the line between agnostic and atheist: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » the line between agnostic and atheist » the line between agnostic and atheist

the line between agnostic and atheist
Its logical but is it practical?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

the line between agnostic and atheist

Kingt2
RPI Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 50

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/15/08 - 08:09 AM:	#101
180 Proof wrote: In this case the agnostic is considering only 'empty concepts' and not fact-claims (i.e. conceptual contents that entail truth-conditions). This is mere, idling, "Cartesian doubt". Even most “fact” claims have yet to be disproven, even to a reasonable degree to where one might say, “It truly is silly to side with X over not-X due to the evidence against it. [quote] If the concept of universe connotes "the whole of existence" or "all there is" or "reality", then it stands to reason that some object (e.g. "the idea of god" "god in general") defined as not bound to, or wholly separate from, (the) universe does not exist. Positing that such an object exists separate from existence seems a contradiction in terms. Are you familiar with M-theory? Parallel universes? Simply because some of us cannot conceive of something existing outside of our “realm” of existence does not mean that nothing CAN exist outside our realm of existence. More precisely, atheism is disbelief in (i.e. rejection of) any god as a consequence of lacking sufficient evidence and sound arguments for believing that "(any) god exists" is true. Believe me, I do not use illogical in a sense that I would call an atheist an idiot for his beliefs. I personally chose to leave Christianity for Pantheism because of the fact that I found most of the stories and proclamations to be silly. However, my disbelief in Christianity does not make it false. The “evidence” –how much evidence can we REALLY gather about a god?—against it does not suffice to prove it wrong. And lastly, Christianities faults do not undermine the fact that a god CAN exist differently to how the bible describes. The fact that there is a certain degree of faith in assuming that the evidence against theism –which is hardly any except against the Abrahamic religions—is sufficient for concluding that a god does not exist. Neither do I. Conclusions, however, are not what I'm going on about, but rather comparative warrant (i.e. relative merit). My objections to the fact-claim "god exists" have nowhere ever been adequately answered (including the argument that a "transcendent, creator god" (e.g. JCI deity) is impossible), and as long as this circumstance obtains I find it far more rational to reject (i.e. disbelieve) "god exists" than to believe it. I agree with benkei on this point. What I am arguing is that it is not MORE rational to believe god than to disbelieve it, but the two are EQUALLY illogical, as they both use faith to come to conclusions An example: 1. X evidence exists so that I have doubt as to whether or not god exists 2. It doesn’t seem likely that god exists _____________________________ God cannot exist [from 1 and 2] -> One cannot argue that [2] is a logical premise that allows 1 to follow to the conclusion, therefore: illogical. Just as: 1. Y evidence exists to support God [regardless of what type it is] 2. I believe that god exists, even in the face of counter-evidence ------------------ God must exist [from 1 and 2] -> this also is illogical since faith =/= a logical premise. *What is truth -- "conclusive proof" or least error?* If you assume the latter, as I do, then "agnosticism" is vacuous as I've argued. If not, how then do you (we) escape the intellectual cul de sac of [absolute skepticism --> radical relativism --> passive nihilism] in which every "Humpty Dumpty" prevails (e.g. "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less ...")? First point: THAT is a very heated debate among philosophers. How DO we define truth in an un-absolute world? I, personally, agree that for the sake of actually using reason to study the world, truth should be considered to be “least error”, however that is NOT what atheism subscribes to. I see no way in which someone can consider atheistic belief “alllllmost absolutely true, but no one can ever be truly certain.” If some evidence comes about [as in, say, we discover beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt –note the doubt that still exists—that NOTHING exists beyond our universe. That our universe is IT. THEN, I could see how one might then allow atheism some more ground in being logical, since, as you said, if nothing exists outside of our universe, and god transcends our universe, then what is the difference between god and not-god/nothing? I just do not agree that there is enough evidence for THEISM [NOT the abrahamic deity] to consider the “evidence” against it almost conclusive. I will direct you to Benkei’s post again for the rest of your post, he seems to have written a good response first. But I will touch on this: It's certainly possible; in fact, this seems to be what most agnostics do, and this is what I think is intellectually lazy. "Conclusive proof" is irrelevant where strong warrant for assenting to ,or dissenting from, fact-claims will suffice, so to set the bar 'too high' from the outset only to then opine that the claims-in-question are out of reach provides a built-in, methodological excuse for not thinking through the claims or their (defeasible) implications. Astrophysicists are not "agnostic" about black holes -- even though direct observation is impossible -- because they actively seek out and make indirect observations of massive gravitic influences on nearby phenomena and high-energy bursts (jets) predicted as consequences of the black hole's spin. Agnostics miss the point, throwing up their hands as if the question is between a 'non-factual thesis' and its 'non-factual antithesis' -- which being 'non-factual' would, of course, be undecidable -- rather than between opposing fact-claims. This misguided doubt misses by a wide mark. 1. I would HOPE that scientists were skeptical about black holes… that’s part of being a scientist, SKEPTICISM. You don’t accept something blindly because it APPEARS to have been proven by science. Hell, Newtonian physics was accepted as proven for YEARS before the skeptics [or rather the skeptical physicists] developed new theories and ideas. If an astrophysicist blindly accepted a black hole because that’s what seems very likely to be true, then I would not call him a scientist. Again, he doesn’t have to refrain from judgment [ie. Accept that black holes almost surely exist] but he cannot simply ACCEPT that they do. 2. I don’t know what facts you hold against theism, though I would like to hear them…
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' -Isaac Asimov

easyjacksn
Almost there...

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Oct 06, 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1074

Posted 05/15/08 - 10:45 AM:	#102
Kingt2 wrote: Again, missing my point. No, you are missing mine. In order to consider a truth claim, it must first be specified. How could one possibly consider an unspecified truth claim? Apparently you have some vague notion that the generic word "god" denotes something categorical. You claim that this vague generic notion cannot be disproved and from this conclude agnosticism. Atheism is rational regarding all specific gods, but irrational regarding the one you can't say anything about...?

Kingt2
RPI Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 50

Posted 05/15/08 - 11:39 AM:	#103
easyjacksn wrote: No, you are missing mine. In order to consider a truth claim, it must first be specified. How could one possibly consider an unspecified truth claim? Apparently you have some vague notion that the generic word "god" denotes something categorical. You claim that this vague generic notion cannot be disproved and from this conclude agnosticism. Atheism is rational regarding all specific gods, but irrational regarding the one you can't say anything about...? See, i am not trying to PROVE god, I am trying to prove the fact that you cannot DISPROVE him, [or really, as I was getting at, the IDEA of him in any of its many manifestations]. There is more than one IDEA for god. There is the Abrahamic god, the Greek Gods, the Mayan gods, etc. and those all follow certain guidelines which can be checked and attempted to sully [though, truthfully, it is VERY difficult to do]. But there are also PERSONAL gods, that people have. Ones that arise because of many reasons [perhaps an offshoot of a major religion, perhaps a spiritual encounter, maybe a near death experience, etc]. These gods cannot be disproven to any degree AT ALL. And to say that they can is a silly notion. THAT is my point, I am truly sorry if that didn't come out in my posts, I can see how merely saying "the idea of god" could be taken to mean what you have pointed out. My point is that the Agnostic stance: 1)I do not know enough information to make a decision at the moment 2)Nobody knows enough information to make a decision at the moment 3)Nobody knows HOW to get the information to make a decision at the moment 4)Nobody knows WHAT information to get to make a decision at the moment. Therefore: To make a decision is impossible since the information to make a logical decision is, at this point, unattainable.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' -Isaac Asimov

Dranu
a student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 03, 2007
Location: UGA
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 234

Posted 05/15/08 - 12:52 PM:	#104
Keda wrote: A dogma according to Kant is a synthetic a priori proposition derived from concepts. As such ontological proofs of God could be called dogmas. Now if you have proved something exists, doesn't that put it on the same level as knowledge? It does, and if you get the impression that God's existence is a proven fact, then one would be prudent to act on his commandments to avoid hellfire. The implication is as Kant points out in CPR: Hmmm very interesting, so dogma (different than I thought of the term) he is talking about is just a belief that has crossed the line into being called 'knowledge', rather than sets of belief held by a religion. I'm not sure what to think about that, Kant seems to think selfishness is immoral or hinders it. I am not sure that follows. Of course doing something to appease God for a reward is worse than loving God for God, but knowing that it is also the best thing to do does not seem to harm it. sufficiency is determined on a practical basis. There has to be some criteria to determining it. For example, I understand morality comes down to a practical determination, but there are universal and objective standard on which to apply to a given situation. Jdrw wrote: Surely they have no sense at all that there are “two” apples. It takes a certain kind of consciousness to construe the concept of “two.” Without that consciousness interacting with things, it doesn’t make any sense to say that two of those things exist, it doesn’t even make any sense to say that there’s a thing there to count. Forgive me for being rude and skipping over you in my last post, I was being too hasty thinking that line of questioning had died with another poster, forgetting you took the time to respond. I am not saying the experience of the meaning of what 'two' or 'apple' designates, but whether or not what the experience designates is actually there. The meaning vs. the experience. I would of course deny there is anyone to experience them or call the meaning of what we call two 'two' or apple 'apple'. Would you deny what we call two and apple are not actually there? Of course to speak beyond the experience is hard if not impossible to justify certainly. My doing so was to see how a certain poster distinguished belief from knowledge more than if he was a solipsist or not. I guess it would be interesting to see if you are one though .

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 2829

Posted 05/15/08 - 05:56 PM:	#105
Dranu wrote: Hmmm very interesting, so dogma (different than I thought of the term) he is talking about is just a belief that has crossed the line into being called 'knowledge', rather than sets of belief held by a religion. Well, if that is what you mean by dogma then I have no problem with it, but how do you interpret the ontological proof then? I'm not sure what to think about that, Kant seems to think selfishness is immoral or hinders it. I am not sure that follows. Of course doing something to appease God for a reward is worse than loving God for God, but knowing that it is also the best thing to do does not seem to harm it. There is a difference between selfishness and self interest, the former which is prioritizing the latter. While selfishness (per this definition) is immoral, self interest is not necessarily so - but only when it conflicts with moral duty. While it is concievable actions can be done out of duty while still serving ones interests, actions motivated out of self interest can have no moral worth. Morality however implies that we have a choice, but if we conflate morality and self interest, there is no choice. Morality as a concept will disappear, and we will like animals only follow our inclinations, and there is no moral worth in that. We will be like donkeys running after the carrot, when moral worth is based on choosing to resist temptation to do evil, i.e. when self interest conflicts with duty. There has to be some criteria to determining it. For example, I understand morality comes down to a practical determination, but there are universal and objective standard on which to apply to a given situation. When we are talking about empirical knowledge then beyond a firm epistemological basis, then knowledge is basically a tool. There is no point to gain knowledge of something if it doesn't serve our purposes, whether moral or not. As such there is no point in trying to obtain a greater certainty than is necessary for our purposes.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

WW_III_ANGRY
All knowing prick

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 72

Posted 05/16/08 - 06:59 AM:	#106
Dranu wrote: Hmmm very interesting, so dogma (different than I thought of the term) he is talking about is just a belief that has crossed the line into being called 'knowledge', rather than sets of belief held by a religion. I'm not sure what to think about that, Kant seems to think selfishness is immoral or hinders it. I am not sure that follows. Of course doing something to appease God for a reward is worse than loving God for God, but knowing that it is also the best thing to do does not seem to harm it. There has to be some criteria to determining it. For example, I understand morality comes down to a practical determination, but there are universal and objective standard on which to apply to a given situation. Forgive me for being rude and skipping over you in my last post, I was being too hasty thinking that line of questioning had died with another poster, forgetting you took the time to respond. I am not saying the experience of the meaning of what 'two' or 'apple' designates, but whether or not what the experience designates is actually there. The meaning vs. the experience. I would of course deny there is anyone to experience them or call the meaning of what we call two 'two' or apple 'apple'. Would you deny what we call two and apple are not actually there? Of course to speak beyond the experience is hard if not impossible to justify certainly. My doing so was to see how a certain poster distinguished belief from knowledge more than if he was a solipsist or not. I guess it would be interesting to see if you are one though . So whats your evaluation of that certain poster?

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1529

Posted 05/16/08 - 07:55 AM:	#107
Dranu wrote: Forgive me for being rude and skipping over you in my last post, I was being too hasty thinking that line of questioning had died with another poster, forgetting you took the time to respond. Thanks. No offense taken. I am not saying the experience of the meaning of what 'two' or 'apple' designates, but whether or not what the experience designates is actually there. The meaning vs. the experience. I would of course deny there is anyone to experience them or call the meaning of what we call two 'two' or apple 'apple'. Would you deny what we call two and apple are not actually there? Of course to speak beyond the experience is hard if not impossible to justify certainly. My doing so was to see how a certain poster distinguished belief from knowledge more than if he was a solipsist or not. I guess it would be interesting to see if you are one though . I am not a solipsist. My only point is that to say that there are “two apples” or two of any of something out there is meaningful only if there is some kind of consciousness that constructs whatever it is that’s out there that particular way. The concept of the something (such as an “apple”) requires a certain kind of ability to interact with external stuff and perceptually and conceptually select out certain aspects and construct them into a unit such as what we all perceive and conceive of as an “apple.” And to conceive of there being “two” of anything also requires a certain kind of consciousness—one that perceives and conceives of units of things that are separate from all the rest of what’s out there. That two things both count as apples requires us to count some aspects of the phenomena and to ignore or discount other aspects (such as exact size and weight and coloration and shape and water content, etc.) as irrelevant to our concept. These aspects and their construction into units however, require a certain kind of organism. Different organisms do not construct anything like an apple let alone two apples out of whatever it is that’s out there independently of us. I do not deny that tthere’s something out there that we construct into what we conceive of as “apples” or even “two apples.” My point is that it takes whatever it is that’s out there AND our particular kind of perceptual and conceptual abilities. Furthermore, for the concept “apple” to include what most of us include in that concept, it takes other people who share our perceptual abilities and language that has influenced our concept of “apple”, language that has influenced the very way we apprehend the phenomenon. Moreover, it seems that it is easy and intuitive for us to be able to pervceive “two” of something, and even “three” and “four” up to some relatively small number. (Perhaps less than ten, without grouping.) But in order for us to say, for instance, that there are 23, 084, 829 and a half of something requires a certain kind of mental construction. To construe the situation as though there Really Are 23,084,829 and a half apples independently of a consciousness that constructs the phenomena into those mental construals strikes me as unwittingly applying just such a consciousness to the situation. To imagine that the situation without us there must be exactly like it would be if we actually were there is to beg the question of what it would be like without us there. We have no idea what it would be like without our particular perceptual and conceptual abilities to construct it into some experience for ourselves. Every different creature with different perceptual and conceptual abilities would construct that situation into different experiences. Our particular way is "two apples." Cheers. jd
OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

Prime_Mover
The Great-Souled Man

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 432

Posted 05/16/08 - 08:02 AM:	#108
keda wrote: There is a difference between selfishness and self interest, the former which is prioritizing the latter. While selfishness (per this definition) is immoral, self interest is not necessarily so - but only when it conflicts with moral duty. Before you claim that 'selfishness' is bad (oh, oh so bad), think about the contradiction you are making when you describe 'self-interest' as potentially good. selfishness - concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others self-interest - a concern for one's own advantage and well-being So either you are unaware of these two word's true meanings, or you are committing an obvious package-deal fallacy based on the connotations of the word in your culture. You may say "well, self-interest's definition doesn't say 'without regard for others'". So be it, but are you going to say "self-interest means 'a concern for one's own advantage and well-being with regard for others?" No. You mention the word "duty". What duty is that which I must follow? “Duty” destroys man's values: it demands that one betray or sacrifice one’s highest values for the sake of an inexplicable command and it transforms values into a threat to one’s moral worth, since the experience of pleasure or desire casts doubt on the moral purity of one’s motives. I am no longer motivated to be moral for the sake of being a rational being, but a moral being. keda wrote: While it is concievable actions can be done out of duty while still serving ones interests, actions motivated out of self interest can have no moral worth. Morality however implies that we have a choice, but if we conflate morality and self interest, there is no choice. Morality as a concept will disappear, and we will like animals only follow our inclinations, and there is no moral worth in that. We will be like donkeys running after the carrot, when moral worth is based on choosing to resist temptation to do evil, i.e. when self interest conflicts with duty. Interesting you bring up the word "choice" to defend duty. If one accepts that nightmare in the name of morality, the irony is that “duty” destroys morality. A duty-centered theory of ethics confines moral principles to a list of prescribed “duties” and leaves the rest of man’s life without any moral guidance, cutting morality off from any application to the actual problems and concerns of man’s existence. Such matters as work, career, ambition, love, friendship, pleasure, happiness, values (insofar as they are not pursued as duties) are regarded by these theories as amoral, i.e., outside the province of morality. If so, then by what standard is a man to make his daily choices, or direct the course of his life? You claim being a human being, one must follow duty or behave like a self-interested animal. So what you are claiming is then that human beings are not unique because they are rational, but because they have moral duties. You say that the only self-interest which is possible is temptation and giving in to temptation. No; that is not the only form of self-interest--the other form which does not rely on transient pleasures deals with a self-interest in the ability to choose, as is what Man must naturally do. If you subscribe to duty, where is the choice? Edited by The_Rational_Animal on 05/16/08 - 01:14 PM
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/newest...

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7930

Posted 05/16/08 - 08:13 AM:	#109
Kingt2 wrote: By that I meant our ideas of specific gods are false. Specifically, every specific idea about God that I have come across has been specifically either false, unfalsifiable, misleading or trivial. Generally, all the general ideas about God I have come across have been generally wrong. If you want to call yourself an ATHEIST, because Christianity seems to be false, then you are calling yourself that under false pretenses. Saying "god doesn't exist because the bible is full of lies" and then showing that your statement was true does not disprove the concept of GOD, it disproves the christian idea of God. You might as well call your self an A-Christian-ist. A-Theism means that one does not believe that a GOD, of any kind, exists. I am well aware of what atheism means, and I have made no referrence to a christian God. Luminiferous aether, in all it's incarnations (and it has had many) is flase. God/Gods in all incarnations (roman mythology, christianity, scientology) are false. I say false based on the fact that there are better explanations for everything that any God was posited to explain than the God. Also, there are some very good and scientifically compelling reasons to suppose that humans have a habit and drive to personify non-intentional acts (ascribing God's hand to an act of nature) and of inferring causal connections onto everything that has an intnetional agent (creation intuitions). That means that not only is there no good reson to believe that any God is factually true, that there is very good reason to suppose that God is a fiction created by our minds and societies. So if you would like to suggest that "atheism says..." perhaps you want to follow the elipses with something more than a strawman. You might wnt to consider what atheists truly think about the matter.
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

Dranu
a student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 03, 2007
Location: UGA
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 234

Posted 05/16/08 - 12:22 PM:	#110
Jdrw wrote: My only point is that to say that there are “two apples” or two of any of something out there is meaningful only if there is some kind of consciousness that constructs whatever it is that’s out there that particular way. This makes me think that perhaps we agree. I would also say that 'two apples' is only meaningful there if something is there to (and be able to) comprehend it. However, what it designates must be true of the external things, or the whole experience (including that it even correlates to something outside) is called into question. For example: red is only experienced by something that has the eye for it, and without that relation between the eye/brain and the object there will be no 'red' in the way we speak of it without that. However, the object that is red will be so without creatures there to perceive it, but the term will be void of the experience and just represent the objects ability to absorb the spectrum of light around 'red' wavelengths and reflect/give off the 'red' wavelength. That two things both count as apples requires us to count some aspects of the phenomena and to ignore or discount other aspects (such as exact size and weight and coloration and shape and water content, etc.) as irrelevant to our concept. True, but I am not claiming our speaking of 'two apples' entirely describes the totality of the situation, just that it actually describes something true of the situation regardless of us being there to recognize and divide the particular from it. In other words, the construct does not bring anything to the reality except experience and understanding (which I admit will not be there without a being to do so). We have no idea what it would be like without our particular perceptual and conceptual abilities to construct it into some experience for ourselves. Well I think with reason we can remove ourselves from the equation. I would ask these two questions: 1.)Are you saying our experience actually changes what we are experiencing more than just in the mind? 2.)Are you saying that the designation of the word 'two' or 'apple' only describes our mental construct but says nothing about the reality of what is being experienced? WW III ANGRY wrote: So whats your evaluation of that certain poster? Hmm? No need for me to give my evaluation of that poster, for it probably isn't worth that much. I'm not God after all. All I said was that my enquiry with them died and I gave the reason for asking the unanswered question. At any rate, there is no reason to suspect that this could not change. Keda wrote: how do you interpret the ontological proof I would probably call it dogma in your sense of the term, but not my own. I would consider it rational proof, but then even this rational proof (which would seem to be knowledge) relies on belief in the aptitude of my faculties, which is why I have a hard time distinguishing knowledge from belief. It just seems like it is a more probable degree of certainty, and probability is only probably probable . It seems rather empty unless attached to a foundation of faith. For example: probability in the natural sciences requires faith that the universe is eternally ordered, otherwise probability cannot be justly thought present. You see, it only seems like a tower built on faith, it is only as strong as the foundation as it adds nothing to the act of faith. The way I typically use 'dogma' is that it is just clearly defined beliefs that one holds as absolutes. In other words, the set of beliefs one must hold in the Catholic Church I would call either doctrine or dogma, the 'infallibly' defined ones 'dogma'. The ontological proofs just seem to vindicate certain beliefs further (rather than being a dogma in itself), but add nothing substantial to them except that. Another reason for being dogmatic if you will. But all this lies on certain acts of faith in order and truth, which nothing can give proof too. While it is concievable actions can be done out of duty while still serving ones interests, actions motivated out of self interest can have no moral worth. Morality however implies that we have a choice, but if we conflate morality and self interest, there is no choice. Morality as a concept will disappear, and we will like animals only follow our inclinations, and there is no moral worth in that. We will be like donkeys running after the carrot, when moral worth is based on choosing to resist temptation to do evil, i.e. when self interest conflicts with duty. I don't see it like this (at least not yet). I would like to draw attention to Plato's division of the psyche. It is not perfect, but it seems to work. The way I see morality is that it is justice, and as such a fulfillment of the human end. To me, it becomes placing everything in the proper order. But how does one do this? It can only come from love of the proper ends. Reason cannot justify you choosing it over emotion except by itself, nor emotion over reason except by itself, nor desire over reason or emotions except by itself. That is, each of Plato's divisions are self-vindicating. Reason justifies reason with reason, emotion justifies emotion with emotion, and the desirous with the cries of warring desire. One could only place reason at the head if they had pure faith and love in order/goodness/truth. Otherwise the others would be your head as they move by compulsion that can only be resisted by a struggle of the will against them. Reason does not move you by compulsion unless you choose to love it. Many choose to love it, but only as a useful tool in service of their true love. So then, following something because reason vindicates it is not immoral. However, it can only be done 100% of the time if one chooses to love order/truth above all else. A person could subject reason as a slave of emotion or desires, but then it is clear that reason is not loved. Now in regards to animals, I do not believe they are capable of loving order/truth like humans can even though they can 'calculate' ways to bring about their desires. Now given all this, one should not confuse love with desire. Desire is a compulsion to move one way, while love is a pure act of the will in calling something your 'God'. Needless to say, one needs to either create or attach oneself to an already existing desire for order/truth, but if obeyed it sets up reason as the ruler to be obeyed instead of the desirous as a whole. It is an odd thing to determine which comes first: maybe a 'pure act of faith', the reason choosing the desire, the will choosing reason or the desire, or the compulsion of the desire being the strongest of the desires you have. Honestly I do not think the last possibility is likely. Now I would describe selfishness (I will call it different than self-interest now. That was a good point) as living by appearances rather than reason. In selfishness one bases 'the Good'/'God' on their emotions or warring desires. As such there is no guaranteed concord between altruism and self-interest if order/truth rules over all existence, and it is more often or not the opposite of altruism. I would say that reason vindicates a true concord between self-interest and morality, but, like I said, one must choose to have faith and love in order/truth for that to happen. Chasing the carrot has to happen, but we can choose which carrot to chase. That is where morality lies to me, in that choice. I would say the carrot in your system is chasing a desire to be moral without self-interest being in even the slightest degree certain. However, in doing that, it becomes a self-interest. The only worry I can think of, of that system, is that in the way God is posited, it hints too much of Pelagianism to me. With all that said, I think that simply looking to God by looking at heaven as a place where one’s pleasures and emotions are stroked and hell a place of pain (though the latter seems to be a good place to start for some) is improper and hurts morality, for it can set up pleasure, desires or emotions as idols. In fact I do not even think heaven would be like that, but rather a place of perfect peace while hell a place of unrestrained freedom of the will (yet horribly constrained liberty as a result). However, to look at heaven as a place of eternal service to God seems to promote and give strength to morality instead, even if it was vindicated with reason. Perhaps the idea that ‘knowledge’ can hurt morality comes from the idea that it makes the self-interest more certain? I would respond that the evidence that backs up the positing of God in your system is evidence given by reason on what needs to be for a certain end to be reasonable. However, I see that being the exact same thing as a system that accepts an ontological proof. It still comes down to faith, and evidence only can come after an act of faith is made in something. Furthermore, I do not see how any ‘evidence’ removes morality, for evidence is based on a foundation of faith, and as such does not bring us anywhere closer to certainty at all.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.