintain themselves in their wellbeing is good. Helping the poor, the sick, and the suffering is good.

What is evil destroys wellbeing. Chaos, confusion, destruction, disintegration, decay, sickness, aging, and death are all evil. Promoting the suffering and even destruction of other people is evil.

I do not believe that Satan was let loose in Germany, and this motivating influence of evil is what caused the Nazi reign of terror.

I believe what the Germans did, anyone, anywhere could do. That is why we should be on guard against the "Nazis" among us, and even such impulses inside of our own hearts.

That is why it is sometimes necessary to invoke comparisions to the Nazis in commenting our own modern world, why it may not be out of line to mention "shades of Nazi-ism" when discussing the former Bush administration, for example.

Such comparisions are not over the top, but merely recognize that the evil of Nazi Germany is an evil that can appear in any country, and in any person.

Farnaz,

Perfect!

Incarnate Devil

Incarnate devil in a talking snake,
The central plains of Asia in his garden,
In shaping-time the circle stung awake,
In shapes of sin forked out the bearded apple,
And God walked there who was a fiddling warden
And played down pardon from the heavens' hill.

When we were strangers to the guided seas,
A handmade moon half holy in a cloud,
The wisemen tell me that the garden gods
Twined good and evil on an eastern tree;
And when the moon rose windily it was
Black as the beast and paler than the cross.

We in our Eden knew the secret guardian
In sacred waters that no frost could harden,
And in the mighty mornings of the earth;
Hell in a horn of sulphur and the cloven myth,
All heaven in the midnight of the sun,
A serpent fiddled in the shaping-time.

--Dylan Thomas

ALTRUISM, btw., was a coinage of Compte.

ALTRUISM
–noun
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism ).

2. Animal Behavior. behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.
Origin:

1850–55; F autre), with -ui from cui to whom; -l- restored from L alter) + -isme -ism; popularized through trans. of A. Comte, who perh. coined it, on the model of égoisme egoism

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

Schaum,

Re: My last post

It might be more interesting if you posted as Trotsky....

Schaum,

Agreeing with you that the *self-less* associations of *altruism* are unsustainable, yet not wanting to lop the lexicon, verboten-wise:

Could we agree to recast *altruism* as a form of self-interest that risks the immediate viability of the self (even to cessation) for the benefit of other selves, thereby expanding that self.

Ultimate self-ness, rather than selfish-ness? True self-glorification?

It's like *Creator* - you can develop its meaning contra the sturdily merdy herd...

Schaum,

Re: My previous post to you

If you decide to take my suggestion of fighting nazis to eliminate boredom, you should probably post your intent here first.
I'm not certain you should go as a Randian Objectivist Solitary, as the nazis have their own ideas of the individual vs. the crowd, this current bunch are not quite so verbal as you.

You might consider an alternative to a physical confrontation. Perhaps, for instance, you could post as Lenin on a nazi web site.

Merely a suggetion....

Farnaz

Schaum:

Farnaz:

"Communism did not survive,"

This will come as a shock to the Chinese.

" nor was it ever "selfless.""

...and you mention this because....why?
---------------------
I thought China (and Cuba), rethought the Russians, etc., and considered changing my post to read that communism never existed. And, in fact, it did not.

HOwever, I was thinking of the Russian, Ayn Rand, and your Randianess (notice what I did not write, consciously deciding not to, although tempted to the max).

Listen here, Sebastian's friend, Rand was like most Russian emigres in some ways; she hated the system. "Selfishness" and "unselfishness" were and are communist buzz words. She got a lot of things wrong; however, understand, I cannot bear to have her spoken of as an idiot. She wasn't. I simply don't base my world view on hers.

Collectivism is a fearful thing. In that she was correct. We've had to cope with it since modernity began. She saw it in its worst case scenario. HOwever, she failed to recognize what has been exceptionally well documented, that the attack on thought, which has bravely continued in media corporations, began quite consciously, quite deliberately, with the discovery of how the public could be manipulated by the press. It was the right wing, not the left, who began this.

As for this discussion, using Rand's definition of "altruism" runs counter to common parlance, the disciplines, etc. You are getting nowhere (sorry), which I why I thought we could move on to some other aspect of the discussion.

Altruism means what the dictionary says it means, what the disciplines stipulate. Rand's stipulative definition is yours alone on this thread.

That is why you cannot win this, and why you would persist is difficult for me to understand. If you don't believe me ask Sebastian. He appears to be an "objectivist."

The idea of "consensus" and "the good" is interesting, as is the Epicurean definition. HOwever, the latter is not
"correct," in the sense that you can worry it to death and thereby triumph in an argument.

You should take up regular exercise. It helps somewhat with boredom and gets the anger out. Failing that, you could go paint or go out and fight nazis, a noble pursuit. Both Howard Roarke and John Galt would approve.

Schaum,

Thee, gisted:
No human action is devoid of self-interest, and that is as it should be - the font of the good.

If I've got you right there, then you've won me.

Farnaz,

Thee:
"Can there be good without God?"

Good without God?

That would be O...seriously!

Thee (epicly):
"What is "goodness"? Does it exist?"

"Goodness" is manifest in X-ists (so say they) so does not ex-ist, by implication.

Well, not with regard to X-ists anyway.

Thee (trailing nebulae):
"Does evil exist?"

It is simply vile with an upstart ending; a leaper of queues, though not of Q.

And here's the gist:
Is it sweet to be xist?

Thee:
"Are those who consider it pathological correct?"
No. When it comes to e-led vile, pathos has no logic.

Forgive the japes, sister :^) ; the air is getting close in here...

Daniel12:

" to think of Christ, a perfectly altruistic being,..."

Daniel, at least get a grip on time and place, since reality seems to be impossible for you. Christ was a suicide. That is, arguably, the least altruistic of all human actions.

On the subject of whether altruism exists, all my thinking about it gives me a better understanding of Christ. The story of Christ is strange enough without the modern view of biology, but with the biological view in mind--Darwin--Christ becomes even more strange. The human race according to biology--its view that no creature acts without some benefit to itself--is not even supposed to be able to think of Christ, a perfectly altruistic being, let alone worship him,--let alone strive to be altruistic as him. The human race's actions a refutation of Darwin's theory, the great weakness in the theory? Or is Christ the ultimate proof of Darwin, man wanting to be saved by Christ the ultimate act of selfishness? God saving man the greatest piece of selfishness? Man the most selfish animal of all or the one which can think of altruism and therefore refute Darwin's theory? A most difficult problem.

Farnaz:

"Animal altruism "

...is a question of instinct, does not prove that "altruistic" animals do not in some measure profit from their own actions, and proves exactly nothing about humans benefiting from each of their actions.

Farnaz:

"Communism did not survive,"

This will come as a shock to the Chinese.

" nor was it ever "selfless.""

...and you mention this because....why?

Farnaz:

"Ayn Rand is dead"

As are Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Wittginstein, Sartre and many others. Do you suspect a conspiracy?

On whether altruism exists--an action completely with no benefit to the person that performs it--we can argue day and night. But one thing is certain--and it really is quite peculiar: Maybe altruism does not exist, but the human race exists, a species with the concept altruism in mind, concerned about being altruistic, bringing it up in a world with perhaps no altruism. And if altruism does not exist, what does it mean that the human race would try to be altruistic? Does that mean it is actually making a choice which will drive it to extinction sooner rather than later? And how does this match up with Darwin's theory of natural selection? Darwin's theory is founded on the observation (among others) that no lifeform acts in a way with no benefit to itself. But if humans are trying to be altruistic, are going counter to Darwin's theory, can we take seriously Darwin's theory? Is Darwin wrong when it comes to the human race? And if Darwin is wrong when it comes to the human race--the most intelligent and peculiar species--is his theory not in complete question? According to biology true altruism does not exist. But the human race can not only hold the concept in mind, in many instances it tries to be altruistic. The human race a glaring problem from the biological viewpoint. But then again, perhaps in being altruistic the human race is making the most selfish action of all: Trying to sever itself from the nature around it, trying to get out of nature, the prison of biological action and necessity. Difficult problem. No easy answers.

Pam below:

Daniel12,
I could not bring myself to slog through your latest novella, but this sentence did catch my eye as I scrolled past:
"If Darwin is to be believed when he says that species in general when varying to another form drive to extinction the previous form--the parent form--then the human race of today drove to extinction its own ancestors and even wiped out offshoots such as Neanderthal man."
Darwin never said any such thing, and in fact that is not what happens. Evolution is not a ladder, but a bush, branching out in all directions. It isn't necessary, nor typical, for a parent species to die out when a daughter species arises.

Go back and read the origin of species. Darwin said exactly what I said. I have the book now in my car. I have been reading it. There is even a diagram in the book which shows variants radiating from the parent species--and true, sometimes radiating as a bush. But the parent species are replaced by the variants. Homo Sapiens exists now. All the "human" connections to what we are now are extinct.

Walter,

“We” do not decide what is good. Not only do people in our society fail to agree with each other on a common standard of goodness, but we cannot even speak to each other in civil tones anymore. Look at the ongoing debates on healthcare, the economy and Afghanistan. Everyone is more interested in demonizing those who disagree with them that finding common ground.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is flawed because the United Nations is flawed. The General Council of the United Nations gives equal voice to dictators and democracies. I have grave doubts about the sincerity of any Bill of Rights that Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would approve of. And even if our enemies abstained from the vote, do you think our friend King Saud is interested in freedom of speech, equality between the sexes or gay marriage?

How many atheists would work to support Article 18, which states that each person have the “Right to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” Most atheists I know want religion marginalized, not manifested.

Farnaz:

Perhaps "goodness", like marriage, is essentially an economic transaction. I've suggested before that 'goodness' is defined by the majority, according to their perceptions of their status/position/success at living well. Surely living well is a goal the majority of people strive for.

"Good" in this instance could be defined as anything that supports living well...such as being employed, mowing your lawn every Saturday afternoon, contributing to the community by being a boy scout leader or giving money to United Way...etc.
"Evil" would be the opposite...being unemployed, homeless, hungry, or living in a 'bad' neighborhood where grass is not mowed and broken windows are not repaired, being a junkie, etc....

DITLD:

"person who would act heroically for the good of another, I would call a good person."

As would I. No argument there. But then, this was never part of the question.

Can there be good without God? What is "goodness"? Does it exist? Does evil exist? Are those who consider it pathological correct?
What are the implications of such a view?

A general comment: I have been trying to catch up on this thread since last night. It is actually pretty difficult to follow. It seems like an extremely narrow argument, sort of, off on a tangent.

For Onofrio, in my post of last might, I was trying to make a point about about good and evil, which I suppose may have seemed a little simple-minded to people who are already aware of it, that good and evil are merely abstract concepts and not real "things." I was trying to make this point because, apparently, many, many people, Peter Huff, for example, seem to think of good and evil as real and animating forces that exist in the world, that can cast an influence over indiviuals and societies.

I acknowlege that many important and valuable aspects of life are abstract concepts that do not really exist. But at least, I know the difference.

I believe that all human beings operate in a world of abstract concepts. That is partly what makes us human. But apparently, many people cannot tell the difference between a "thing" which only exists in our minds, and a thing which has a concrete existence.

Maybe the distinction is not always important, but I think it is important, when one is seeking to attribute the cause and nature of "good" and "evil."

For Schaum,

I believe that free will is an illusion. We all feel that we have it. But mostly, we have a "thinking" apparatus that we are born with, and we must use it in a confined and circumscribed landscape not of our choosing. The act of choosing is really the act of being. When there is a decision to make, we make it, but it is not free will which causes the choice to be made as it.

Does this mean that I believe in determinism and pre-destination? NO. Then what is left? Something more complex and subtle than we can understand. This is really a question of what makes the universe tick in such a way that we are enabled to come into existence at all.

I do not believe that every action a person takes is for a purpose. Many actions are on impusle, because it is too difficult or even impossible to remain without action. When a person risks life for others, or even gives his life for others, he is not really acting in accord with some complex charaterization and philosophy of "altrusism." He may not even be trying to do "good." Rather, he may be acting in accordance with temperament that defines his personality, and which is the product of all of his previous experiences. Or said another way, he may be going on "automatic pilot."

Many heros deny the honorific title of "hero" describing their heroism just as I have, that they just "did it" in an impulsive flash, without thinking about it at all.

I do not know if I would call this kind of heroic action "altruistic," but I would defintlely call it good, and person who would act heroically for the good of another, I would call a good person.

Gimpi"

""Does not the Creator have the right to determine how His creation/creatures live and act?"

To say nothing of the strange presupposition that "Creator" is necessarily a/the god.

Ayn Rand is dead. Communism did not survive, nor was it ever "selfless." She feared collectivism and had every reason to. (Look around.) She erred in associating it solely with communism. E. Toohey's strategies were, in fact, consciously used by capitalist newspapers to mold public opinion.

Unbridled capitalism, Rand's "unknown ideal" is pretty much known. Great.
SEE Stewart Ewen. PR!

Animal altruism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

Farnaz:

"Bees, bats, ravens and humans often help one another. But usually there’s a hidden agenda."

Yep, that hidden agenda kinda knocks the theory of altruism in the head.

Peterhuff,

The other point I would question is your assertion that: "Does not the Creator have the right to determine how His creation/creatures live and act?" To that, I'm afraid I would say a firm "no." I don't feel any divinity (assuming one exists) has the right to hand down unreasoning, arbitrary rules to their creation, any more than parents have the right to hand down unreasoning, arbitrary rules to their adult children. Sapient beings are free to follow their own hearts, so long as they don't harm anyone. Any parent who tried to control their adult children's choice of spouse, vocation, or ideals would be out of line. For me, that same rule goes for the divine. In fact, I can't imagine worshiping any force that wanted such control.

As to the "anything goes" idea you refer to, I'll try again to make this clear: I do have a standard, it's harm. If I hurt someone, that's bad. Sometimes I may have no choice. Then the "lesser of two evils" idea comes into play. I will always try to minimize harm. I will always prefer more freedom for the individual, as long as no harm to others is involved. Many times, people, devoted to dogma, have caused a great deal of harm. (Heresy trials, anyone?) I feel that was wrong. Do you?

Perhaps we really just can't understand each other. Faith seems to be the center of your life. I, on the other hand, was drawn to this site to try to understand faith. I don't seem to have the mindset to accept anything on faith. I just don't understand the "God says it, I believe it, that settles it," idea. But that doesn't mean that I'm not interested in what you think.

Monitor on Psychology
Volume 37, No. 11 December 2006

ALTRUISM: AN ACCIDENT OR NATURE?

Bees, bats, ravens and humans often help one another. But usually there’s a hidden agenda.

Bernd Heinrich, PhD, was hiking through the woods in Maine when he happened upon a group of ravens feasting on a dead moose. They were making quite a ruckus, recalls Heinrich, a biology professor at the University of Vermont. In fact, the birds used a loud call that Heinrich had never heard before, a call that seemed to attract even more ravens to the area. Their behavior puzzled the researcher.

“Ecological theory would tell you that a food bonanza would be defended and not shared,” he says.

But the birds were sharing. Some of the ravens even returned to their roost to recruit more animals, Heinrich observed. The strange behavior inspired the biologist to conduct a series of field studies, which he eventually published in the book “Ravens in Winter” (Simon and Schuster, 1989).

Heinrich’s helpful ravens are now a classic example of animal altruism, says Jeff Stevens, PhD, a psychology professor at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Germany. But like most examples of animal altruism, the apparently selfless act had selfish benefits.

The sharing ravens, it turned out, were juveniles who had found the moose carcass in a mature raven’s territory. By bringing other young ravens to the feast, they avoided being chased off by the territory-holding bird. For any behavior to survive natural selection, it needs to help an animal or its genetic material, he notes.

“True altruism...paying a cost to help another individual and never ever receiving any kind of benefit, is not very common,” Stevens says. “It wouldn’t make much sense biologically for that to happen.”

Help a brother out

More commonly, when an animal assists another, there is a hidden reward for the helper, says Nigel Barber, PhD, a Maine-based psychologist and author of “Kindness in a Cruel World” (Prometheus Books, 2004). Perhaps the most widespread form of altruism, he notes, is the case of a parent protecting and feeding its young. Birds will rob themselves of nutrition to regurgitate food into the gaping maws in their nest. But even if an altruistic act endangers a parent’s own life, it makes evolutionary sense to increase the likelihood one’s young will survive, Barber notes.

“They are acting in the interest of their genes, if not their own lives,” he says.

Continued
A similar principle is at play when an animal assists its siblings or cousins, says Stevens. This is the case when worker bees devote themselves to feeding the offspring of the hive’s queen, instead of trying to reproduce themselves. The bee phenomenon puzzled Charles Darwin, and may be why he sat on his theory of natural selection for more than 20 years. The answer, proposed by biologist William Hamilton in the 1960s, is that sterile worker bees are helping to further their genes because they are so closely related to the young they are helping to raise.

“Most examples of altruism do involve kin,” Stevens says.

That’s true of humans too, notes Barber. Many studies have shown that while people do help strangers, they are more likely to give money to relatives. Additionally, adopted children, on average, get a smaller share of inheritances than biological children, according to an analysis of 1,538 California estates, published in a 1992 issue of Ethology and Sociobiology (Vol. 13, No. 5, pages 495–522).

“This may support kin selection, but I think that is probably not doing justice to the complexity of the situation,” says Barber, noting that some adopted children may enter into a family as toddlers or even teens, and subsequently may not develop as close as a relationship with their parents.

Even for bats, familiarity—as well as their genetic relatedness—seems to increase the likelihood of altruistic behavior.

Primitive insurance policies
Vampire bats have a fast metabolism and a food supply that is high in protein but low in fat. That means that they must feed on the blood of cattle or other animals every 36 hours, or they die.

Continued
So it surprised biologist Gerald Wilkinson, PhD, when he discovered, in the 1980s, that female bats would share their blood with unlucky hunters, regurgitating blood into the mouths of female roost mates.

“I had observed a lot of cases of them feeding their own young, which is how they wean their young from milk to blood, but this was the first time I had seen adults feeding other adults,” notes Wilkinson, now a program director at the National Science Foundation.

In a 1984 study, published in Nature (Vol. 308, No. 1, pages 181–184), Wilkinson reported that the animals did tend to feed closely related kin. But they also would feed “friends”—unrelated bats they roosted with. The friend would return the favor later, Wilkinson reports.

As a result of the animals’ inborn tendency to share, female bats manage to live upwards of 15 years, says Wilkinson. Stingy male bats survive about half that long.

“The adaptive rationale behind all of this is sort of an insurance policy,” says Barber. “You pay in a small amount and benefit when you need it later.”

Whether the bats are aware of their sharing policy is a matter of contention. It’s possible that they are born with a useful rule: help out familiar animals. Most of the time, that rule helps propagate their genes, as most roost mates are related, says Stevens.

In fact, pure altruism may be an accident of evolution, researchers suggest. A vampire bat that feeds an unrelated roost mate is, in effect, mistaking it for a sister. A bird that adopts another animal’s chick does so because it’s compelled to feed every hungry mouth in its nest. And raven researcher Bernd Heinrich treats his dog as part of the family because the human tendency for empathy has run amok, he says.

“It’s part of our social nature to help those that we are associated with,” says Heinrich “It’s not that we evolved to love dogs, and as a side product we love our babies. It is just the opposite.”
FURTHER READING

• Bjorklund, D.F., & Pellegrini, A.D. (2002). Evolutionary developmental psychology. In D.F. Bjorklund & A.D. Pellegrini (Eds.), The origins of human nature: Evolutionary developmental psychology. (pp. 3–10). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

• Bshary, R., & Grutter, A.S. (2006). Image scoring and cooperation in a cleaner fish mutualism. Nature, 441, 975–978.

• Jensen, K., Hare, B., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2006) What’s in it for me? Self-regard precludes altruism and spite in chimpanzees. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 273 1,013–1,021.

• Stevens, J.R., Cushman, F.A., & Hauser, M.D. (2004). Evolving the psychological mechanisms for cooperation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 36, 499–518.
© 2008 American Psychological Association

Peterhuff

Thank you for your response. I was on deadline all day and unable to get back to this until now.

I'll just address a couple of things in your response to me. (Deadlines again.) In your response to my concept of changes in the church, you referred to my statement on the Biblical condoning of slavery. To your feeling that any employed person is "enslaved," I would just point out that I can quit my job any time I like, slaves had no such rights. I also notice you didn't get to my references to divine right of kings, domestic violence or vaccinations. I was really just getting started, really. The church has also changed it's position on arranged marriages, the status of Jews, the selling of indulgences, I could go on and on. I don't say this to condemn either your church or beliefs, just to point out that many "unchanging truths" have a way of changing over time. And, as to the idea that I "sound like Sam Harris," why, thank you! I've read him, and while I don't agree with everything he has to say, he writes very well. I should hope to do so good.

More to folllow.

BTW JTTN:

The word sparring has two Rs. Pay attention.

Oh, look....another post from JTTN on this thread, and a message about toenail fungus in my email. Which should I read first? Which will offer the most science and fact? I wonder....

"AND I was satisfied too! "

"So then...you admit it was not an altruistic encounter."

You disappoint, Schaum. And I thought we were finally getting to something real.

I know that you can read, so do so.

Again, you were not paying attention.

To all bystanders, mouths agape,

My heartfelt apologies for any insult inflicted in my backslide into adolescence. And I was astounded by the immaturity of mudslinging, just recently.

Perhaps it is just another example of the need to adjust language to suit the ear,and the lengths we can go to support the greater good...

I apologize for myself. I have no words for my sparing partner. I have just spent them all...

"AND I was satisfied too! "

So then...you admit it was not an altruistic encounter.

Walter,

Regarding altruism and shades of gray.... always loved that color - looking forward to the Ansel Adams photo exhibit coming to these here parts. The certified master of gray.......

Persiflage

Hey, no worries Schaum,

There is nothing that does not benefit from a little altruistic assistance to those in need.

AND I was satisfied too! You were right after all, with a slight adjustment of course.

There is no such thing as an individual making an absolutely altruistic act. Absolute altruism does not exist!

"I shall sally forth into the evening with a sweet taste on my tongue."

Sweet taste on your tongue? Hmmmm....I knew I was feeling relief for some reason. Thanks.

Whoooops.

I meant "check your shin".

That Freud, always mixing ego and sex.
Little higher than that.

I am sure you are interested in feeling like you won.

Yes, probably. Your usual inability to support anything with facts, science, math....yeah, I'd say that.

"Pity. As usual, you lose."

Run along, now, and stoke those fires. You need all the smoke you can blow. And clean your mirrors while you are at it.

"Pity. As usual, you lose."

Pity? Not in the least. And that word I don't apply to myself, here, schaum. To the lose part, as you have said, we act only in our own self interest. I am sure you are interested in feeling like you won. Have at it, girl!

"Don't you just hate that!"

No. I enjoyed it. I shall sally forth into the evening with a sweet taste on my tongue. Yours may or may not be so sweet. Dunknow.

Check your chin.

"I know you do, Dollface, and I love you for it."

Aw, shucks Martha, I brung ya some snapdragons.

"Sweetie, I live to oblige you."

I know you do, Dollface, and I love you for it.

Pamsm/Our Lady Of The Mud:

"They don't bother me in the least, Schaum, but they are very telling."

Sweetie, I live to oblige you.

"Along with the fear and loathing of the slightest taste of altruism bringing about that first self-sacrifice of your vaunted Ego, precipitating it's crash into "self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction", and, Ultimate Ruin"

As usual, no proofs, no science, no math...not even newspaper clippings...to support your "thinking." There is a word for that....lets seeeeee.....oh yes, fantasy. At the very least I can rely on existentialism, and on Ayn Rand for support. If that were necessary.

Again...your proofs? your science? ANYTHING but your smoke and mirrors? Alas, no.

Pity. As usual, you lose. Don't you just hate that!

"As I've said, if my postings rattle your ovaries, feel free to ignore them, as I tend to ignore yours."

They don't bother me in the least, Schaum, but they are very telling.

walter-in-fallschurch,

"no nuance, no shades of grey etc"

Neither black and white, since there is no black of altruism to counterbalance the White of Egoism. There is only the white light of the Sovereignty of Self.

And let no (obviously) less valuable "other" seek to tear it asunder!

Ah, Schaum,

Why, thank you for the distinctly unendearing, (no end to them!), compliment. No, I cannot accept such a fine string of insults. Even from one as on high as You... I insist, you can keep the "florid pompous opinions" (nice, Schaum), yourself. You have earned them.

Along with the fear and loathing of the slightest taste of altruism bringing about that first self-sacrifice of your vaunted Ego, precipitating it's crash into "self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction", and, Ultimate Ruin.

Save yourself. Do no good deed that does not benefit, first and primarily, that Vaunted One.

Indeed, you are already saved, as it is impossible for that to occur. The possibility does not exist, as You have Said.

A

no nuance, no shades of grey etc...

Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | October 29, 2009 4:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I'll give you another, Wally: there is no god. Prove me wrong. No shade of grey there either.

Still no proof Walter? Still grinding your teeth? Predictable, both.

jttn, persiflage,
we've discovered schaum's religion:
a-altruistic fundamentalism.

no nuance, no shades of grey etc...

Pamsm, dear:

"Fair to characterize you as a sociopath, then?"

As I've said, if my postings rattle your ovaries, feel free to ignore them, as I tend to ignore yours.

Justtilthennow,

Thanks for the compliment. I stand by the idea that selfless acts are possible in the everyday world, without overt/covert self benefits accruing.

My last post and link on unpaid/anonymous organ or bone marrow donations to unknown recipients seems to me to be a good example - while the donor is living, of course.

This presents real risk to a matching donor, although I suppose any potentially positive feelings that may arise from the gifting of an organ disqualifies the act as being altruistic. Or not.....

I figured I'd leave nondualism out of the equation for a change :^)

regards, Persiflage

"It does follow suit, as dualism and opposition, polarity is how the world functions. As such it is impossible to have pure egoism, as alone it has nothing to define itself in contrast to. It would then be One, and that is not the case in normal consciousness."

Ah, JTTN, the clown with florid pompous opinions, on everything, and proof of nothing, returns to amuse with his buffoonery, smoke, mirrors, gas...the consummate intellectual parasite.

Have at it, lady.

Daniel12,
I could not bring myself to slog through your latest novella, but this sentence did catch my eye as I scrolled past:

"If Darwin is to be believed when he says that species in general when varying to another form drive to extinction the previous form--the parent form--then the human race of today drove to extinction its own ancestors and even wiped out offshoots such as Neanderthal man."

Darwin never said any such thing, and in fact that is not what happens. Evolution is not a ladder, but a bush, branching out in all directions. It isn't necessary, nor typical, for a parent species to die out when a daughter species arises.

There are still single-celled animals (more of them than all other species that have ever existed - in a single cubic yard of soil), there are still jellyfish, there are still notochordates like the sea cucumber, still vertebrate fish, lobe-finned fish, amphibians, reptiles, lemurs, monkeys, great apes - yet all of these are in our extended family tree. If you see us as the pinnacle of earthly existence (a distinctly religious viewpoint) why is there any other animal?

Walter IFC,

I like your concept of Net Altruism.

Compchiro,

You made great points, one of which, repeated around these Hollowed Halls a bit, is that the definition is not absolute, or "hard" as you put it.

We are a collection of individual and unique entities that make up the collective and organic whole. All have their own perspectives and needs, many overlapping, but none manage outside of the functioning whole. A solitary life on a desert island is still an individual in relationship with what is outside of him, but required by him.

The response of Schaum to your post is telling. It speaks of intense black and white, absolutes and oppositions, and a weird Christian style fear and loathing.

"The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value."

"The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good."

Tis a dark road that altruism leads the unattentive down!

Again, this form of absolutism, or at least the immutable shades of black and white that it believes in, are not required as an individual in relationship with the greater whole. They are choices that are made by the perceiver. One could as easily see self focus as detrimental and communism as beneficial, with the same eye on the black and white of the thing.

"My only question would be 'how many times can I push it?'"

Fair to characterize you as a sociopath, then?

Explains much.

Hello Persiflage,

Your post of October 29, 2009 12:38 PM is well written and appreciated.

"This is pretty much how we live - in a state of pure subjectivity and relativity, and no argument there."

It is therefore possible for one to contemplate a perception and investment in life from a collective, non-individuated paradigm, but, by the nature of our subjective starting point, improbable to "get" that perception. We are egocentric, by normal perception.

"Without a subject/observer and an act of conscious perception, nothing has any meaning or real existence to begin with."

Big statement, but based on the ego driven and separatist viewpoint you are doubtless correct. And yet, we are intertwined at a fundamental level, which may be your point below:

"As far as self and other being inseparable, this may be true in an absolute sense, but that's not really the level we're dealing with here."

Point. An aspect of that point is that we are not in absolutist realms.

Dictionary definitions of altruism have been offered. Defining it as absolute, as in purely opposite of ego, is neither realistically functional here, (nothing being absolute), nor helpful in this dialogue.

The same may be said of egotism. We do not operate from an absolute and pure state of selfishness or self interest. There is always a compromise going on as we are dependent on "other" in life.

It does follow suit, as dualism and opposition, polarity is how the world functions. As such it is impossible to have pure egoism, as alone it has nothing to define itself in contrast to. It would then be One, and that is not the case in normal consciousness.

Since the existence of god(s) is so far completely unsubstantiated, the complex question cannot be answered.

However, we can separate the two questions.

Do gods exist? Maybe but probably not.

Can there be good? Of course.

Then the logical answer to the complex question, "Can there be good without god?" is probably so.

Re-posting the first article on biological altruism, and the second is an interesting application of altruism, the law, and non-familial organ donations.

For a concept with such a tenuous basis, it certainly seems to be used extensively in disparate professional realms as though it actually meant something.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/gfn669v1.pdf

Edbyronadams,

"As a matter of fact, I am completely willing to forgo coveting my neighbor's ass."

Now that is big of you, EBA. Bigger than me. Though I would not act on the impulse to in fact covet my neighbors ass, (and some that I would not even consider coveting!), there are a few asses that are very covetable. Your sacrifice is a worthy one, and will serve harmony in society far better than what the covetors do.

Hell, it's downright altruistic of you, Edbyronadams!

Now, having said that, I have nothing further to say about the non-existence of altruism, since the arguments in its favor are merely being repeated. I am weary of them. I will be happy to comment when the asked-for proof of altrusim's existence appears.

Comp:

The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.”

Altruism then means selfless acts. Prove to me there is any act of which a human is capable that does not benefit him as well, in some way.

Altruism does not exist.

I'm sorry, Schaum, but trying to give any insights into herring farts, hydro-acoustics, or whale songs would put me in deep water. The subjects are over my head.

Chiro:

"but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives."

Sorry. This is personal benefit from the action. Not altruism.

farnaz,
i think i remember you saying something like "i will not be a moral relativist". right?

don't you think, except for a very few (which can be consolidated to "don't steal"), morals ARE relative?

"what was acceptable yesterday is no longer today" and all that? you're always chiding me for not considering the "context" of scripture (especially, apparently, muslim scripture...), and so on.

seems like there are a VERY few black-and-whites and a whole lot of gray shades.

Schaum,

"Prove that altruism exists. Dictionary definitions prove nothing. Many things are 'defined' in the dictionary which do not, in fact exist."

Since the zoological definition "Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives." is a proven fact, then there is proof of that definition and of some form of altruism.

My question for you is why do you seem so bent on the word or concept? If some people want to attribute it to some word (altruism) how does that harm you? And since the word does not have a hard definition (I have never heard the word altruism mean excluding ANY personal benefit, such as feeling good about helping others), I would argue that your objection is, at best, meaningless.

To me it does not matter if one benefits in some way from doing "good" for others (such as feeling better about oneself or being able to look oneself in the mirror at the end of they day). Or that one decided that it was more important for their friends to survive or even to make up for past mistakes. The fact that, for whatever reason, one decides to help another as opposed to harming another is all that matters.

Additionally, it is my view that although religion or a belief in deity may be the catalyst for some people to “do good”, it not the base cause, nor is it required for "moral" or societal beneficial behavior to exist. I believe that deities exist only in the imagination and that religions are man-made constructs that I have not personal use for. And that there is no “ethical concept” or “moral idea” in any religion that had not existed or been figured out by many others cultures.

persiflage,
"In the end, altruism strikes me as a useful concept - relative though it may be."

there you go again. perfect.

"relative though it may be" is why i'm calling it "net altruism". there are shades, nuances. not all good, not all bad.

In a long-ago biology class, the instructor claimed that the herring's natural enemies might be able to hear their farts. It occurred to me that for the farts to be able to be heard more than a few meters away there has to be something odd going on . I don't know much about hydro-acoustics, but the energy as a function of distance from the source of the farts has to be an inverse-square relationship. I would guess that the background noise of the ocean is considerable, which leads me to conclude that the hearing and signal processing of whales must be on the level of bats.

Maybe that's why they sing to each other.

Do you have any insights, Wiccan? It all seems a bit fart fetched to me.

"No. Just some insight. Thank you."

Interesting. You gain insight by getting answers you expect?

My insights usually come from getting answers I don't expect.

"New movie that is coming out is based on the premise that you can get 1,000,000 immediately if you push a button. The "downside" is that if you push it, someone, somewhere, dies. My only question would be 'how many times can I push it?'"

Sounds like "Pushing Daisies" without the charm - or the pies. My only question would be - do I get to choose who dies? Because Osama Bin Ladin, this push is for you! Next up, Zawahiri.

Schaum,

No. Just some insight. Thank you.

Wiccan:

"You do realize that you have committed murder, don't you?"

Of course.

Do you have a point?

Schaum,

Your answer is what I expected, given your solipsistic worldview. You do realize that you have committed murder, don't you?

"it seems most of us function by way of Apinions..and I've seen few exceptions to this rule."

Well, as Ogden Nash wrote:

The masses
Is asses.

Persiflage:

"Here's an example:

'Since altruism does not exist, neither of these questions can be answered.'"

Hey guy, you may consider that you have a standing invite to prove that altruism exists. I look forward to that.

'The only thing that matters is proof. Everything else is just opinion.. And opinions are like....I can't remember...something that begins with "A" I think...'

Schaum, in my experience, such proofs are seldom seen on these threads - it seems most of us function by way of Apinions..and I've seen few exceptions to this rule.

Here's an example:

'Since altruism does not exist, neither of these questions can be answered.'

PS. I don't think (A)toms exist either, but you can't tell that to a particle physicist....I'm exclusively a wave man myself.

Wiccan:

I would pull the switch. My kid is part of ME...for my own reasons, I want him to live. That suits my purpose.

What does a trainload of strangers mean to me?

New movie that is coming out is based on the premise that you can get 1,000,000 immediately if you push a button. The "downside" is that if you push it, someone, somewhere, dies. My only question would be 'how many times can I push it?'

To Peter Huff, with your absolute reference for Good,
and
To Schaum, since there is no possibility of altruism,

What would be your answer to the scenario below:

Your spouse or baby is tied to a railroad track (like in the movies). There is a train coming down that track with 100 people on it. You can switch the train to another track, but that will cause the train to crash and kill everyone aboard. Do you pull the switch, or don't you? Why?

Persiflage:

"If the altruist isn't aware of benefitting from an act of altruism - is there any accrued benefit? How do we measure it??"

Since altruism does not exist, neither of these questions can be answered.

"Like you, I'm not much concerned whether folks agree with me or not......."

Agreed. The only thing that matters is proof. Everything else is just opinion.. And opinions are like....I can't remember...something that begins with "A" I think...

Schaum,

In my view, it's not really necessary to 'prove' a concept e.g. altruism beyond conventional usage....all it takes are a few well placed examples, in order to establish both meaning and the existence of a phenomenon to which the concept applies.

This is pretty much how we live - in a state of pure subjectivity and relativity, and no argument there. I would also suggest that subjective/objective are purely abstract conventions, up to and including the most obstruse scientific and mathematical theorems.

Without a subject/observer and an act of conscious perception, nothing has any meaning or real existence to begin with. And here, I realize awareness is not quite the same thing as apprehension.

As far as self and other being inseparable, this may be true in an absolute sense, but that's not really the level we're dealing with here. On the other hand, separate and together are equally real, and coexist simultaneously albeit paradoxically - according to Buddhist lore.

Free will is a solitary trait, but cause and effect is a universal constant - clearly, free will is neither free nor independent of a myriad of factors leading up to the moment of any act.

In the end, altruism strikes me as a useful concept - relative though it may be.

If the altruist isn't aware of benefitting from an act of altruism - is there any accrued benefit? How do we measure it??

Like you, I'm not much concerned whether folks agree with me or not.......

Soldiering against another group of people has gone on for as long as history and further. To claim that this universal behavior is is personally rewarded in measure for the risk is a bit on nonsense on the Darwinian level. Increased territory and mating opportunities may have much to do with it. It's all about increasing gene frequency. Like this:

"It appears that Genghis Khan left a mark on more than history: His influence may persist in Verb 1. persist in - do something repeatedly and showing no intention to stop; "We continued our research into the cause of the illness"; "The landlord persists in asking us to move"
continue the DNA DNA: see nucleic acid. DNA
or deoxyribonucleic acid

One of two types of nucleic acid (the other is RNA); a complex organic compound found in all living cells and many viruses. It is the chemical substance of genes. of men today. According to according to
prep.
1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.

2. In keeping with: according to instructions.

3. an international team of geneticists This is a list of people who have made notable contributions to genetics. The growth and development of genetics represents the work of many people. This list of geneticists is therefore by no means complete. Contributors of great distinction to genetics are not yet on the list. , about 1 in 12 men in Asia--and therefore 1 in 200 men worldwide--carry a form of the Y chromosome Y chromosome,
n a sex chromosome that in humans and many other species is present only in the male, appearing singly in the normal male. It is carried as a sex determinant by one half of the male gametes. None of the female gametes contain a Y chromosome. that originated in Mongolia nearly 1,000 years ago. Today's unusual prevalence of this chromosomal variant is most likely the result of Genghis Khan's military success, the investigators say. Even more provocatively, the researchers suggest that Genghis Khan himself had this particular version of the Y."

From Science News

And extremely lucky.

Edbyron

"Buddhism in action?"

I'd call it a brilliant bit of soldiering, maybe even an instance of the joy of battle.

He was a skilled killer, certes.

Edbyronadams:

"...Staff seargeant..."

This says all that needs to be said. He entered the military, took its oath, submitted to its programming, and obeyed its commands...FOR PAY and AS A CAREER.

He got what he entered the service for. When those to whom he promised service called in their rightful claim on him, he did what he was PAID to do.

Sorry. No altruism, or Buddhism for that matter.

Onofrio:

Not vague at all. I understood. Thanks.

I was backing your point, Schaum, in response to Edbyron's rosy monocle on military service.

Sorry for the vagueness.

"Regarding Buddhism and so-called altruism:

Self-benefit and the benefit of others are inseparably related. When any action is beneficial to one, it is also beneficial to the other."

From the Medal of Honor site: first in the WWII section.

ADAMS, LUCIAN

Rank and organization: Staff Sergeant, U.S. Army, 30th Infantry, 3d Infantry Division. Place and date: Near St. Die, France, 28 October 1944. Entered service at: Port Arthur, Tex. Birth: Port Arthur, Tex. G.O. No.: 20, 29 March 1945. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at risk of life above and beyond the call of duty on 28 October 1944, near St. Die, France. When his company was stopped in its effort to drive through the Mortagne Forest to reopen the supply line to the isolated third battalion, S/Sgt. Adams braved the concentrated fire of machineguns in a lone assault on a force of German troops. Although his company had progressed less than 10 yards and had lost 3 killed and 6 wounded, S/Sgt. Adams charged forward dodging from tree to tree firing a borrowed BAR from the hip. Despite intense machinegun fire which the enemy directed at him and rifle grenades which struck the trees over his head showering him with broken twigs and branches, S/Sgt. Adams made his way to within 10 yards of the closest machinegun and killed the gunner with a hand grenade. An enemy soldier threw hand grenades at him from a position only 10 yards distant; however, S/Sgt. Adams dispatched him with a single burst of BAR fire. Charging into the vortex of the enemy fire, he killed another machinegunner at 15 yards range with a hand grenade and forced the surrender of 2 supporting infantrymen. Although the remainder of the German group concentrated the full force of its automatic weapons fire in a desperate effort to knock him out, he proceeded through the woods to find and exterminate 5 more of the enemy. Finally, when the third German machinegun opened up on him at a range of 20 yards, S/Sgt. Adams killed the gunner with BAR fire. In the course of the action, he personally killed 9 Germans, eliminated 3 enemy machineguns, vanquished a specialized force which was armed with automatic weapons and grenade launchers, cleared the woods of hostile elements, and reopened the severed supply lines to the assault companies of his battalion.

Buddhism in action?

Onofrio:

"What about the youthful desire for adventure and not-to-be-left-out? That has made plenty of carrion."

Forgive me, sir. Sometimes, at least for me, the obvious is obscure.

What about the youthful desire for adventure and not-to-be-left-out? That has made plenty of carrion.

No altruism within cooee.

Edbyronadams:

"Serving in the military during a time of war is in itself altruistic"

No. If you enlist to serve, you bind yourself to duty. Duty is not altruism. If you bind yourself by oath, as servicemen do, to the service of others, others have a claim on you which you are obligated to fulfill. Definitely not altruism.

"Why someone might engage in this apparently anti-Darwinian behavior is the interesting analysis."

Think 'personal glory'. Think 'money'. Think 'can't find another job.'

Edbyronadams,

Thee:
"Serving in the military during a time of war is in itself altruistic, no heroics needed. You put yourself at risk for others."

I think that's a narrowly naive view of military service, sir.

BTW, Persiflage:

Regarding Buddhism and so-called altruism:

Self-benefit and the benefit of others are inseparably related. When any action is beneficial to one, it is also beneficial to the other.

Your Medal of Honor winners benefited by their own actions.

Serving in the military during a time of war is in itself altruistic, no heroics needed. You put yourself at risk for others.

Why someone might engage in this apparently anti-Darwinian behavior is the interesting analysis.

Persiflage:

And what greater personal honor, even aggrandizement, can be found than to be awarded a medal of honor for doing what soldiers are programmed to do. No altruism here.

Cynical? Ok. Your point???

All true is misconstrual.

Lower its knock; seems you're at law.

An interesting piece of US military history here; a comprehensive index of Medal of Honor winners - listed from the Civil War onward.

The wording of many of the individual citations indicates the circumstance under which the recipients payed the ultimate price. I would submit that these heroic acts went far beyond typical military training protocols.

These individuals showed utter disregard for their own safety, and somehow managed to achieve a certain level of greatness in and of the moment.

I also think that attributing personal motives and/or benefits to these acts is the height of cynicism.

Here we may find an abundant supply of altruism - seemingly generated by over 3000 acts of free will. That is not to say that anything or anyone is free from cause and effect.......

http://www.history.army.mil/moh.html

A very old question: "How shall we live?"

Obviously most people want to live "well"...to have the possessions they desire, to be secure in their existence, homes and finances, among other things.

I suggest that "good", for most people, can be defined as that which gives the majority what they need to feel they are living "well".

Since the personal evaluation as to whether one is "living well" is subjective, I suggest that the definition of "good" is equally subjective.

"Ed, you're defining "tribe" as immediate kin. What if we made "tribe" synonymous with "species?" No need to kill ""Them" off in order to preserve "Us" if everyone is one of "Us.""

Posted by: lepidopteryx

Certainly it works on a specific basis as the baboon "guard" and numerous other species but that does not negate the idea that it works intraspecifically as well. Intraspecific competition is even more intense than interspecific competition because the same species competes for space in exactly the same niche.

As regard our own species, a survey of history, prehistory and anthropology would demonstrate that armed intergroup conflict is ubiquitous. The idea that "Us" is everyone is a novel and laudable idea but that begs the question of whether it is instinctive and justifies a standard of behavior that relies on instinctive feelings as justification.

I fear that "Us" demands a comparison on an instinctive level, i.e., the "Other". You don't have to wander very far on the postings on the WaPo to see this played out on a political level on what people say about the "Other".

This need for division and our present and expanding capacity for destruction cries out for a spiritual solution, IMHO. At the least, it cries out for dialog about what constitutes proper behavior toward one another. I'm willing to go along with proscriptions provided by another religion. As a matter of fact, I am completely willing to forgo coveting my neighbor's ass.

Farnaz:

"If you wish to rule out "good,"

I have never "ruled out" good. I have said that altruism does not exist. You have failed to prove that it does.

This, along with your previous statement: "We disagree," demonstrates that you are no longer engaging the argument. This is the post with which the disengagement began. I invite you to address the first paragraph.
------------------------------------

The idea that subjectivity is inherently self-interested is problematic. It can be highly self-destructive. To say that an idea of the good is "subjective" is tantamount to saying that there is apriori synthetic knowledge. There is instinct, which may have motivated the drug dealer, but there may be altruistic impulses as several of us have asserted.
------------------------------------
The point, quite simply, is that an act which places another's interest before one's own, is in common parlance "altruistic." Whether motivated by a notion of the good, or by instinct, it is altruistic as "altruism" is defined in dictionaries and the various disciplines.

I don't need a concession, btw. And anyway, I've got to run.

Interesting discussion, as always!

Regards to all bloggers and Sebastian.

Walter:

Thanks for your bargaining offer, but I decline.

Let me be clear:

I say there is no such thing as altruism.
I have asked for proof to the contrary, and none has been forthcoming.
I have no axe to grind here...you, Farnaz, the Pope -- whomever -- can believe whatever you/she/he/they want to believe. It makes no difference to me. My life is unaffected by what you believe. "Schaum against the world" logic may work with some people, it doesn't with me. Because I just don't give a f**k what anybody believes. If the freaking tooth fairy is a reality for you, thats great. I have no problem with it. It doesn't exist for me, and until someone can offer proof of its reality, it won't exist for me. PROOF...not unsupported assertions. Thats all I asked for. I did not, and do not, attempt to make converts. I JUST DON'T CARE WHAT "THE WORLD" BELIEVES!

Now, you should feel free to devote your energies to the Isaidyousaid exchanges with Farnaz, Pam, and the alcoholic Armenius. I don't give a flip about THAT either, but if it turns you on, hey--do it.

Schaum,
"There is no human action that does not provide its "doer" with some personal benefit, however abstract you may find that to be."

agreed. that's why i suggested if we change the "SOME personal benefit" idea in your above statement to "LESS personal benefit than personal sacrifice", altruism is at least possible.

how 'bout "net altruism"?

if i have 20 candy bars and give away 19, i get the "benefit" of "feeling good" about giving away 19 candy bars, but i sacrifice the candy bars. so how does 19 candy bars COMPARE to "feeling good"? we can assign values to the bars and the good feelings etc... and determine whether there was a NET altruism.

Farnaz:

"If you wish to rule out "good,"

I have never "ruled out" good. I have said that altruism does not exist. You have failed to prove that it does.

Again, please do not put words in my mouth.

I said that GOOD was a matter of subjective consideration.

Please do not put words in my mouth.
--------------------
If you wish to rule out "good," and we assume altruism is good, then you will have to dispense with notions of the "good," upon which you have relied for your argument.

Apples and oranges, Farnaz.

I said that GOOD was a matter of subjective consideration.

Please do not put words in my mouth.

Walter,

"I'd be happy to tally up the insults, any time."

that would be funny. would you break it down into mine, pam's, arminius' and yours? (i forget, were there others who jumped in?)
-------------------------
Thank you for defending my point. However, we can first contrast your statements to me with mine to you. We can then move on to Arminius, whom Pam, earlier sought to exclude in the insults tally, and then on to Pam.

From the tally, we can move onto the thread to which you and Pam followed me, kept at it, after I asked that we honor YOUR request to separate.

I suggest you reread my post with an eye to its substance. Also, as I stated earlier, now that we have dispensed with offensive and meaningless words like "juchrislamic," now that we have agreed not to trash one "sacred" text at the expense of another, now that "we" have agreed not to falsely accuse and have apologized for it, I think we can move on.

The rest is up to you. We are on topic now. I, for one, am staying on topic. You may, of course, do the same.

WalterIFC:

"it's logically impossible in that construct."

Walter, Walter, Walter: altruism is logically impossible in ANY construct. It simply does not exist. There is no human action that does not provide its "doer" with some personal benefit, however abstract you may find that to be.

"Whether the drug dealer was motivated by an idea of the good or instinct does not, therefore, rule out altruism."

We disagree.
-----------------
Yes. However, it is you who resorted to "subjectivity" and instinct to defend your claim. I have argued that neither "subjectivity" nor instinct rule out altruism.
See my point on apriori synthetic knowledge.

farnaz,
"I'd be happy to tally up the insults, any time."

that would be funny. would you break it down into mine, pam's, arminius' and yours? (i forget, were there others who jumped in?)

Persiflage:

My libertarian views surprise you?

I believe that human beings possess free will, that free will is incompatible with determinism, and that determinism is false...to that degree I am a libertarian, yes.

I also think that free will can be subverted, or overlaid -- as the military and police units routinely do in their programming of recruits to "appropriate" behavior.

"schaum vs. the world" is a matter of definition. by including "feeling good about being altruistic" as a benefit, schaum has defined altruism right out of existence. it's logically impossible in that construct.

but the definition of altruism as an act with NO benefit to the actor is probably extreme. it should be more like an act where the benefit is LESS THAN the sacrifice. now we can weigh the benefit of "feeling good" vs. the sacrifice of jumping on a grenade, and the possibility of altruism reappears (especially for atheists, who have no thoughts of eternal "benefits" in heaven).

Farnaz:

"Whether the drug dealer was motivated by an idea of the good or instinct does not, therefore, rule out altruism."

We disagree.

"Subjectivity" is not necessarily self-serving."

I somehow doubt that it is necessary to define subjectivity for you. How about: the opposite of objectivity.
-------------------
Quite right. You need not provide a layman's definition. Neither that or a philosophic description is what I was requesting.

The idea that subjectivity is inherently self-interested is problematic. It can be highly self-destructive. To say that an idea of the good is "subjective" is tantamount to saying that there is apriori synthetic knowledge. There is instinct, which may have motivated the drug dealer, but there may be altruistic impulses as several of us have asserted.

Whether the drug dealer was motivated by an idea of the good or instinct does not, therefore, rule out altruism. Not at all.

Farnaz:

Perhaps I assume too much...never a good idea. Perhaps it is necessary to define subjectivity for you:

Subjectivity refers to a person's perspective or opinion, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. (Wikipedia)

Does that satisfy?

Farnaz:

"Subjectivity" is not necessarily self-serving."

I somehow doubt that it is necessary to define subjectivity for you. How about: the opposite of objectivity.

"However, I cannot disagree with ideas of the good"

Nor do I disagree with "ideas" of the "good". I would assert, however, that "good" is a very subjective, and therefore self-serving, concept and perception.
---------------------------
Schaum,

I think you're going to have to elaborate. "Subjectivity" is not necessarily self-serving. Subjectivity can undermine.

SCHAUM, also see this. Posted below.

Does this change anything? Cannot a woman have the same ideas about what a "good" human does?
------------
However, I cannot disagree with ideas of the good. Ideas of the good motivate us. Taking a stand as this woman did may be motivated by an idea of the good, may be instinctual. Either way, altruism, I think, figured in her actions.

Farnaz:

"However, I cannot disagree with ideas of the good"

Nor do I disagree with "ideas" of the "good". I would assert, however, that "good" is a very subjective, and therefore self-serving, concept and perception.

One could say that she, as a woman and therefore by nature a nurturer, was reacting to her need to feel fulfilled as a nurturer. Her action was, therefore, not selfless, much less altruistic.
-------------------------
"therefore by nature a nurturer": LOL, if you knew her! However, I think it possible that she was motivated by "instinct." That doesn't make her act less "altruistic."

Farnaz:

"She is a simple drug dealer who slid under a truck without thinking to rescue a little boy. She wasn't trained to throw herself on hand grenades or anything else.

She is a drug dealer."

I repeat: WHAT does this change?

One could say that she, as a woman and therefore by nature a nurturer, was reacting to her need to feel fulfilled as a nurturer. Her action was, therefore, not selfless, much less altruistic.

Does this change anything? Cannot a woman have the same ideas about what a "good" human does?
------------
However, I cannot disagree with ideas of the good. Ideas of the good motivate us. Taking a stand as this woman did may be motivated by an idea of the good, may be instinctual. Either way, altruism, I think, figured in her actions.

Persiflage:

Blustering?

Ok. If you say so, it must be true.

Does this change anything? Cannot a woman have the same ideas about what a "good" human does? Cannot a woman be trained, as a soldier, to throw herself on grenades???
-----------------------
She is a simple drug dealer who slid under a truck without thinking to rescue a little boy. She wasn't trained to throw herself on hand grenades or anything else.

She is a drug dealer.

"The Cults of Abraham"
--------------------------
Cute, but meaningless. Judaism was, for the most part, introduced in Tanakh by Abraham.

Christianity and Islam are other matters, the former pope's attempts at feel goodism, among other things, notwithstanding.

Persiflage:

"we're suffering from a massive overdose, even a morbid preoccupation with self-interest in the USA."

Indeed. This message was preached by theologians and politicians -- and even some psychologists -- decades ago. And they were right. Even BEFORE there was a large drug culture, which has to be the most self-preoccupied segment of society.

Daniel12:

"Hell, at this point I would not be surprised if atheists say we do not have conclusive proof God does not exist, so we had better be moral just in case.."

I will reiterate what was also necessary to point out to JTTN:

BASIC logic: you cannot/do not prove a negative. Only a positive. You cannot prove god does not exist. It is not incumbent on the disbeliever to do so. That god exists is a positive assertion, and only positives can be proven (or not). Therefore the onus of proof is on the one(s) who make positive assertions ("There is a god"; "Altruism lives").

Schaum,

Thanks for the links, although the overlay of libertarian thinking is clearly evident throughout....I didn't realize you were persuaded by that particular point of view!

Enlightened self-interest is all well and good, but I'd say we're suffering from a massive overdose, even a morbid preoccupation with self-interest in the USA.

I wonder would Ayn Rand applaud the recent Wall Street debacle? Self-interest run amuck. Ironically, her devotee Alan Greenspan did much to bring it on.

Free market economy indeed.....

The Cults of Abraham have all proven by the actions of their constituents to be brutal, tribal creations created for the purpose of defeating humans hardwired respect and consideration for other living things. These religions are tools for the priesthoods to exhort followers to attack other tribes and follow the leadership into the next war of conquest and aggression. The new testament attempts to be more inclusive, but the without that old testament horror, it wouldn't have been useful to Constantine or Rome so it still has a prominent place.

If you examine the history of that religion without prejudice, you will easily see that the only 'good' to have come from it has been from the tradition of Greco-Roman philosophy. Christianity isn't Democratic nor capitalist, but the philosophers studied by the early priest, which was the only way to get educated, thoughtful humans in the western world for most of the last 2000 yrs gave us those concepts. Our laws and ethics all come from those pursuits. Likewise, any reasonable morality Christianity can claim comes from the philosophical pursuit of ethics more than from the scribblings of the early Catholic church that make up the new testament.
The Cults of Abraham were all created by men to control men and make them 'good' enough to live with the tribe most of the time, but not too 'good' to kill for king and tribe.

Farnaz:

"The drug dealer is a woman."

Does this change anything? Cannot a woman have the same ideas about what a "good" human does? Cannot a woman be trained, as a soldier, to throw herself on grenades???

Schaum:

"A drug dealer I know (and I don't use drugs), in a split second, slid under the truck, which could have started moving at any second, and pulled the little boy out."

And this proves...?

A man has been raised to think that a "real" man or a "good" man looks out for weaker humans. He did what a "real" man or a "good" man would do. Great. No problem. And he gets reinforcement for his feeling that he is a "real" "good" man.

It was a good, humane/human and conscientious thing to do. It was not altruistic.
---------------------------------
Schaum,

The drug dealer is a woman.

You and Schaum have good minds, and mostly I enjoy your posts, but both of you have a distressing habit of descending to mud-slinging whenever someone has the temerity to disagree with you. This is ugly and juvenile. I would love to see both of you rise above it.

Posted by: Pamsm | October 29, 2009 1:21 AM
---------------------------------
Pam,

You also have a good mind. However, the mudslinging on the thread in question was Arminius', yours, and Walter's. I went on at great length without it.

I'd be happy to tally up the insults, any time. Your perceptions are way off. A lot of times, no matter, how open-minded someone may be, when a minority voice is raised in opposition, first come insults. Then when s/he defends her/himself in like manner, that person is blamed for being aggressive.

Blame the victim, then blame the victim again. Ironically, when I tried to escape, which is what you said you wanted, you and Walter pursued me onto Susan's thread. Persued ME.

It works both ways. Respect for the Other, which is what I was requesting, No insults means No insults.

In the meantime, no exclusivity provides a starting line. The question is whether you will line up with me.

Part one.

Can a person be good, moral, without a belief in God?

This question is deceptive, for we can observe that by morality we, the majority, mean no great thing, simply doing the every day and being quite removed from prison. Asking us if it makes a difference to morality whether we believe in God or not is like asking us if it makes a difference to our walking down a road whether we believe in God or not. It seems God is irrelevant to our behaving morally.

But things are not so simple. It may be there are many who do not believe in God yet act morally, but there is a big difference between not believing in God and having conclusive evidence there is no God. We might say we disbelieve in God, but we are not certain there is no God, so we are not acting as freely without God as we imagine. In other words, to make it clearer, pretend for a moment one is involved in an experiment in which one has two choices: Open door number one in which there is a 75% chance one will double the money one has put down, or open door number two in which there is only a 25% chance of doubling the money.

Part two.

Of course everyone will go for door number one. But can a person be absolutely certain the money lies behind door number one? Of course not. Despite the relative certainty of the operation one is not completely certain, and this results in the characteristic physiological responses to uncertainty: hesitation; a certain sobriety; nervous movements of the eye. So it is with merely a disbelief in God and no conclusive evidence there is no God. One might disbelieve in God but one hedges the bet whether one likes it or not because one is uncertain.

One might say, in the parlance of modern science as opposed to creationism, that one lives on a planet which has existed for billions of years, its continents having come together and spread apart over millions and millions of years, and that this planet is located in a vast universe with no easy answer to explain it, but without conclusive evidence there is no God one cannot help but be in an awestruck state not at all far removed from the religious contemplation of the universe. Therefore one cannot say one can behave morally without a belief in God. The universe inspires belief rather than disbelief--unless one can prove God does not exist.

Part three.

And saying the universe actually inspires no belief in God, that the evidence is rather of a kind that demonstrates no God, offers no way out. We still are hesitant, careful despite our professed non-belief in God. We can say that randomly killing someone will result in penalty only if our fellow humans catch us, but we act as if we are already seen--as religious people do in their belief in God. We can never be absolutely certain nothing watches us in our private moments. Now of course atheists everywhere reading this will say "what the hell's he talking about? I don't need conclusive evidence there is no God to act morally without God, disbelieving in God and acting morally is enough to demonstrate one can act morally without God".

But alas things are not so simple for atheists. There is more evidence showing they not only do not really reflect on morality with and without God, but act not at all far removed from the religious viewpoint. They are far more like religious people than people truly living a life without God. In other words, their very atheism is in question. Worse, although it seems everyone knows what morality is, the atheists' assertions are far more damaging to their position than religious people's assertions concerning their own position. This can easily be demonstrated.

Part four.

Religious people have a familiar construct with respect to the world. This construct at its simplest is that God created the universe and of course man, then man rebelled and now must repent, behave in a particular manner to get back in good graces with God. The construct of religious people is all of a piece with their moral understanding. In other words, there is no incongruity between construct and asserted necessary behavior. One might be scornful of the religious construct, but there is consistency of view. There is no such consistency of view when it comes to atheists. They are incongruous. They say they can be moral without a belief in God, but they are carrying over into a quite different construct of the world the typical morality which has never really existed separate from the religious view.

The scientific view--scientific construct, if you will, to compare and contrast it with the religious construct--is a view which demands a quite different morality than that demanded by the religious view--if morality is demanded at all. And that the atheists do not grasp this demonstrates that for all their non-belief in God they are really not acting as freely without God as they imagine. They are still more religious than true atheists. Demonstration? What are the two greatest scientific views today? 1) The universe began in a big bang and had no creator behind it--and how it will end no one knows for certain. 2) That man descended from a creature which was also the ancestor of the chimpanzee, among other primates.

Part five.

And what does that in essence tell us? That man has evolved toward primarily intelligence and not morality in a world located in a universe that began with an explosion! Atheists are fond of telling us that even animals are moral--to bolster their view of morality without God. Animals such as chimpanzees. But that just reinforces beyond belief the view that man differs from the chimpanzee by primarily intelligence! That morality has not been the path of man over millions of years of development but rather intelligence! What this means is that one must not speak of being able to be moral without a belief in God--as if this proves something--but rather speak of being willing to embark on making man more intelligent rather than moral, for it has been intelligence which has made all the difference to man in the world!

That is if one wants to be consistent with the scientific construct. So we can easily see the incongruity of atheists championing morality without a belief in God when the entire view of the world without God--the scientific view--demonstrates it is not really morality at all which man has been pursuing over millions of years of development but intelligence. And it is obviously further intelligence which should be aimed at. Man is not a moral animal, man is a predator. If one wants to speak of a moral animal try looking at one's hamburger. There one finds the meat of a creature vastly more moral than man--and it is not for nothing Hindus venerate the cow, for it is a peaceful creature, in fact a creature which meditates better than man.--Or at least ruminates better.

Part six.

If Darwin is to be believed when he says that species in general when varying to another form drive to extinction the previous form--the parent form--then the human race of today drove to extinction its own ancestors and even wiped out offshoots such as Neanderthal man. No particular development of morality but rather a development of intelligence. And apparently man has been pretty good at developing intelligence (i.e. wiping out the less intelligent humans). And what this obviously means to the atheistic viewpoint is that we must champion the intelligent among us rather than the moral, even if the intelligent act less than morally desirable. Of course there must be some level of cooperation, morality if you will, but that is not the objective--certainly not the primary objective.

But just watch atheists foam at the mouth as they read this!--Thus proving they are not at all far removed from the very religious people they so despise. They do not even live up to the basic scientific evidence that can be explained to an adolescent. They are all about morality rather than scientific evidence and what that implies. And their morality is never so furious as when they are engaged in verbal combat with the religious. They never tire of saying they can not only be moral without a belief in God, but that they can demonstrate even greater morality.--When all the scientific evidence demonstrates that man is barely if at all of greater morality than a chimp! That the difference between man and chimp is intelligence and not morality!

Part seven.

Conclusion: Atheists have really nothing to say to the religious when it comes to discussing whether one can be moral without a belief in God. The religious are consistent--their construct is all of a piece with their conception of morality. In fact their construct is about morality rather than intelligence. They do not say become intelligent and God will forgive you, but act such as God will forgive. The atheists on the other hand never tire of saying they can be moral without God, but their construct--the scientific evidence--demonstrates that man should be about intelligence rather than morality, that intelligence has made the difference between man and the animals.

Hell, at this point I would not be surprised if atheists say we do not have conclusive proof God does not exist, so we had better be moral just in case...Thus demonstrating they really have no courage of the very science they tout but instead are quite a lot like the religious. All a battle of morality rather than about specific views of the world and what that implies. But again, man the moral animal? Even the views of the Buddha and Christ have resulted in nothing more than man spreading like a plague, a parasite, a cancer across the globe, annihilating species left and right. No, man is not known for morality but rather intelligence. The Nazis pretty much had it right--that is, were consistent in action with the scientific view. Wipe out the inferior peoples. Continue the millions of years old march toward intelligence rather than morality. Of course the Nazis erred in wiping out the Jews and homosexuals--certainly not necessarily stupid people. But what group of humans ever had action in perfect line with scientific insight?

Part eight.

To say it still again, if one rejects the religious view of believing in a God who will save us if we act relatively moral, we are left with the pure Darwinian, biological, paleontological evidence: man developing toward intelligence rather than morality. In fact it seems man is using his intelligence to increase his immorality. Perhaps we can use some morality after all. Thus I admit defeat in this intellectually pleasurable argument. Besides, the choices it seems we have today leave me rather ill. It seems we either believe in a God who created us only to punish us if we do not act as he wishes, or believe in the Darwinian view which demonstrates man has evolved to primarily intelligence and not morality. The choices are rather grim.

But I have a plan. Just remain calm and do as little harm as possible. Jump to no premature conclusions. In fact despite our science we should be living as simply and sparingly as possible. Perhaps make opium legal so we can smoke and ruminate with the cows. Just think things over a bit. No hurry. Even only that would make a wise man of someone. Maybe that is the essence of religion. Maybe that reconciles science with religion. But above it all, the human project: another human variant out of our species. The creation of a different and better human species.

'There are terms to describe other 'particular and commonly' observed "factual realities", which cannot be proved either: such a god, witches, SantaClaus, resurrection, etc. Try proving that those terms are real/true/verifiable.'

Schaum - a nonsensical, hyperbolic comment. You're blustering.....

'Name a single human interaction of your choosing that CANNOT be illustrated to serve both parties. You can't. It is not possible to carry out a selfless act. You will ALWAYS benefit yourself as well as the second party.'

More blustering - can you produce any real support for your essentially egocentric position? On the other hand, much support has been produced for the existence of a human trait called altruism. All you need do is read what's been presented. I'm not going to re-invent the wheel......

Of course, living humans act, but either intentionality or instinct drive the act. Sacrificing one's life for the sake of 'the other' is perhaps the ultimate altruistic act, by any definition - other than yours. Attaching motives to such an act, after the fact, is devoid of meaning.

There are many lesser examples, where folks simply give, without motivation or intention to receive (proclaiming otherwise is not proof of your point of view).

As a Buddhist, you're of course familiar with the concept of bodhichitta...a purer concept of altruism can't be found. Are you in disagreement with this idea? Admittedly, a distant goal for most of us.

Crackpot JTTN? Whom might you be referring to??

regards, Persiflage

Flame brain Hal Turner same fag gas bag.

Schaum:
A drug dealer I know (and I don't use drugs), in a split second, slid under the truck, which could have started moving at any second, and pulled the little boy out."

And this proves...?

A man has been raised to think that a "real" man or a "good" man looks out for weaker humans. He did what a "real" man or a "good" man would do. Great. No problem. And he gets reinforcement for his feeling that he is a "real" "good" man.

It was a good, humane/human and conscientious thing to do. It was not altruistic.
---------------------------------
Schaum,

The drug dealer is a woman.

when people wax nostalgic about how great the 10 commandments are, they never mention the prescribed punishment for breaking one (death).

funny, because that's not even ancient eye-for-an-eye "justice". it's much worse. there's no proportionality. the penalty for "idols" is death....come on...sheesh, god is apparently touchy and insecure.

Comp:

"As I have pointed out, since your definition of altruism is not what dictionaries use as a definition (I provided a definition that is used and supports the notion that altrusim can include acts that also benefit the doer) I would agrue that your assertion is invalid"

Prove that altruism exists. Dictionary definitions prove nothing. Many things are 'defined' in the dictionary which do not, in fact exist.

"BTW...you might invest in a spelling checker"

A childish jibe that is ignorable.

Then feel free to ignore it. The implied truth remains.

Persiflage:

"A final effort below, at establishing the existence of altruism/altruistic behavior as a potential human trait."

Thanks for the effort to establish the existence of altruism...via your links. That is more effort than JTTN could muster. Given the extent of his emotional meltdown, I gather that he is accustomed to having his wild-eyed and unproven assertions challenged.

Allow me to return the favor and provide links which deny the existence of altruism; there are others than these, if you would like me to post them.

http://www.helium.com/knowledge/49191-are-human-beings-capable-of-truly-selfless-acts

http://www.lewrockwell.com/alston/alston28.html

http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/does-altruism-exist-in-humans/

Walt,
Not to mention that only three of the "big 10" are actually codified into civil law - murder, theft, and perjury.

rubytues63, you asked,
"So who decides what is good?"

well, WE do. it's a process that's been going on for 10s or 100s of thousands of years. humans are figuring out how to treat each other. yes, hamurabi, "moses" et. al. were steps along this journey. we took great step forward with the u.s. constitution when individual human rights were put beyond government's reach. for a more recent version of what we've come up with see the 1948 "universal declaration of human rights".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

that's all great stuff. i'd say if we all went by just that instead of ancient scripture we'd be MUCH better off here on earth (though possibly going to hell forever, according to those with certain biblical presuppositions).

Schaum,

"I neither said nor implied any of this; this is entirely your construct, to appeal to emotionalism."

Not at all. You have posted that the soldier committed a SELFISH act of suicide. Since most poeple seem to ascribe the word selfish a negative connotation my question was a valid one. I never appealed to emotionalism. It was a logical question based on the attitude you seem to take with those who disagree with you.

"Heroic acts are always deserving of praise and honor. "
I am glad that we agree on that fact.

"That has nothing to do with the fact that there is no such thing as altruism. "

As I have pointed out, since your definition of altruism is not what dictionaries use as a definition (I provided a definition that is used and supports the notion that altrusim can include acts that also benefit the doer) I would agrue that your assertion is invalid

"BTW...you might invest in a spelling checker"

A childish jibe that is ignorable.

rubytues63, you said,
"Thomas Jefferson, noted proponent of the separation of church and state and critic of organized religion, studied the Bible extensively. And while the Good Book never convinced him there was a God that intervened in everyday problems, he did come away believing that the Bible contained a vibrant and compelling description of what goodness is and what it takes to be good."

well...not the "bible"... he thought the o.t. (MOST of the bible) was garbage, and edited most of the n.t. out to obtain his "wee little book".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

you said,
"Ask an Average Joe what he must do to be good and 8 out of 10 will recite at least 8 out of the 10 commandments, even if they don’t give credit to the source."

1)no other gods
2)no idols
3)lord's name
4)sabbath
5)honor parents
6)murder
7)adultery
8)steal
9)lie
10)covet

which 8 (minimum...) would they name? they'd have to SKIP the first 4, right? those aren't about "being good". they're about how to practice one specific religion.

so, really there's only 6 "in play" here. those are found in earlier "codes" like hamurabi's and the sumerian code. "don't murder" is not a magic revelation from god - WE made it up, looooong before moses or hamurabi. and it's a great idea for keeping society functioning.

on the other hand "no other gods" is probably responsible for all the religious wars ever fought - presumably the other guy had a different god... where the first ammendment protects freedom of religion, the first commandment prohibits it. you think freedom of religion's good, right?

Wiccan,

Got another Guinness handy? I'll join you and Arminius.

"You were wholly disinterested in my assertions."

Pity. Why should I be interested in the unsubstantiated, unproven/unprovable/unscientific rantings of a crackpot? You are, you know, as I think you have illustrated very well.

We can't prove a negative claim, only prove (or not!) a positive one. That's philosophy/logic 101. Even you can understand that. Or could if you were not impotent with rage.

"term deemed well suited to describe a particular & commonly observed factual reality."

There are terms to describe other 'particular and commonly' observed "factual realities", which cannot be proved either: such a god, witches, SantaClaus, resurrection, etc. Try proving that those terms are real/true/verifiable.

Persiflage:

"A final effort below, at establishing the existence of altruism/altruistic behavior as a potential human trait."

Notwithstanding the crackpot JTTN, the fact is that altruism cannot be established as a fact. Go ahead...try.

Name a single human interaction of your choosing that CANNOT be illustrated to serve both parties. You can't. It is not possible to carry out a selfless act. You will ALWAYS benefit yourself as well as the second party.

A final effort below, at establishing the existence of altruism/altruistic behavior as a potential human trait.

It's certainly an established fact among academics that study this sort of thing - altruism is an abstraction; but a term deemed well suited to describe a particular & commonly observed factual reality.

It might be argued that this kind of Darwinian altruism is not quite the same as the commonly understood 'philosophical' altruism e.g. biology and instinct vs conscious will. As with all things, there's still plenty of room for hair-splitting, if so inclined :^)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

More smoke
More mirrors
More gas
More impotent rage!

Lost credibility with you? Oooooooohhhhhh....whatever will I do? An impotent gasbag has no faith in me!

Prove your altruism case before you implode. I don't want to miss that.

"Oh, yes, you ARE frustrated. You cannot prove your point. And it eats at you! You should study logic with Peter Huff. He might be able to teach you something useful, if you could shut your gasbag long enough to learn.

But then, we both know that would be impossible!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA I love your impotent rage!"

"And since you can offer no proof to rebut my debunking of the altruism claim, I win. I have proven my case.

Sorry. You lose again."

Perhaps you should get off of the sauce, Schaum. This kind of display can do your cause no good. Good being, of course, a relative term.

I used to think that you were a mature intellectual, and academic or artist with a bright mind. I rethink my position in new light.

You have lost all credibility with me, now.

With shaking tiny fists, pummeling my laptop, I quake, "Enough! I am done in by a gasbag!", and , smiling, I slowly back out, bowing.

Oh, yes, you ARE frustrated. You cannot prove your point. And it eats at you! You should study logic with Peter Huff. He might be able to teach you something useful, if you could shut your gasbag long enough to learn.

But then, we both know that would be impossible!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA I love your impotent rage!

I am not frustrated, little bugger. I am vindicated. You have, once again, risen to what was required. I am appreciative, and relieved.

I have no need to prove that altruism exists. I am not supposing beyond common understanding, neither rocking the veritable boat of common knowledge. You are.

There seems not a blooming bleeding individual in these Hollowed Halls that sided on the side of "altruism does not exist", but for you. OK.

Back up that assertion with something more meaningful than your own opinion, since you have brought it to this point, or shut up.

OR, just keep on spewing.

How did you just say it? Ahhh, yes.

"And, as usual, you cannot. You are just a narcissistic bag of wind.

Prove your point, or shut up."

Hello MBeck1,

Fabulous post. I just trust this is not your way of admitting to evils done. That would be way too creepy.

But then, karma has a way...

May God bless you and watch over you!

Again, shaking your little fist in frustration, you are unable to prove that altruism exists.

Essentially, you are impotent.

Schaum,

"And by the way: it is not incumbent upon anyone to prove non-existence of anything. It is your burden to prove that what you claim exists really does so."

You have asserted the non existence of a principle that has had common acceptance for almost two hundred years in it's current form, and has been a concept for far longer. I do not care for your intellectual hiding behind such paltry dither stated above. You tossed it out into the fray. You asserted it's invalidity, though most all believe it is a valid 'virtue'.

Prove it is invalid.

It is YOU that does not measure up, to your OWN measuring stick.

"Tough to get treated that way in return when you've died for your fellow(s)."

I know of no teaching that suggests karma is a tit-for-tat reward. It IS a reward, and thats why altruism is impossible in such a circumstance.

""Do unto others as you would have them do to you" is another indication that there is not such thing as altruism. The goal, in the end, is to control the way YOU are treated!"

Again, I am not in disagreement that we are self-motivated. That does not negate that altruism exists. You are proposing, then, that ANY communal concern is secondary, and so the individuals place in that community as secondary, to individual concerns.

By the same logic, cooperation, team participation, fidelity, loyalty, love, shared communion with kin, compassion.... etc, do not exist. Not conducive to the prime directive. Self motivated concerns are paramount.

Considering your posts, I would tend to agree that, for you, this world view is ascendant over all others. And, again, the ego tends to hold sway. But it is not alone.

Compassion, along with altruism and many other of the 'good' virtues, are extant in human heart and concern.

You dark old f*rt.

(:-)

"'Do unto others as you would have them do to you' is another indication that there is not such thing as altruism. The goal, in the end, is to control the way YOU are treated!"

Tough to get treated that way in return when you've died for your fellow(s).

Finally I understand why I rape and pillage with abandon; I don't believe in god. What’s surprising is that I’ve never been arrested for raping and pillaging, even though I never resist the temptation. God must be watching over me.

And by the way: it is not incumbent upon anyone to prove non-existence of anything. It is your burden to prove that what you claim exists really does so.

And, as usual, you cannot. You are just a narcissistic bag of wind.

Prove your point, or shut up.

I see that your inability to prove your case is frustrating you. Perhaps you should get used to that.

Yes, it was your gas.

"No, schaum, in this case YOU offered no proof, only your own "clear explanations of why each claim was nothing more than service of some self need"

And since you can offer no proof to rebut my debunking of the altruism claim, I win. I have proven my case.

Sorry. You lose again.

Schaum,

Was it gas, or hot air, that was floated about before.

Ah, yes...

"No, that would be your self-serving interpretation of my answer.

It is you who, as usual, make assertions and assumptions and offer no proof."

No, schaum, in this case YOU offered no proof, only your own "clear explanations of why each claim was nothing more than service of some self need".

As everyone knew or suspected, you are your own place of self validation. No need for YOU to offer proofs.

You rattled on your beliefs. You know that. Common decency, (you lack), alone is enough to forward a simple acknowledgment of being oh, just a wee bit off. Particularly after stabbing at me as I pontificated my unsubstantiated beliefs.

"It is you who, as usual, make assertions and assumptions and offer no proof."

No, again, here it is you. Stand up or shut up. Offer proofs that altruism does not exist. Not your own assertions and assumptions. Proof, you cantankerous if not bright fool. You were wholly disinterested in my assertions. Follow through with your own criteria in debate and discussion, or you are a liar, or worse.

"Do unto others as you would have them do to you" is another indication that there is not such thing as altruism. The goal, in the end, is to control the way YOU are treated!

The question is not whether Christians, or followers of God from any other religion, have an exclusive lock on goodness. The real question is: who gets to determine what is good?

In the movie Wall Street, Michael Douglass promotes the idea that “greed is good”. The headlines of this past year have been a testament to the foolishness of this belief. But as a capitalist nation, don’t we all buy into this notion to a certain degree? Is greed good?

The government has the opportunity to employ thousands of laid off American construction workers to build a new $17-billion military base in Guam. Instead, they plan to bring in workers from China and the Philippines to do the work because the going rate for skilled American labor is $30 an hour and foreigners will do the work for 9 or 10. The American Congress feels it would not be good steward of the taxpayer’s money if they hired Americans to do the work. Where was this spirit of stewardship when Wall Street jobs were at risk?

Modern society wants to believe that goodness is relative. Maybe that’s why there are no heroes anymore and the Congress’ approval rating hovers around 17% on the best of days. Maybe that’s why stockholder’s profits count for more than American worker's jobs. Maybe that’s why everyone except the top dog is expendable these days.

Thomas Jefferson, noted proponent of the separation of church and state and critic of organized religion, studied the Bible extensively. And while the Good Book never convinced him there was a God that intervened in everyday problems, he did come away believing that the Bible contained a vibrant and compelling description of what goodness is and what it takes to be good.

Ask an Average Joe what he must do to be good and 8 out of 10 will recite at least 8 out of the 10 commandments, even if they don’t give credit to the source. Jesus ranks higher than Gandhi or Martin Luther King in almost every list of good men, even among people who do not believe he is God. People who want to believe in their own goodness justify themselves either though “an eye for an eye” or by “turning the other cheek”.

So who decides what is good? From a western historical perspective, it is God’s book that decides, and most especially the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Human goodness, even the goodness of Christians (both real and pretenders), falls short. And I certainly wouldn’t trust Washington, Hollywood or our good friends on Wall Street to teach my kids a lesson in what it takes to be good.

Doing unto others is a standard that has relevance because there is an objectively good standard and reference that it is based on and because there is purpose and meaning in life and beyond. Otherwise, it is all pointless. Because you choose to believe in "Do unto others" it means nothing to those who operate on the law of the jungle - the strong, most resourceful, best able to adapt survive.

GIMPI: "All the rest, the fussing over controlling other people's sex lives, what they wear, what language they pray in, (or if they pray at all) all that seems to me to be a waste of time. And most of what I hear from the conservative side of Christianity is focused on that waste of time."

There again, you are looking at this all from the temporal, changing, seeing is believing, physical realm while denying the eternal, unchanging, unseen and greater realm. Does not the Creator have the right to determine how His creation/creatures live and act?

GIMPI: "Your "eternal truths" seem to be too tied up in worries about controlling other peoples lives, especially their sex lives. For me, It just doesn't fly. Good luck with it in your own life, though. If you're happy, I'm happy for you. I just wish you could share that feeling for me."

If they were my eternal truths you would have something to worry about. I point you to the truth of God's word. Freedom is found in Jesus Christ alone. (John 8:31-32, 36)

Pamsm:

Feel free not to read my posts. That would solve your discomfort problem.

Hi Gimpi,

ME: "You can't have justice without goodness and a standard for goodness that does not change. Can you point to such a standard? I can!"

GIMPI: "No, I'm afraid you can't."

Yes, I can. God is the necessary standard.

GIMPI: "The church has changed it's position on slavery ....."

You sound like Sam Harris. There again, you come at this from a naturalistic framework that denies the goodness of God or His justice. Just because a person or group of people does something against the moral teaching of the Bible does not make God or His word wrong. Slavery is a bondage or indebtedness and I would contend that if you are not self-employed you are in a type of slave owner relationship. You have agreed to supply to your employer what he has asked in exchange for renumeration. And in a sense you are a slave to whatever has mastery over you. Regardless, the Bible calls for a master to be merciful and just with those under him.

GIMPI: "I feel my standard really is a bit more simple than you stated. However, I might have been unclear. so here it is in a nutshell:
Try not to hurt others. (Taking away their freedom comes under the category of hurting.) Try to make the lives of others better, when you can. Sometimes you will have to make choices, where freedom intersects with harm. Do the best you can, in that case, to limit freedom as little as possible, while preventing harm. Seriously, just do unto others as you would have done unto you. That's it."

The problem with this standard is how do you determine "best." Do you borrow from the Christian framework as I contend you do, or do you look at it from a naturalistic framework that decides for itself what best is? How do you know that consequences of your actions will not harm or hurt another? Do you think it is "best" for a woman to choose the fate of her unborn child - whether it lives or dies? Does choosing to destroy it hurt it? And do you agree that she has that "right" to choose? Without an objective standard why is your view "right?" Why is it "best?" In such a case as a womans right to choose you try not to limit the freedom of the woman while denying completely the freedom of the unborn child (Presuming you support the woman's right to choose). Are you trying to make the life of the woman better (assuming again you agree that the woman has the right to choose) while condoning ending the life of the unborn? Doing the best you can may not be good enough. Are you willing to pay the price that justice requires, a life for a life? Do you think you are innocent when you condone an immoral or wrongful action? Should you just be acquitted of all wrongful actions because you acted in your perceived best intent? If so then you do not understand justice.

"Ok, so the answer to "do you have proofs?" is "No, I do not.""

No, that would be your self-serving interpretation of my answer.

It is you who, as usual, make assertions and assumptions and offer no proof.

Justtilthennow:

"""You are attempting to reinforce your position by making appeals to emotion and negative suggestion. These are red-herrings unless you have factual answers, or data that would project reasonable answers. Do you?"

Yes...that would seem to accurately describe your position.

Pamsm,

that is a fascinating study with the Rhesus macaques. And fascinating that you are plugged into so many studies.

I served for several years at a non-profit foundation that took in and sheltered abused exotic animals. Primates and large cats, mostly, often from the entertainment industries and to smaller degree from breeders hoping to sell exotics to private citizens, often with horrid results. Regular people have no idea what to do with a snow leopard after it goes past cute and into "I'm hungry NOW and you look like a dinner".

We had a macaque, named Marty, (no experiments on this one, he already escaped a couple of those bullets and was now, certifiably, free from threat of becoming the next test subject). He took to a lemur and a spider monkey like they were kin. Was not much for the gibbon, coulda killed him if he had the chance. But Loooved the lemur.

Macaques can be a**holes, and Marty was no exception. But you could see the love he had for a few human handlers and the lemur.

Empathy is something that all living creatures can experience, as is hatred, love, kinship, distrust, shared understanding...

Good, bad, indifferent.

And expressions of altruism.

"I think as long as you are blogging here, exclusivity is out."

Farnaz, the reason for moving the discussion with Peter to another thread was not a desire to exclude people, it was a desire to get it off such an active thread that you had to scroll endlessly to find the part that you wanted to answer.

Susan's threads often go off topic, sometimes interestingly, sometimes ridiculously. When so many of Susan's regulars followed us and began the same sort of free association there, it defeated the purpose of moving the conversation. That's all.

You and Schaum have good minds, and mostly I enjoy your posts, but both of you have a distressing habit of descending to mud-slinging whenever someone has the temerity to disagree with you. This is ugly and juvenile. I would love to see both of you rise above it.

Schaum,

"I have answered every claim to 'altruism' with clear explanations of why each claim was nothing more than service of some self need."

Ok, so the answer to "do you have proofs?" is "No, I do not."

Or, to respond as you have been more inclined:

""You are attempting to reinforce your position by making appeals to emotion and negative suggestion. These are red-herrings unless you have factual answers, or data that would project reasonable answers. Do you?"

and:

"Of course...because you can't.
More smoke.
More mirrors.
More negative emotion.
No facts.

I remain unsurprised."

"You DO read, don't you?"

ever the need to insult... (shhh, if I may return the favor.) Was that conditioning that you learned from your parents, or from school chums?

"Every claim of altruism can be debunked as serving the needs of self."

"Man is primarily motivated by the satisfaction of his own needs. He is born into that condition, exactly like every other animal."

We are in some disagreement here, with the first statement not the second, as I am not a purist in this. Ego, though primary in incarnate life, is not primary in the seminal nature of humanity. There are other forces at work than the service of the ego. Yet, I agreed with your position in my post with Farnaz. I am sure you read that, 'cause I am clear that you do read... so I have to conclude that you negated my complement to you, as you have done with past compliments I have offered up.

No surprise...

and so I end with one other of your delightful quotes to me, from your pitiful sense of friendly discourse and human communion.

"And I dislike unsubstantiated suppositions, posturing, gas, and unproved/unverifiable claims.

You have lost all credibility with me.

Begone."

"I have answered every claim to 'altruism' with clear explanations of why each claim was nothing more than service of some self need."

No, you haven't. What about the monkey who sacrificed himself to warn his tribe, having no idea that that could possibly result in more of his genes making it to the next generation. Nor, I suspect, if it were possible to explain it to him, would he care. Nor did you explain the Marine. At least not so as to convince anyone other than yourself. Or the man dying under the car's wheels to save a child not his own.

An experiment was conducted with unrelated Rhesus macaques in adjacent cages. One was taught to operate a lever to obtain food. It was his only source of food. Then the experimenters wired things so that the monkey next to him received a shock whenever he pulled the lever. When he realized the cause and effect, he stopped pulling the lever, and was near starvation when the experiment was ended.

This is empathy - the recognition that another is like you, and feels what you feel. It is the foundation of the "golden rule" and the source of altruism. This is what motivated Farnaz at her friend's bedside.

Hi, Onofrio,

"What's this? A mind-infesting spook, skulking in the dark, deluded he's phosphoric?

Not that there is any melee to speak of, but it is customary to win one before making demands to yield.

Yet here's no heraldic elan, no thunder in the lists.

No, here's a coup-flown solo burble, pining for once-upon-a-potency.

Respect your age, reiver. Try sagely...

Nice try at good cop / bad cop.
This was from the heart, old friend. Look deeper. Look deeper. This is not play-at-verses, no, not at all.

Take council with your inner Celt.

And you are quite right...I don't give a damn whether you believe in altruism or not. It is no skin off my backside.

I'm curious about one thing, though...do you spend a lot of time with mirrors?

Then read this thread from tonight.

I have answered every claim to 'altruism' with clear explanations of why each claim was nothing more than service of some self need.

You DO read, don't you?

Every claim of altruism can be debunked as serving the needs of self.

Man is primarily motivated by the satisfaction of his own needs. He is born into that condition, exactly like every other animal.

Ah, attack what you perceive to be "bad", eh schaum?

"Merely claiming a thing (altruism or anything else for that matter) to be "true" does not make it so. Especially in the absence of proof...a condition which seems to afflict most of your thinking."

You on the other hand do not seem inclined toward proving your assertion that altruism does not exist. Damn. And I thought it was a valid concern.

Yet you dis it. Any proofs?

Hey, and here is your out. I don't give a sewer rats as.

But I sure am waiting to see your proofs!

Schaum,

Ah, you old f*rt, you are Thothist!... OTO, OGD, OHmyGOD, I should have known!

Betwixt and between Crowley and Stalin, (and all of his ilk), lies the Truth of Life, which is LOVE, I DO AS I WILL!

Power, though, is a tricky digit. ALL things can be called Power, in some manifest form of it.

Hey, would YOU call Power 'Good'?

"From where do you get your sense of good and evil, right and wrong?"

You don't. The flamers round here don't look like they do neither.

"That does not dispel the truth of altruism."

Merely claiming a thing (altruism or anything else for that matter) to be "true" does not make it so. Especially in the absence of proof...a condition which seems to afflict most of your thinking.

DITLD

Another thought occurs:

assuming that one has a goal, or goals, are not the perceptions of 'good' and 'evil', ultimately, measuring devices by which one can evaluate his progress toward that goal?

Farnaz,

You may well be splitting hairs with Schaum, but it is likely to be of little avail. We can defend a definition to the end, at times. He is entrenched in, (and entranced by!), a purist position of the primary self serving nature of the ego. And in a purists way, I agree with him. We do choose what serves ourselves.

That does not dispel the truth of altruism. Even if the ego acts based on what it perceives as valuable to it's own self serving needs, what is "good", and correct for it to do, it also can choose what does not primarily benefit itself in the service of that end.

And I am a believer in a deeper well than individual identity. There is a collective identity that we are all connected to and invested in and beholden to. It may manifest as tribalism in life, but we are, in fact, all of the human family.

Altruism lives!

DITLD

"I suppose this discussion of the meaning of the word "altruism" is to prove that a person who does not believe in God can still be good."

Uhhhhh.....no. Some think altruism exists, some (read me) don't. The discussion had not dragged god into it.

What do you say to this: there is neither good nor evil. There is only Power; some are strong enough to take it, while others are too weak. So, good/evil become nothing more than perceptions, with the powerful determining which is which.

There is no good or evil: only power and those too weak to seek it.

Danielinthelionsden,

Thee:
"As I said, what some people call evil is really chaos, confusion, and destruction."

Why stop there, Daniel? What are chaos, confusion, and destruction REALLY? The abstraction regresses infinitely.

Without such illusions, humanity is inconceivable.

As an abstraction, *evil* is as valid, elusive, and serviceable as any other...

I suppose this discussion of the meaning of the word "altruism" is to prove that a person who does not believe in God can still be good.

But it is really an unnecessary argument. I know people who seem to radiate goodness from their soul, in a way that an analysis of a simple word like "altruism" cannot explain.

What causes the good people to be good? Where does this goodness come from? It does not come from belief in God, because it also appears in people who do not believe in God.

Perhaps it comes FROM God, but not from BELIEF IN God.

I wonder what Thomas Baum would think of this?

Farnaz

My comments on good and evil do not mean that I believe in moral relativism.

They just mean that I do not believe in a conscious, animating "force" of evil in the world that influences people in their dreams, and leads them astray by conscious treachery and trickery, a la Satan and Lucifer, and the Devil.

As I said, what some people call evil is really chaos, confusion, and destruction.

As for moral relativism, I would not really know why I should be a moral relativist for denying a physical force of evil, in the same way that Susan does not know why Christians fear that she may be a murderer, because she does not beleive in God.

To me, the word "evil" can only have meaning in a metaphorical sense, to represent some abstract concept. It is easy to use it to convey a sort of unthougt out anger or frustration for what is wrong with the world; I use it myself; but, really, it not a particulary useful word.

"What is she supposed to *fear*?"

That he might slip and fall into an empty whiskey bottle?

Farnaz:

"A drug dealer I know (and I don't use drugs), in a split second, slid under the truck, which could have started moving at any second, and pulled the little boy out."

And this proves...?

A man has been raised to think that a "real" man or a "good" man looks out for weaker humans. He did what a "real" man or a "good" man would do. Great. No problem. And he gets reinforcement for his feeling that he is a "real" "good" man.

It was a good, humane/human and conscientious thing to do. It was not altruistic.

Arminius,

You wrote:
"To Farnaz:
I am the ghost of all you fear
Burrowed deep inside your mind
Always lurking in the darkness
Just beyond where you can reach
You cannot slay me, nor defeat me
Without killing what you are
You fear the Light that I bear forth
Because your hate is all you have
Yield to the Light, yield to it now
Then only will you Freedom know."

What's this? A mind-infesting spook, skulking in the dark, deluded he's phosphoric?

Not that there is any melee to speak of, but it is customary to win one before making demands to yield.

Yet here's no heraldic elan, no thunder in the lists.

No, here's a coup-flown solo burble, pining for once-upon-a-potency.

Respect your age, reiver. Try sagely...

Arminius,

"Fear me, Farnaz. Fear me. Fear the Celt."

Threefold demands for a woman to *fear* you do no honour to your (much vaunted) Celticity or your manhood, reiver.

Menacemongery deluxe...

What is she supposed to *fear*?

Hint of violation is peeping through your apoplexy.

The brute is bared, cracks a snarl; the titters gather to guffaws.

Schaum,

Here is another one. Ponder this. I know a lot of interesting people.

One morning, a little boy somehow got himself under a truck. A drug dealer I know (and I don't use drugs), in a split second, slid under the truck, which could have started moving at any second, and pulled the little boy out.

Nah...I'm weary of it. And, being INTJ, I don't worry about whether anybody agrees with me.

However, I was not scoffing at definitions. I was saying that even non-existent things can be defined.

I'm off to Walmart to see if my new glasses are ready. Later

I would have benefited greatly from not watching my friend die. Nor did I have to. Nor did he expect me to.

I could, at least, have taken a breather. I could have tried to take more breaks, mustering detachment, etc. BUT it struck me as WRONG.

The minister in France who saved Jews risked his life and the lives of his parishoners because he didn't know he had a choice.

Don't scoff at the idea of definitions. I posted a good one below. The other blogger is correct; altruism is opposed to egoism.

Okay, bring it on. I'm ready. (Sebastian is safe.)

"Schaum,

I think you are an altruistic person."

But...I'm not. I can't think of a single thing I do, or have done, that has not also benefited me.

And why should it not benefit me? I'm not driven by any need (or guilt!) to be utterly unselfish. All I'm saying is that such an absolute is utterly impossible. It is not humanly possible to perform an entirely selfless act. You ALWAYS benefit, to some degree, in one way or another. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

Undoubtedly you were highly motivated by compassion: this was your friend! And, were you not also propelled by the (perhaps unspoken/unexamined) knowledge that if you did NOT keep vigil with your friend, you would, later, feel regret, remorse, shame? By keeping vigil, did you not obviate future bad feelings about yourself? Isn't that a net gain?
---------------
At the time, I didn't think about it in psychological terms. I guess I still don't. I thought in terms of "right and wrong."

But, you know, the empathy, which is what I was referring to had nothing to do with me. I didn't want HIM to suffer.

There was another occasion that perhaps might go to your point. Another dying person, a woman I loved more than I knew I did. I had to walk out of her room and compose myself; she was delirious. I prayed to nonGod to let us switch places because I believed it would be easier for me to suffer what she was than to see her in hell.

"I don't subscribe, cannot, will not subscribe to moral relativism"

Now THERE is fuel for a good discussion!

Schaum,

I think you are an altruistic person.

Farnaz:

Undoubtedly you were highly motivated by compassion: this was your friend! And, were you not also propelled by the (perhaps unspoken/unexamined) knowledge that if you did NOT keep vigil with your friend, you would, later, feel regret, remorse, shame? By keeping vigil, did you not obviate future bad feelings about yourself? Isn't that a net gain?

Dictionaries? I have several, on my shelves and online. The existence of a definition for a word is not proof of its existence. Look up god. Look up demon. Look angel. Look up Santa Claus.

"There is no good;
there is no evil;
at least not as "things" that exist."

Yep...thats a conclusion that keeps slapping me in the face...

Posted by: Schaum | October 28, 2009 7:46 PM
9999999999999999999999
Too Shakespearean for my taste, and there's almost nothing that is. I don't subscribe, cannot, will not subscribe to moral relativism.

MOTIVATION!

Your vigil with your friend, and the rescue of Jews, by any means and in any way or place, are both heroic undertakings.

But there was motivation for it. Relief of guilt would be the first thing I'd suspect. A second would be a sense of obligation since "but for the grace of god there go I...".

Heroic, humane, heart-felt behaviors are not synonymous with altruism. It doesn't exist.

Posted by: Schaum | October 28, 2009 7:40 PM
-------------------------------
I think I was motivated by compassion. I did feel guilt about neglecting other things.

Also, the Oliner book was a study. None of his subjects had been motivated by the desire to behave heroically. Virtue, as the sane world defines it, had been instilled in them, virtue and principle. Period. They were indoctrinated just as the Christian Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, et al, had been indoctrinated to hate Jews.

Just as the nazis had been indoctrinated to obey. The Protestants in a certain French community shielded Jews at the command of a charismatic minister. Asked why he did it, he said he didn't know that he had a choice.

Look at the dictionary definition of altruism. I wonder if we all aren't simply splitting hairs here.

DITLD:

"There is no good;
there is no evil;
at least not as "things" that exist."

Yep...thats a conclusion that keeps slapping me in the face...

There is no good;

there is no evil;

at least not as "things" that exist.

In considering these words, we must do so under the constraints of language which are the same everywhere, that nouns stand for physical things in the world.

Therefore, good and evil are metaphorical nouns, or again, they are abstract concepts that have no real existence or counterpart in the world.

They have a reality as insubstantial as the named days of the week, like Wednesday, or Saturday,

or as insubstantial as credits of economic worth, like a hundred dollars,

or as insubstantial as the borders that give shape to all the nations of the world,

or as insubstantial as the laws of nature, which "everyone" believes, but which have no definition, nor proof at all of their existence.

All of these "things" are merely abstract concepts, real only in our minds, which we use as markers to help us map out and navigate our way in the world; bookkeepping techniques to help give meaning ot our perceptions.

There is no force of evil animated by Satan, or Lucifer, or demons in general; there are no demons. There is no force of good, lead by God, Jesus, Mohammed, the Heavenly hosts, nor any other entity.

There is no Heavenly Court of Justice, in which the good deeds of the dead are weighed for the measure of the punishment. For this is merely an abstact projection of human and earthly courts, that rule under legal doctines of any given locality. These local human practices do not operate on a Heavenly or Celestial scale.

What is seen to be evil is really a collection of perceptions, perceptions of chaos, confusion, destruction, pain, and suffering. Likewise, what is seen to be good is really a collection of perceptions of order, synchronization, balance, equlibrium, creating, building, and help for the pain and suffering of mankind.

This could not be further from Peter Huff's Medeival paradigm; and yet, I am as certain that this is true, as he is that his paradigm is true. The questions he consistently poses regarding the absolute nature of abstract concepts are meaningless, and even absurd, from the point of view of my paradigm.

What makes a good person good, and a bad person bad? I believe that a person is born with a good heart or a bad heart, just as some people are born with a cheerful disposition and some people are born with a sad and unhappy disposition. Can you change the nature of the heart you were born with? Possibly, by conscious force of will-power. But most people do not; they take what they are born with.

I have known some Christians who are very, very good people, so good that it makes me feel that the world must be good to sustain the existence of such good people. But I do not believe it is the Christian religion that makes them good, for I can also name many bad people who are also Chrisians.

I can say EXACTLY the same thing about atheists.

Wiccan:

I have, for years, wondered if 'good' and 'evil' were really anything more than abstracts. Do they exist?

Is a man who often does 'evil' things an 'evil man' if he (however rarely) does things we consider to be 'good'?

Or is there merely behavior, some of which has desirable results, and some of which does not?

Farnaz:

MOTIVATION!

Your vigil with your friend, and the rescue of Jews, by any means and in any way or place, are both heroic undertakings.

But there was motivation for it. Relief of guilt would be the first thing I'd suspect. A second would be a sense of obligation since "but for the grace of god there go I...".

Heroic, humane, heart-felt behaviors are not synonymous with altruism. It doesn't exist.

The Abrahamic religions define their god as purely "good" (see Peter Huff). Wiccans don't usually define their gods as purely "good" or purely "evil". Dagda has a cauldron that can feed the world, he also has a cudgel that can smash the world into its constituent atoms. Is he good or evil? Water is necessary to live, but water can kill you. Is water good? Is it evil?

Perhaps it is only actions that can be defined so.

Farnaz:

Please!! Sebastian is a Virginia puppy!

And I didn't realize you were a linguist by training.

Posted by: Schaum | October 28, 2009 7:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
----------------------
Have no fear, Schaum, Sebastian is safe. Just err kidding. After all, haven't I been suggesting ways to make him happier?

I think we misread one another. The post you quoted was written by yours truly, addressed to you and Wiccan.

Farnaz:

"Fear the Celt."

Hahahahahaha! He has confused irish drunkard with Celt.

Hahahahahahah!

Schaum:

Two things, the second a link to a book, a supplement/complement of Milgrim.

First thing: Many years ago, I spent almost every day in the hospital with a dying friend, who was suffering. One night when a friend called, I found myself sobbing, that I could do nothing to ease his pain, that he should not have to suffer like that.

My friend said that there had to be something "interested" in my "empathy." That was her philosophy, and until my other friend's dying, I had, to an extent, subscribed to it. There is no real empathy: Empathy is based in self-interest.

There was nothing in my feelings for my dying friend except that I wished he did not have to suffer, could stop suffering,etc.

I was not thinking about myself at all. My sense of self all but vanished when I was with him.

Second thing: Amazon.com: Altruistic Personality: Rescuers Of Jews In Nazi Europe (9780029238295): Samuel P. Oliner

"You are calling me a cunning linguist? Watch out. I've got a friend who's been challenging Tennessee puppies...."

Farnaz, once again you fail. Your infantile creature Schaum can only muster schoolyard taunts.

And leave Wiccan alone. Both she and Lep have more pure human decency in their little fingers than you have in your entire bloated body.

Fear me, Farnaz. Fear me. Fear the Celt.

Farnaz:

Please!! Sebastian is a Virginia puppy!

And I didn't realize you were a linguist by training.

Comp:

"Do you really come to this out of the attitude that unless a person acts solely out of a perspectrive where they get no real or perceived benefit that their actions are not deserving of praise or honor. I reject that viewpoint as being coarse and uncaring (and quite uncivlized or uneducated as well.)"

I neither said nor implied any of this; this is entirely your construct, to appeal to emotionalism.

Heroic acts are always deserving of praise and honor.

That has nothing to do with the fact that there is no such thing as altruism.

BTW...you might invest in a spelling checker.

Define whose "god" before what is "good"? Empirically we have seen atheists or agnostics act in a manner that would be accepted by people with differing belief systems as "good". "God" doesn't seem to be necessary for this hypothesis.

Posted by: wiccan | October 28, 2009 7:21 PM
-------------
Not only superfluous, but frequently in opposition to the "good."

Wiccan:

"The institutionalized religions do not define the good in the same way, do not use identical terms, of course, do not have the same priorities."

Agreed.

What is needed is a linguist. A very clever linguist.

A cunning linguist, perhaps?
000000000000000000000000000000000
You are calling me a cunning linguist? Watch out. I've got a friend who's been challenging Tennessee puppies.....

Wiccan:

"The institutionalized religions do not define the good in the same way, do not use identical terms, of course, do not have the same priorities."

Agreed.

What is needed is a linguist. A very clever linguist.

A cunning linguist, perhaps?

Define whose "god" before what is "good"? Empirically we have seen atheists or agnostics act in a manner that would be accepted by people with differing belief systems as "good". "God" doesn't seem to be necessary for this hypothesis.

Schaum,

"Would it be safe to assume that the individual's genes in question are of some importance to him? Then his need to spread his genes (and protecting them from extinction would, I think, qualify as an effort to spread them!) is certainly in HIS interests.

Therefore: no altruism is involved. "

I quoted a definition of altruism that has been repeated (and defined) in dictionaries for as long as the term has been in use. This is not a legal term that is subject to court interpretation (as what the definition of marriage is).

Therefore the definition I quoted is a valid one and your assertion that it is not altruism is invalid.

Now personally I do not care whether someone acts out of altruism or not. If they act to help others or out of a sense of general human ethics (which requires no religion or deity) they get some credit for their actions.

But since the Zoological definition would define the baboons action as being altruistic and since the accepted antonym of Altruism is Egoism, and since many people who do good are acting out of a sense of conscience that no intelligent person could called Egoistic and is far closer to Altruistic in nature, to assume that some form of altruism is not at work is invalid as well.

Do you really come to this out of the attitude that unless a person acts solely out of a perspectrive where they get no real or perceived benefit that their actions are not deserving of praise or honor. I reject that viewpoint as being coarse and uncaring (and quite uncivlized or uneducated as well.)

Schaum, Wiccan

You are very right. A larger question, though, must be resolved before good can be defined: "Whose god?"
----------------
A good point so long as the "good" is tied to "God." The institutionalized religions do not define the good in the same way, do not use identical terms, of course, do not have the same priorities.

Silly question, this week's. The question is can we have good with God?

Wiccan:

"You are a Southern Gentleman"

There is no proof of that. He was living in East Tennessee, until he found out that I was from East Tennessee and knew enough to call his bluff. -- then he quickly decided he was living in Georgia.

He claims to have been a programmer, to have worked in architecture, to have been a soldier....he makes many claims, and we have only his word for it.

He admitted to being a drunk. That is one I can believe without additional proof.

Ah, Schaum, Creature of your mommie, should you not run whimpering back to her for instructions?

All you can muster is your continual pre-school taunts. No evidence of any intelligence whatsoever. Let alone creativity. Don't you have enough brain cells to attempt a poem in return? Same old re-runs. Reminds me of CCNL.

Wiccan:

"The problem here is that an objective definition of "good" must be accepted before you can experiment with cause and effect."

You are very right. A larger question, though, must be resolved before good can be defined: "Whose god?"

Arminius,

May I remind you of two things:

You are a Southern Gentleman, and it is futile to get into a pi$$ing match with skunks.

Put down the claymore and pick up the Guinness, friend. "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

Arminius/Armenius:

"I am the ghost of all you fear"

You are an alcoholic. You are pathetic.

Hi, again, Persiflage,

It is well established that Stonehenge predates the Druids, altho they, in their recent incarnation, have taken it over. But that's OK. And yes, stuff like that is all over Britain and France, and probably elsewhere. We continue to underestimate what people can do if motivated. The pyramids of Egypt are the best examples of that. But the motivation sometimes boggles the mind!

The mystery of Easter Island is not how, but why. Thor Heyerdahl solved the how, simply by asking the inhabitants. No one knows why even yet.

walterifc:

Agreed that would be a wall of separation. The country, in various ways, is making fast and loose with the Constitution and has been upheld by the Court at least where faith-based funding is concerned.

Look at the country and world. This won't end will, when it ends.

"Can the scientific method be used to prove the possibility of goodness in the absence of “god”?"

The problem here is that an objective definition of "good" must be accepted before you can experiment with cause and effect. Gimpi gave a wonderful summary of the Wiccan worldview in seven sentences; that summary can be condensed to "Harm None". However, there are times when causing harm to the Other prevents that Other from harming Others. I'm wondering if good can only be defined solipsistically.

To Farnaz:
I am the ghost of all you fear
Burrowed deep inside your mind
Always lurking in the darkness
Just beyond where you can reach
You cannot slay me, nor defeat me
Without killing what you are
You fear the Light that I bear forth
Because your hate is all you have
Yield to the Light, yield to it now
Then only will you Freedom know.

----------------

Somewhere in the silence
Something hides
Something lies
Something dies....
Something breathes....
(With thanks to Savatage for these 5 lines)

farnaz,
"Did you know that there are prayers said in Congress? IN CONGRESS?"

yes, that's what i referenced. (he also opposed military chaplains.)

it's not just any prayers, either. remember that flap when, after about 30,000 consectutive christian morning prayers, a hindu prayer was offered? i compared the texts of the hindu prayer and the christian prayer from the day before. the hindu prayer was all about doing good for the country, the christian prayer was all about doing the christian gods' will. disappointing, but not surprising.

on congressional chaplainsjames madison:
“Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the NEGATIVE. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

“The establishment of the Chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

“Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right principle, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one.”

Now THAT'S a wall of separation!

Arminius, you might like reading through this at your leisure. Pretty fascinating stuff, although much is pure speculation as regards ancient Celtic culture.

You'll see that Stonehenge is more ancient than many think.......a place long associated with ancient Druid rituals.

Similar constructions can be found throughout the British Isles and Scandinavia - and of course the Easter Island monoliths are still quite a mystery!

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/rac/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island

regards, Persiflage

Can we agree that what cannot be demonstrated to be true may well be false? The first step in discovering/proving whether goodness without “god” is possible is, obviously, to move the study of religion and religious philosophy generally, and epistemology, specifically away from the set of things that can only be debated and never demonstrated (set #1), to the set of things which can be argued using evidence gathered using the scientific method (set #2).

Now that we are beginning to advance mathematics that can handle complex systems, thus allowing us to make statements about phenomena that have traditionally only been in set #1, we have hopes of moving them to set #2. In addition, once we have computers that can really think, we'll be able to show that such computers can't have their 'mind' structured using the ideas of Logical Positivism.

Can the scientific method be used to prove the possibility of goodness in the absence of “god”?

Typo... apologies.... make that Schaumie's accusation of me as an 'alcoholic'.

"The same goes for you. I'm really tired of this, Arminius. While you were away we had none of this endless bi^ching and whining.

An open falsehood. While I was away, your creature Schaum kept insulting me as an ancoholic.

Please stop lying, Farnaz.

Peter Huff:

As I think of it, Thomas Jefferson can better express my attitude than I can!

"I HAVE SWORN on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

I regard you as a dangerous tyrant. Ergo...

walterifc,

On prayers in Congress:

I should have written that the prayers are still going on. Actually, CCNL posted the text awhile ago. I could probably find it.

And Farnaz replied to Walter:

"I think as long as you are blogging here, exclusivity is out.

So, then, Farnaz, speak for yourself...
------------------------------
The same goes for you. I'm really tired of this, Arminius. While you were away we had none of this endless bi^ching and whining.

And Farnaz replied to Walter:

"I think as long as you are blogging here, exclusivity is out.

So, then, Farnaz, speak for yourself...

walterifc,

omg! i think we agree! those are among the many reasons jefferson madison et. al. fought so hard to keep christianity out of american government. madison didn't even want congressional chaplains, and congressional morning prayers. he would have been horrified at the idea of "faith-based" initiatives and vouchers for religious schools.
--------------------------
Did you know that there are prayers said in Congress? IN CONGRESS?

Walter,

Your question:

"BTW, WalterIFC,
I think as long as you are blogging here, exclusivity is out."

huh?
---------------------
Answer:

peter,
pam and i et. al. are using this thread for our other conversation. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/c_welton_gaddy/2009/10/hate_is_not_a_religious_value.html
please continue posting there on those topics. we have replied to you, so the "ball's in your court" there.

That's the answer, not an invitation to reprise exhausted discussions. I think we all know what is and is not offensive to one another's tribes, by now, that false accusations will not win friends, etc.

Over. Done. Also, no private clubs. It's a geese and ganders thing.

farnaz,
"Shall we continue, in the name of RELIGION. to deny gay citizens, taxpayers, there civil rights? Shall we continue to permit tax exemptions, i.e., tax subsididies to institutions that oppose our laws? To pharmacies and hospitals that oppose our laws, under the silly cover of "conscience clauses"?"

omg! i think we agree! those are among the many reasons jefferson madison et. al. fought so hard to keep christianity out of american government. madison didn't even want congressional chaplains, and congressional morning prayers. he would have been horrified at the idea of "faith-based" initiatives and vouchers for religious schools.

walterifc:

farnaz,
i say "crazy" because it has no chance of ever happening - not that it's a bad idea.
---------------------
Not in my lifetime, that's for sure. However, the numbers of atheists are growing. We need to organize politically, get much, much louder.

I am truly frightened by the fact that Hitchens' book on Saint Mother Theresa reveals her to be worse than all my Indian friends have told me. I spent the time confirming his evidence, yet, since she's become a religious icon, this Duvalier-loving horror, cannot be touched.

Hitchens' book (and I'm not a fan of Hitchens) could not even be reviewed in the New York Times.

No, these organizations, including Susan's, need to do much, much more. They cannot go on simply talking to one another, or sending prominent members out to appear on talk shows.

That ain't how it works around here.

"BTW, WalterIFC,
I think as long as you are blogging here, exclusivity is out."

huh?

farnaz,
i say "crazy" because it has no chance of ever happening - not that it's a bad idea.

More on religion, human and civil rights:

Shall we continue, in the name of RELIGION. to deny gay citizens, taxpayers, there civil rights? Shall we continue to permit tax exemptions, i.e., tax subsididies to institutions that oppose our laws? To pharmacies and hospitals that oppose our laws, under the silly cover of "conscience clauses"?

Human rights and civil rights often overlap, btw. Here, in the US, it's bad enough. In some countries it's better, in some much, much worse. HUMAN RIGHTS, yes.

Peter Huff:

"Is it any wonder why I don't usually bother replying to your posts? You take it to the personal level by maliciously insulting me."

A couple of points.
1) I was not asking why you don't bother replying to my posts. I don't care one way or the other.
2) It is, has been, and will be my practice to attack ('malicious' is your, and therefore subjective, opinion) things which I think are destructive, supportive of superstition, ignorance, human indignity, evil, and entirely impoverished of truth or value. You qualify on all points.

Was that simple enough to understand?

BTW, WalterIFC,

I think as long as you are blogging here, exclusivity is out.

that's why farnaz has thrown out this crazy idea of "banning" "organized" religion as a threat to human rights.
-------------------------
Is it crazy? Have you been following the Irish Church scandal? Do you know who Cardinal Levada is? The Salesian order, aka Levada's boys?

Shall we be cutting off one another's hands soon? Marrying off girls at twelve? Murdering more Dr. Tiller's?

Not crazy, but requires thought.

Hi Schaum

SCHAUM: "Just what we've been waiting for...a lecture on goodness from the a sizzling limbic brain immersed in the Dark Ages."

Is it any wonder why I don't usually bother replying to your posts? You take it to the personal level by maliciously insulting me.

SCHAUM: "I'd venture to say there are as many standards of good as there are good people."

What makes "good" good? Which standard(s) are you going to appeal to when they both/all say something contradictory? Can two contrary opinions of "good" both be coherently understood? If I say homosexuality or abortion is not good and you say both are good, who is "right?" Does it come down to who is the mightiest? Then there is no good in it, just two different opinions that each person prefers to believe. If I believe that murder is good because it leaves one less mouth to compete with does my belief justify this act, because all you are appealing to is your preference or someone else's preference to define good and the definition is blurred to suit the needs?

SCHAUM: "If some of those standards are identical, it does not make others less valid."

Spoken as a true relativist. The point is whom determines which ones and by what means? By your logic I could have a four sided triangle, because it doesn't really matter what the standard is, as long as there are some that are identical, 2 + 2 = 5 as long as others feel it is valid. Where are we going with this kind of irrationality where everyone makes the rules, where every rule, every moral, every truth is subject to the validity of the person? "That may be true for you, but for me it is false." Truth is true no matter whether you "choose" to believe it or not. Truth is objective, no matter whether you "choose" to believe it or not, and in order for these things to be the way they are, there must be an objective standard for them to be known by. If not everything would be irrational, mere opinion.

peter,
pam and i et. al. are using this thread for our other conversation. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/c_welton_gaddy/2009/10/hate_is_not_a_religious_value.html
please continue posting there on those topics. we have replied to you, so the "ball's in your court" there.
-----------------------------

peter, you said,
"...so if an individual decides to ride a plane into a building or go on a shooting rampage through a school, it is just his maker - blind, indifferent chance - playing to its own drum, the way his particular chemicals fizz doing the action. Indifference does not differentiate between good and bad, right and wrong."

we, no, hold on here, peter. atheists don't fly planes into buildings, and muhammad atta et. al. had a VERY clear picture, given by his eternal objective god, of "good and bad, right and wrong."

the ONLY people who could ever possibly agree with atta's conception of right and wrong are religious people. it's inconceivable to an atheist.

that's why farnaz has thrown out this crazy idea of "banning" "organized" religion as a threat to human rights.

Hello Peterhuff,

"And since you are compartmentalizing this to groups, which one determines the objective good?"

What does objective good mean? We are tribally wired, be it on a racial level or multi-fractions smaller, down to village and idiom. One group of our monkeys sees the neighboring, genetically identical, group as a threat. Same genes, same ancestors some generations back, now a different tribe competing for resources. What is objective good, if to both?

This scenario has been played out in human history for eons. It is the way of nature and Creation, what you say God brought into being. So, natural conflict, and a conflict of intent, was brought into reality by that manifestation. Your statement here has a dark end result, no?: "... so don't expect that there will ever be peace on this earth, unless mankind exterminates itself."

In terms of the same sex marriage debate, where does common good fit? For the gay and lesbian communities, it is a shining light and beacon of good will, a dream seeking realization, a recognition and realization of equal status in society, an act and right that would give social, and human, parity.

To the 'other side' of the debate it would be a debacle, a signpost for the end times, a caving to the dark and evil, harbinger of the Downfall of Man.

"Who is right, the group that believes that same sex marriage is right or the one that believes it is wrong?"

Who ever said that one owns right, while the other, by having a different opinion, must be 'wrong'.

Only one with an Absolutist fixation.

One thing is clear in this part of 'Creation' that we are blessed with. There is no absolutism... Lest it be that all things Change.

Nice to hear from you, Peterhuff. I wish well to you.

Peter Huff, you did say,
"o, again, you are trying to push a moralty on the masses that has no foundational objective good, so don't expect that there will ever be peace on this earth, unless mankind exterminates itself.

This is only the tip of the iceberg in which you have imprisoned yourself. You grieve me, my friend, you truly grieve me! Cannot you break out of the box of your prison, with all your beliefs simply bouncing off the sides of your cell, leading nowhere? Please free yourself!

Hello Edbyronadams,

"Xenophobia is the handmaiden of altruism."

Damn nice line. I'll be damned if I will believe it, at least in broad definition, though certainly in the monkey vs. leopard example it plays no small part.

But then, some peoples just don't want to see eye to eye, unless it is with a pitchfork.

PAM: "And he'd pass on a fuller complement of his individual genes by staying alive to breed, but if 20 of his relatives, all of whom have a proportion of his genes, survive to breed because of his sacrifice, ultimately more of him gets to future generations."

What happens if he has not breed yet and has not passed his genes on? His evolutionary process has not been fulfilled, for in order for him to do so he must sacrifice another so that his future is secure by his offspring? What happens if he has a greater will for survival than for any altruism in him? Is this bad?

Or is he too dumb to know the difference - his instinct tells him to jump in front of the speeding bus anyway, for someone he does not even know that is not a part of his "group"? What would be the purpose if he failed to do the one thing that would accomplish the greater "good" of propagation of his kind?

PAM: "Of course, the Marine's buddies don't carry his genes. And the man who runs into the road to push an unrelated toddler out of the way of a car, dying under its wheels himself, reaps no genetic benefit (nor any other kind). But once the instinct is there, it's there. It doesn't stop to ask if this is family."

You say the instinct for survival is there to propagate the species but the very instinct for survival is countered by the instinct do jump in front of a speeding car and commit hara-kiri or some other form of altruism, without propagating the species - so why don't we see more of this in the world around us? Why do we see the opposite so much more? Could it be that maybe the instinct is not that prominent after all? All around you, day by day you see man's inhumanity to man. Where is the altruism there that is believed instinctual to all?

And since you are compartmentalizing this to groups, which one determines the objective good? Who is right, the group that believes that same sex marriage is right or the one that believes it is wrong? Does it all depend on numbers, or on power? If so don't call it "right", just opinion or feeling.

No, again, you are trying to push a morality on the masses that has no foundational objective good, so don't expect that there will ever be peace on this earth, unless mankind exterminates itself.

Schaum,

I understand that you are having fun with Arminius, and, perhaps, he was with you, but, as you see, gangs start forming, and the entire thing becomes a mess.

Unfortunately, there are some who do not get it, cannot get it, refuse to. Scrue them.
------------
Back to topic. What do you think of the idea of bringing up religion as a human rights issue?

PAM: "Think of an individual raising the predator alarm and thereby calling attention to himself. Clearly, dying doesn't benefit the individual in any way."

Exactly, so if an individual decides to ride a plane into a building or go on a shooting rampage through a school, it is just his maker - blind, indifferent chance - playing to its own drum, the way his particular chemicals fizz doing the action. Indifference does not differentiate between good and bad, right and wrong.

There is no ultimate meaning, no purpose, just a meaningless future that we will all soon be in. You are welcome to such a view. In the end, from your world and life view, it doesn't matter. None of this matters. So why are you searching for meaning, why are you looking for reasons from the irrational, mindless process that you originated from?

You will be forgotten, if not in this generation in the one to come. You might as well live the hedonistic lifestyle, like so many who have taken your world view to its ultimate conclusion have done. Go for the gusto!

No, the reason that you care is because you do have the "stamp" (yes Walter, I'll use that catchphrase) of God upon you - you have been created in His image and likeness.

And Schaum B****ed,
Well...there's a new thrill. Being called a sewer rat by a delusional alcoholic who even lies about the state he lives in.

Listen, Armenius: I've penciled in 1:50pm on November 4 to be hurt by your comment. Is that good for you?

So, Farnaz the hypocrite, throw Schaum's sorry arse outa here.
--------------------------------
Arminius, I"ve really had it. When you weren't around, we didn't have this endless bi*ching, whining, etc.

Grow up.

Pamsm and Schaum,

"You said: "There is no altruism. A monkey's "self-sacrifice" to protect the greater good of the tribe is exactly the action of a soldier who throws himself on a grenade. It is his training/loyalty/duty. It is not altruism.
You are wrong."

"I'm not, you know. How was this monkey "trained"? What do you think "loyalty" and "duty" are, to a monkey? They're nothing more than what's built in to his brain by natural selection. To his knowledge, he gains nothing personally, therefore altruism is precisely what it is."

Silly, this. You are both right, and wrong, no doubt. Yet first, how can the intentions of an postulated monkey in a non-existent example be divined. There can not be shown any single cause, or intent, in these monkey actions. One cannot equate the intentions the actions of all monkeys any more than one can do so with humans, (well, arguably somewhat more!).

Unless of course one accords the monkey no self awareness and free will to choose... Suggesting they are the result, solely, of genetic information, for instance.

A human soldier may throw himself on a grenade per conditioning, but from my dialogues with those with far more experience in military training than I, tossing oneself upon an explosive device is neither what is trained or encouraged. And it is not in 'self-interest' or the basic impulse of survivability. One is encouraged to seek cover. One is trained to seek cover while alerting fellow soldiers of the danger, not blow oneself up.

On a level, a purist definition of altruism is contradictory and self defeating. We all make choices that we judge as right or better for ourselves. We do so from the ego, which is our operating point in virtually all things. It is all self interest, on that level.

At the same time, there are clearly choices that can be and are made that do not of themselves benefit the self, (though we may not shy from the good light it shines on ourselves, even in death).

Schaum may not be able to imagine that altruism can exist because he may have no place for it in his mind, to do something purely for the benefit of another, no motivation for personal gain.

Pamsm may not be able to fathom that there choice is a deeper well than can be defined by genetic reasons alone.

Both may be right. And at the same time there may be deeper causes at work.

A bit of unrequested input from a magical thinker.

Hi Pamsm and Walter,

Yes, you are right. I am back, asking the very questions that you have no reasonable answer or accountability for. Would you like to resume the debate/argument on a less busy forum?

PAM: "It arose in animals that live in small, mostly related groups, and was able to be selected for because if the one giving his life managed thereby to save the young of the tribe, or even the whole tribe, the genes that they pass on include many that he himself possesses (including the self-sacrificial ones)."

It bespeaks morality.

The point is what would it matter what this individual did? It is meaningless after he is dead. Why "should he care while he is alive? But you continue to pontificate that it does matter, and by a process that is amoral? Why do those most fit for survival pass on this instinctual desire for survival in the first place? Only living organisms have this desire that came from an amoral beginning, since life arose from non-life in your framework. How does an amoral process begin to act morally or instinctively? Does it one day just decide it wants to be - you know - poof, self creation. And that, for me, is the ridiculousness of your world view.

As a naturalist/atheist you cannot account for these things. And in the natural realm we don't see mind coming from non-mind or thinking/reasoning coming from inorganic, matter. You just suppose they happened this way by interpreting the evidence from your particular slant, which you say is the scientific method.

We don't see love or logic coming from these processes. No we see personality coming from the personal, thinking, reasoning, love coming from a mind, morality coming from a moral law giver (God) who is able to distinguish what good is, something that chemicals mixing/reacting together cannot do. You see in God a source for all these things. Your magic ingredient is time. It has zero ability to make sense of them because it cannot answer the question of why, should, ought?

Ed, you're defining "tribe" as immediate kin. What if we made "tribe" synonymous with "species?" No need to kill ""Them" off in order to preserve "Us" if everyone is one of "Us."

And Schaum B****ed,
Well...there's a new thrill. Being called a sewer rat by a delusional alcoholic who even lies about the state he lives in.

Listen, Armenius: I've penciled in 1:50pm on November 4 to be hurt by your comment. Is that good for you?

So, Farnaz the hypocrite, throw Schaum's sorry arse outa here.

"You can't have justice without goodness and a standard for goodness that does not change. Can you point to such a standard? I can!"
Posted by Peterhuff"

Just what we've been waiting for...a lecture on goodness from the a sizzling limbic brain immersed in the Dark Ages.

I'd venture to say there are as many standards of good as there are good people. If some of those standards are identical, it does not make others less valid.

lepidopteryx wrote:

"I think we tribal humans have evolved with the same basic instinct that all herd/pack animals have. That which benefits the group, benefits the individuals in the group. It does not foster tribe cohesion if the members go about stealing each other's belongings, boffing each other's spouses, raping and killing each other. So refraining from killing your tribe-mates benefits everyone."

Fine. In order for group selection to work, however, gene flows between groups must be kept very low, so that individuals share a great many common genes so that self sacrifice will be rewarded by the propagation of those common genes. The way gene flows are kept low is through xenophobia. Xenophobia is the handmaiden of altruism.

An appeal to "acting naturally" as an authority for what is good, is an appeal to both. So I won't lie you my tribesmen but me and my cousins will go over and kill the "other". It's all good.

"You can't have justice without goodness and a standard for goodness that does not change. Can you point to such a standard? I can!"
Posted by Peterhuff

No, I'm afraid you can't. The church has changed it's position on slavery (they used to like it), vaccinations (usurping the will of God), domestic violence (they liked that, too), and divine right of kings (they loved that one) just to name a few changes. They change all the time, all living organisms do.

I feel my standard really is a bit more simple than you stated. However, I might have been unclear. so here it is in a nutshell:

Try not to hurt others. (Taking away their freedom comes under the category of hurting.) Try to make the lives of others better, when you can. Sometimes you will have to make choices, where freedom intersects with harm. Do the best you can, in that case, to limit freedom as little as possible, while preventing harm. Seriously, just do unto others as you would have done unto you. That's it.

All the rest, the fussing over controlling other people's sex lives, what they wear, what language they pray in, (or if they pray at all) all that seems to me to be a waste of time. And most of what I hear from the conservative side of Christianity is focused on that waste of time.

Your "eternal truths" seem to be too tied up in worries about controlling other peoples lives, especially their sex lives. For me, It just doesn't fly. Good luck with it in your own life, though. If you're happy, I'm happy for you. I just wish you could share that feeling for me.

I'm only going to respond to this small part of your response, since I have to start dinner. I'm sure others will take up the response for me.

Lep:
I leave you to the ministrations of Arminius/Armenius. I can think of two things you have in common.
Posted by: Schaum
**************************************************************************************
I'm going to take that as a compliment. Arminius and I actually have quite a bit in common, which I consider a good thing.

"Anyone is welcome. Bi*ching is not. PERIOD."

Kindly relate that to Schaum.
----------------------------
ALL current and future bloggers on this thread, please note:

Anyone is welcome. Bi*ching is not. PERIOD.

Armininus/Armenius:

"he does seem, sometimes, to possess the morals of a sewer rat."

Well...there's a new thrill. Being called a sewer rat by a delusional alcoholic who even lies about the state he lives in.

Listen, Armenius: I've penciled in 1:50pm on November 4 to be hurt by your comment. Is that good for you?

"The whole matter of ending organized religion or, at least, keeping it at bay, in the private domain, should be raised at the United Nations. It's become a human rights issue."

wow! you go girl!

"Anyone is welcome. Bi*ching is not. PERIOD."

Kindly relate that to Schaum.

Persiflage, Well Met,

I forgot you have Celt in you. The northern islands, right? Then you have a lot of the Viking in you as well. I'm sure I have my share.

The Druids are quite fascinating. The earliest we know of them is, I believe, from Caesar's Gallic Commentaries. So what we know of Druidic lore is actually close to contemporary with Christianity, but surely precedes it by a millenium at least. The spirituality of the Celts is inherent in their very being, and not limited to the Druids. It lives on today, despite the efforts of the Roman eagle and the English lion to destroy it. The sense of self, a central western thought anyway, is very strong in the Celts. It is this that probably prevents me from taking any far eastern religion/philosophy very seriously. A flaw in me? Perhaps. I can live with it.

You are MOST welcome here!

Yes, the Other. We see that differently, you and I, but are we but merely looking at the same thing from a different perspective?

Schaum. Very intelligent, believe it or not, but not too pleasant a person. He's not as bad as Canyon, and he is smarter than our old adversary CCNL, but he does seem, sometimes, to possess the morals of a sewer rat.
--------------------------------------
Anyone is welcome. Bi*ching is not. PERIOD.

"Compare the good with the evil, a five-minute exercise."

That is a different question entirely! But a good point.
---------------------
That IS my point. Time to give it up before it destroys us all. AT the very least, it must be made a private matter, which requires an end to state subsidies, i.e., tax exempt status. Religious institutions must be prevented from lobbying Congress.

The whole matter of ending organized religion or, at least, keeping it at bay, in the private domain, should be raised at the United Nations. It's become a human rights issue.

Good Lord, is it really Wiccan?!?
As we say in the South, YEEE-HAH!
You are MOST welcome here!

Yes, the Other. We see that differently, you and I, but are we but merely looking at the same thing from a different perspective?

Schaum. Very intelligent, believe it or not, but not too pleasant a person. He's not as bad as Canyon, and he is smarter than our old adversary CCNL, but he does seem, sometimes, to possess the morals of a sewer rat.

I do leave the radio on for him. I think he is particularly fond of Brahms. Today, while I was sitting in the same room with him, and not paying attention, he chewed the plug off the vacuum cleaner!
-----------------
Well, he has good taste. Maybe, you could leave the computer with a movie? I'm not kidding. Two dog owners suggested TV. Poor pooch. Poor Schaum!

Maybe, Leah could come back for a visit?

Hi Arminius, you said:

'Tell that to a Celt, and you get a great burst of laughter. I guess it does take all kinds - who's to say what is right? Many paths up that mountain.'

I am a Celt, and often talk to myself - but have never been able to specifically locate that self, even so.

We all assume we have one....without a single shred of proof! Maybe we all have one on loan :^)

As a Celt, you may want to delve into the ancient Druidic views of spirituality that are distinctly Celtic, but preceed Christianity by a couple of millenia....

Ideas about the self are all pure speculation, no matter how high sounding the hypothesis - and that includes the entire thought spectrum from philosophy and psychology to brain science, and on to religion and mysticism.

And while I'm not a Buddhist, there is considerable wisdom to be found there, but not without considerable distillation time, so to speak!

I think my links are worth previewing, as they cover a lot of ground as regards the various ideas on altruism, including the DNA engendered 'empathy' view that helps ensure the survival of the 'tribe' - for those enamored of variations on the tribal 'instinct' .... a constellation of primal evolutionary forces that are alleged to drive the formation of societal and group structures, even in the present.

Like you said, many paths up the mountain -
or another one that I like ... all roads eventually run together.

regards, Persiflage

Lep:

I leave you to the ministrations of Arminius/Armenius. I can think of two things you have in common.

Farnaz:

"Compare the good with the evil, a five-minute exercise."

That is a different question entirely! But a good point.

Farnaz:

I don't have a TV...I go next door to watch certain programs, or watch online. Actually, since I watch online, I guess I DO have a tv...

I do leave the radio on for him. I think he is particularly fond of Brahms. Today, while I was sitting in the same room with him, and not paying attention, he chewed the plug off the vacuum cleaner!

Schaum,

Compare the good with the evil, a five-minute exercise.

Religion is bad news.

Schaum:
Lep:
"