Belief isn't methodical that's only the guise portrayed. True of most great philosophers and scientists is that their beliefs have often led them down roads not openly covered with their other materials in history books.
True, there are good reasons to avoid being ensnared by unmethodical philosophers, even those who are considered great but who cunningly veil their true motives. You are making a good case for being cautious. Now, how about making a case for that you are not one of those whom I should avoid?
These higher faculties would not exist without the lower ones. They build on them, reuse them, remix them, and are more than the sum of their parts. From my perspective, your interpretation of my words is similar to saying a plane can't fly. A wing can't fly; a body can't fly. How then could a plane fly? I'm not saying a plane can't fly. I'm saying a plane can't fly without wings. There is no consciousness, no self, without feelings.
Unsurprisingly, I disagree in important ways. Your description looks plausible on the surface, but when it gets to the very foundations of the issue, I disagree. And I happen to be a principled man when it comes to the basics.
COMPOSITES VERSUS COMPONENTS
It's plausible to assume that objects consist of parts. It's readily observable in nature that bits of stuff get together and the new configuration of matter is or becomes a new thing. Materialist version of the theory of evolution is much inspired by this observation. I can easily see why people think it's a valuable observation and devise corollaries from this that they tend to take for granted, so I don't argue with this portion. At least not now.
THE PROBLEM OF PRIMACY
My disagreement concerns some subtleties implicit in the view. I do not take it for granted that, given that parts are the primary elements, then their configurations are somehow qualitatively new things. To me it appears that, whether separated in different places or piled up together, parts are just that - parts. And any configuration of them adds no new quality.
Wings don't fly. Birds do. Two wings (and skin and legs and guts and whatever) in whatever configuration will not magically form a bird. Materially it may appear like this, but, in actual observable fact, adding one wing to another is insufficient to either create a bird or to explain it exhaustively. Two wings may be important parts in making up a bird, but they are *not sufficient*. You may put two wings together any way you like, they won't become alive and fly. But actual birds, as distinguished from mere two wings or a stuffed bird, are alive and fly. Even airplanes don't fly by merely adding two iron wings together. They need a pilot - a distinct quality in addition to material parts of the airplane.
It follows that there's no reason to believe that material parts are somehow more fundamental or more primary than the object or entity or structure that it appears to form. My hypothesis at this point is that components and the apparent entities formed by them are equivalent, identical. A composite thing can be defined either as the thing itself - distinguished from other things -, or as an enumeration of its components. These are very different levels of description, different points of view, but, as I showed, there is no logical reason to prefer one to another. For the purposes of description or definition, neither of these views has primacy over the other. Both are of equal priority.
EMERGENTISM
The view that supposes that the material alone is sufficient and, in a "certain" configuration gives rise to a qualitatively new kind of existence or being, is called emergentism. It's a nascent hip theory in philosophy that has quickly gained considerable ground. The supposition that, e.g. two wings can come together and form a bird (don't take the example too literally, but this is indeed the basic idea) rests on the doctrine of "emergent properties". The tenets of the doctrine are that (a) everything is latent in matter and (b) some types of configuration of matter kindle the latent aspects into manifestation, as in evolution.
The theory has some immediate consequences and hidden presuppositions that I cannot stomach. First, it's not really ontologically monistic. There appear to be at least two things, not one. On one side there's matter wherein everything is latent, on the other there's configurations of matter where emergent properties manifest - which is the universe we know. Why and how does the matter change configuration? Did this movement begin at some point or is it eternal? If it began at some point, then there was another thing that caused it. If it's forever in movement, then there are again really two things - matter plus its movement or change. And maybe matter is not really the proper term for such substance. Why not "primordial ocean", "cosmic womb" or some such?
THE PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS
There's also the tougher problem - consciousness. Consciousness itself has several degrees. First, disregarding the problems of movement and configuration, there's contact of matter with matter. Whether there's any kind of sensation in mere contact of an insentient object with another, emergentism cannot say. Probably there isn't. The second degree is contact resulting in sensation. At this stage, the object should already have a certain kind of configuration so as to have acquired a primitive level of sentience. The third degree is contact with sensation which produces a reaction. The fourth degree is the critter's awareness of the reaction. The fifth is the critter's ability to change its own reaction (choice or will whether to react at contact or not). The sixth is the critter's ability to anticipate the contact and pre-empt reaction, either to accept the contact or avoid it. The seventh is the critter's ability to contemplate the purpose of all such experience, what the contact means, what more kind of experiences there could be beyond the ones already acquired, if all these experiences ultimately lead anywhere, etc.
Each degree looks a fairly sharp jump from one to another. It cannot be described as smooth transition through all levels. Emergentism would say that consciousness *acquires* self-sufficiency in stages as one single continuous process, but any meaningful description of the actual process clearly implies that such self-sufficient quality is there all along, sharply distinct from matter (i.e. Cartesian dualism explains the degrees of consciousness better than emergentism does). And, the way sentient beings appear in nature, their species are quite distinct. They are not an untaxonomisable continuum.
The problem of consciousness presents two further questions to emergentism: 1. Why all this? Why doesn't it remain at the contact level? Why doesn't matter just collide with itself and be happy with that? Why does consciousness have to arise, accumulate, and epicycle around itself several turns? The best answer to this I have heard is "There is no why." Which is a non-answer of course.
2. What is the ontological status and spatiotemporal characteristic of consciousness? Everything is material and located in spacetime, right? If so, then, given the fact that we humans are capable of contemplating the universe in its totality - even more, many of us are perfectly comfy with the concept of infinity, limitless existence - it's a serious question how such minds of infinite potential ontologically fit into limited bodies. Also, given that we have the capacity to think of ourselves as separate from our own bodies, we are able to pose the question: What if we are more than merely our body? What if we are completely other than the body? Emergentism has no answer here beside something like "You simply are your body, mind is brain, and that's it. Don't ask silly questions!" or "Who knows." So, this problem is a dead end for emergentism. I personally don't accept a limit to my quest for truth when I feel I can do better. I don't accept the dogmatic assertion that there's a limit to my understanding, when I clearly know by introspection that I am nowhere near my personal limit and can go further.
SCIENTIFIC INADEQUACY OF EMERGENTISM
The rule that "certain" configurations account for emergent properties - which logically means that other configurations don't account for the same properties - is broken at both ends. First, matter itself does not decide which properties to manifest. Matter doesn't consciously move towards "certain" configurations. It can't move consciously because consciousness is not manifest yet. From this point of view, all emergence is random, chaotic, and its dynamics should be fluid without interruption. However, the manifest universe is stunningly intelligible and ordered - as a minimum, clearly differentiated so as to enable meaningful observation. The bulk of observable and detectable objects appear insentient, yet they all demonstrate ordered behaviour, such as persistence, regularity, and causality. Objects, beings, and phenomena have individual characteristics by which an outside observer can distinguish and identify each and every object, and shared characteristics by which to categorise all objects meaningfully. This is one problem - the overwhelming order and intelligibility for no inherent reason, if emergentism were true.
The other problem is that, if the properties emerged from matter due to "certain" configurations, then why are there shared properties across configurations, some conceivable properties even across the entire existence? For example, there are myriad of red things. If red is an emergent property, and properties emerge given "certain" configuration, then why is redness related to objects in such a loose way? It appears that all kinds of objects can be red - or not. There's nothing certain or predictable about configurations that appear red.
Moreover, how to account for some properties that appear to emerge and vanish abruptly in self-same configuration of matter? For example, immediately after "natural" death, the human body is materially indistinguishable from the body of a living human - except that it's dead. It's non-different from the live body, but it doesn't manifest consciousness anymore. Looks like "certain" configurations are not so certain after all. They are completely random. The allegedly emergent properties are undeniably there, sure enough, but there is no rule to their relation to any particular configurations of matter. In short, there is no rule of emergence. The doctrine of emergent properties has no value of predictability. Therefore it's an impractical doctrine, worthless to science and inapplicable for any rational purpose. At best it's an incomplete theory, but imho emergentism is so insufficient that it does not qualify as a scientific theory at all.
Perhaps I should have written that more clearly: I was pointing out that, from your argumentation and concept of "God", Mankinds' thoughts cannot be correct in the sense that they do not coincide with "God's" and even if, by chance they had some things "right" they would never be perfect, because perfection is reserved for HIM UP THERE. That would be true of all religions ergo they are all a waste of time (except as a Hobby) and not to be taken seriously.
Please write even more clearly how you see these things follow from what I have written. I'm confident that, as a PhD, you can pull it off handily.
Ah! Here we have, perhaps some common ground in that you refer to your opinion as a theory. Workable? --- maybe, but at least that is discussable. This argument is mostly about your insistence that all others are wrong and have opinions resulting from a lack of ... (there's a rather long list).
The seemingly long list is actually variations on one single theme: lack of methodical thought, lack of logical proof, lack of coherence. And if you paid attention, I always demonstrate the case, whenever asked to do it. I do not issue judgements lightly. If right and wrong exist, it's merely natural that we talk about them.
That's not exactly refuting what I wrote. Josh has picked that up too.
Why would I refute facts? Facts are facts. We all must live with facts. If you are smart, you make sense of facts. Only ignoramuses try to refute them.
On the Philosophy thing. Again, and still, you try to reserve some assumed holy sanctum of special interest as the only place where legitimate human thought can take place. Philosophy can occur in all places, from the peasant farmer to the most reclusive guru hidden away in some ivory tower. Everyone has their thoughts of value and are not to be sneered at because they don't fit some sort of self-seeking definition.
So you have your own view what philosophy is and should be. It's okay. So do I.
According to my view, philosophy is pure logic, to be exercised with the faculty of human intellect, distinct from emotions and instincts, the same way as a full argument complete with premises and conclusions is distinct from a bare assertion, a coherent concept system is distinct from a self-contradictory one, etc.
Now, this doesn't mean at all that philosophy is an esoteric closed system reserved to some select few. Everybody has intellect, so everybody can do philosophy. Even a child can make adequate use of the philosophical tools all of a sudden. However, it's better to use philosophy consistently rather than randomly, right? So, a conscious philosopher qualifies better than an accidental one. A conscious philosopher can train himself to master the tools creatively. The levels of training of the intellect vary from person to person. Philosophy is available for everyone, but there are levels of mastery. Just like every person can punch and kick, but not everyone can do it well. And there's just one Bruce Lee. Or maybe you prefer Chuck Norris. All I'm saying is that there are important distinctions between some guy on the street and those two.
This is just an example, my example. There are other philosophies too. For example, instead of intellect, Frenzie's philosophy seems to revolve around "clever gut" even though I know for sure he is mostly speaking from sharp intellect. It's just that he is a materialist so he is bound by the authorities to beautify the lower faculties more, even contrary to his own self-knowledge.
The same way, as a demonstration, please give an exposition of your own philosophy. Or tell more what you think philosophy should be. It's all about sharing and comparing.
I noticed that you asked me about creation. I will answer in a few days. But right now, for a change, I seriously think it's your turn to build a thesis.
By the way, I am a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and I'm an Engineer. While that may still mean I'm as thick as a plank of wood I don't equate my poor mental efforts with playing in a sandbox, nor ascribe that put-down to other people, or at least not routinely!
I am a philologist. I used the metaphor of kids in sandbox very consciously and I stand by it. It can easily be elaborated into a full workable allegory. The kids are all over the playground, not just in the sandbox. They represent humankind. You get the picture, it's simple enough.
1. Destructive criticism. Demonstrate the internal incoherence of the world view by means of the tools that built the self-same world view. You have to use the same tools, concepts and reasoning which built the world view, because if you can make it implode by its own methods, then this is what it means to demonstrate its internal incoherence. (But if instead you go with irrationality against rationality, you are not demonstrating the internal incoherence of rationality. You are only demonstrating your own irrationality.)
Translation: "How dare you not accept my utterly ludicrous premises! You should take my premises and try to find something inconsistent in my reasoning based on those premises instead." It does not matter one iota how internally coherent your views are if they do not align with reality.
Better translation: Know well what you criticise. This is to make the implosion of the construct doubly certain, if this is what you definitely want - and safe for both of the parties involved, if you care about lives. Harris' performance was subpar.
2. Constructive criticism. Offer a better alternative. To replace a world view, build another world view and demonstrate how it's better, has a bigger explanatory scope, is more economic or elegant, etc. In the constructive approach, it definitely takes a properly laid out world view to challenge a world view.
Whether destructive or constructive, Harris miserably failed at criticism.
Just because he didn't spell out the (seemingly) obvious conclusions? A proper argument should give you the facts in such a way that you can make up your own mind about them, not get you to regurgitate the conclusions.
I agree with your "should" bit. Harris failed by this very measure. And don't make the mistake of thinking that I am defending Craig here. The fact that I don't side with Harris doesn't mean I side with Craig. They are both annoying obstacles for me to get myself across to YOU.
I need to rest for a few days now. No, I am not asking for permission. I just take it.
So to some extent we are at cross purposes here. But it is an interesting consequence of your concept of an aloof God that it rather rubbishes the idea of any religion based on its own conception of God. No religion is correct (because correctness is not a human prerogative), nor is it important which one is followed, nor does it matter anyway because “God” will continue to ignore what is done. To assign consequences to acts one needs to enter into religions again, which is a futile act because none can ever be correct.
Isn't it a little bit too fatalistic to conclude that none can ever be correct? As long as you have energy to continue the quest for truth, your conclusion that all is futile is not completely sincere.
We’ve clashed over the matter of evidence for God, or rather the lack of it, and the answer always amounts to “don’t expect physical proof, the proof lies in properly applied reasoning and my reasoning is better than yours, therefore there is a God”. I’m sorry but that remains not very convincing.
The point is not to convince anyone to accept any particular persuasion. The point is mere demonstration of reasoning, rationality, intellect, that's it. It's for show. The fact that, to demonstrate reasoning, one needs a thesis to defend, or an opposing motion to go against, is secondary. The show itself is the main thing.
It's a form of bravery to participate in such public displays, because you are making your intellect vulnerable to attacks. Yet it's all perfectly worth while because your intellect gets training in the process. I suppose materialists would say that brain muscle also needs training like any other muscle, and I'd have to agree, even though I'd clash with them on the notion that intellect is as if a physical muscle. Either way, fitness is not a too terrible idea. Intellect is a live thing and needs exercise.
The point is this: Assuming that rationality and irrationality are distinct and not of the same value,there's a need to distinguish between them and choose your preference. Either you side with rationality or irrationality. Having picked your side, live with your choice the rest of your life and be happy.
Please don't think that I am trying to push you either way, but I personally happen to care for rationality a lot. I don't care much which side you choose, but whenever I encounter people in my life, I evaluate them on the scale of rationality and irrationality and I enquire if they made an informed choice in this area. This is my version of the so-called Socratic method.
You can choose either side, but it matters to make an informed choice, right? And then you can follow your own path. You don't have to listen to others any more, because you know perfectly well for yourself where you are going. Rather, when other people ask about it, you will be able to explain yourself. Which is generally good for getting along with people.
But, as an agnostic myself (with, I admit, atheist leanings) I am comfortable with the idea of positing alternative God Concepts and exploring what it would mean, as long the result is not put forward as “THE TRUTH”, the same as in all those defunct Religions.
The same way as in science, in the end you select the most workable theory. Even if not the absolute truth itself, it shall serve you as the best guideline you honestly managed to muster.
Religion has been responsible (and still is) for all kind of atrocities and wasted lives. Reason enough I would think.
Yes, I know. It's tough. Still, my immediate ancestors experienced the regimes of Stalin and Lenin. Reason enough to think about atheism too. Think well.
So, sorry, but no science has any philosophical implications. Science and philosophy are distinct disciplines for a good reason. They will forever remain distinct.
I suspect you may be thinking of theology; Philosophy is derived from the Greek Philosophia, love of Wisdom.
Not that theology is the private playground of anyone either.
I meant precisely philosophy, Love of Wisdom. Theology is one of the carousels or such in the playground of philosophy, not for beginners.
Science (Latin: knowledge) is the mass of data to make sense of. Maybe think of it as sand in the sandbox. Kids try it out with their little buckets to give it nice shapes. Otherwise it's formless, senseless, purposeless.
This is only right, because so does everyone else. They all post as they please.
Btw, I meant seriously that too much conversion is bad for you. I know what I am talking about. I have seen people convert en masse at some turn of sociopolitical tides and at the next turn unconvert again. It left them feeling empty and aimless. Many of them recognised having been played like puppets on strings by hidden dark forces, which is a particularly devastating realisation for anyone, especially when it occurs collectively.
To put it more simply, it's bad for people's self-esteem. Let proselytisers on either side of the divide consider this and develop some conscience.
You already know my world view. Everything is physical, and morality is based on feelings.
Actually, I don't remember you putting it so succinctly before. Thanks. It's pretty outlandish for me to consider these things as the basis for everything else, even hard to imagine, so I appreciate that you spelled it out this way now, stunningly clarifying. Particularly the latter, "morality is based on feelings." It makes me speechless. Luckily I am typing here, so speechlessness doesn't show.
I can see now how the rest of what you've said largely makes sense - from your point of view. I can see how Harris has become to enjoy your admiration, even though I haven't encountered a single favourable review of his books. "Morality is based on feelings" easily translates to "I'm right because I have a burning extrovert passion that drives me to condemn what disgusts and repulses me. It feels right to me to do it, therefore it is right that I do it." This is the gist of Harris for me. The more I hear of him, the more this impression solidifies.
Your point of view will never become my point of view. Physical existence never worked as the basis of everything else for me. I tried, but could not build on such basis. I have always been very skeptical of sense-data and only dealt with things in life that keep recurring and refuse to go away (like in that Philip K. Dick quote). I had an intense intellectual struggle trying to reconcile psychic facts (first-person, not what other people say or think on the matter) with materialism. Sadly, materialism proved to be lacking. Various forms of dualism handily explain what I needed explained, but I suppose this is where you agree - Occam's razor calls for monism -, so I sided with monism as soon as I found a good exposition of it. In my case spiritual monism of course.
So, you say "God sends billions of people to Hell for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time" is mainstream Christianity. Then I suppose it won't be too hard for you to dig up an actual reference for this claim by a theologian you consider mainstream, right?
Missionaries exist to save souls.
We will forever disagree on what it means to save souls.
[...]unbelievers shall be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power" (2 Thessalonians 1:9).
We will also forever disagree on what unbeliever means. Calvin's understanding of it was political. He was the fundie of his era, even considering that witchburnings were pretty mainstream at the time. He was fundier than that. The current mainstream interpretation of "unbeliever" is definitely not "whoever stands in the way of expansion of my church". You can interpret Calvin this way, but not modern Calvinism.
Anyway, your original wording "God sends billions of people to Hell for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time" implies that unbeliever should mean something like "anyone not living in a Christian country and/or not baptised and/or not a Church member". This is a discordant interpretation of the word for any era. There's even a Bible verse against such interpretation: "Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts." (Romans 2:14-15)
I admit that questions like "Will the BC generations and people born in non-Christian countries go to heaven or not?" are recurring among rank-and-file Christians. This question particularly puzzles the members of any stricter sects, such as Jehovah's Witnesses. The Bible verse I cited implies a brighter eternity for any Good Gentile, but I can see how from neoatheist (and militant fundie - these two are of the same mind) point of view, the mere emergence of the question already gives sufficient reason to jump to "Anyone born in the wrong place at the wrong time will go to hell." However, this is an uncharitable assumption, not a source quote from a mainstream theologian. For example the official doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses (whom I do not consider mainstream, but rather a bunch of apocalyptic literalist fundies, who luckily don't riot) does not allow for such interpretation.
I appreciate your quote-digging. Nice try. Anyway, enough Christianity. This never was the topic for me. I hope you're not like Macallan and bone-headedly assume that I am Christian. I am not. I am simply someone with a first-person view on religiousness, so I know what devout Christians think and feel. And I also know what they write, of course. *Devout* believers of all religions are alike. Mere nominal church/temple/mosque-goers are not. Hypocrites of any ideology will always bicker and fight against their own likes, religious hypocrites against religious, commie hypocrites against commies, crony capitalists against other cronies.
Also, Harris' video never was the topic for me. It merely gave an occasion to talk about how things really are from non-atheist perspective, if you care to drop the double standards some day. Henceforth, I disregard points on Christianity.
Everybody have parents who enable their birth. We don't enable our own birth. The same way, the entire humanity has a parent or guardian. Without it, the common properties and concepts shared by all humans, such free will, responsibility, good and evil, etc. don't make sense and should provide no topic.
Above all, those three paragraphs are a giant red herring. I reply only to say that ignorance of evolutionary theory can be cured by reading The Selfish Gene or one of its more up-to-date successors (e.g. Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True or one of Dawkins' own later works), and ignorance of cognitive neuroscience and its philosophical implications might be cured by reading something by e.g. Damasio or Dennett.
Evolutionary theory is okay by me. Except the materialist version of it.
My aim with the concept of guardian of humanity was fairly modest. I was merely putting a name on the metaphysical placeholder of common properties and values of humanity. The reasoning goes this way: Life exists. Free will exists. So do all the other human capacities and values. Where do they exist? How? This is where the metaphysical placeholder comes into play. This is how universals work in the realist perspective - there are metaphysical placeholders, species and categories ('realism' as technically understood in philosophy). This is standard philosophy, but of course I understand that this is something you refuse to acknowledge.
The point where I radically disagree with you is the assumption that cognitive neuroscience has any philosophical implications. For example, Krauss believes that quantum theories give him reason to say that something came from nothing - existence cropped up just so, for no reason, but definitely did! - and 2+2=5 "for very large values of 2". My reply is that philosophy must always stay rational and logical. In fact, philosophy *is* rationality itself. Mad Scientist (I wish it were just a literary character, but it isn't) cannot declare rationality null and void due to some of his alleged findings. There will always be more findings and *you have to make sense of absolutely all findings,* and this is what philosophy is for - to make sense of things. With rationality and logic declared null and void, how are you supposed to continue to make sense of things?
So, sorry, but no science has any philosophical implications. Science and philosophy are distinct disciplines for a good reason. They will forever remain distinct.
No, Harris wasn't laying out a world view. So what?
He was arguing against a world view. Nonsensical quibble can't refute a coherent world view. Maybe it can in Harris' science, but it can't in philosophy. In philosophy, when you are up against a world view, you have these choices:
1. Destructive criticism. Demonstrate the internal incoherence of the world view by means of the tools that built the self-same world view. You have to use the same tools, concepts and reasoning which built the world view, because if you can make it implode by its own methods, then this is what it means to demonstrate its internal incoherence. (But if instead you go with irrationality against rationality, you are not demonstrating the internal incoherence of rationality. You are only demonstrating your own irrationality.)
2. Constructive criticism. Offer a better alternative. To replace a world view, build another world view and demonstrate how it's better, has a bigger explanatory scope, is more economic or elegant, etc. In the constructive approach, it definitely takes a properly laid out world view to challenge a world view.
Whether destructive or constructive, Harris miserably failed at criticism.
In the sense I meant it, you too are an apatheist. Whether or not God exists, God helps those who help themselves (and others).
This is flattering, so I say I agree with the "God helps..." bit. In fact, I completely agree with it. Even more, my assent with this bit is more than nominal. I know also *why* and *how* God helps those who help themselves and others. And this knowledge motivates me a lot in life.
So, now to the disagreements again. Since the described knowledge is briskly and brilliantly motivating, I find the apatheist label inappropriately gloomy. Better descriptive terms can be found. And "Whether or not God exists" sticks out as unnecessarily undermining its own context. It's semantically discrepant and rhetorically superfluous.
but if I would, another debate with you is precisely the way. Thank you very much.
Textual debates especially, but to some extent also radio debates, are a very different animal compared to debates you attend in person or watch on TV.
Just a loosely related quote from myself not so long ago: Debate is an exercise of argumentation. Debate doesn't lead to truth, but shows who can build more solid and coherent argumentation, which in a good case should lead both participants to some considerations as to their overall world view, if they have it. Rather than a way to convince others of something, a philosophical debate is a good opportunity to learn about one's own beliefs oneself.
@String Promise: I will answer in a separate post in this thread.
Let's quote this awesome dude too: "This is everything I own: A MacBook Pro, an iPad, an unlocked iPhone, seven shirts, two pairs of jeans, two jackets, one coat, one sweater, two pairs of shoes, a suitcase, a backpack, some gym shorts, bathroom stuff, socks and underwear. That’s it. Everything I own can be easily packed into a small suitcase and moved within 30 minutes."
Here I thought: Amazing. Either you are poor homeless trash working casually on the run, in which case respect, or dirty rich leaving something out from the list.
"There is nothing that I want that I don’t already own. And this is despite owning a six-figure internet business."
Yup, the latter. It's easy to be minimalist when you can afford it. Attention switched off.
No, I wouldn't call it good. But when did he do that? I have seen this claim only from hardcore militant atheists - and the likes of Gainsboro Baptist Church. Talk to them. You have a lot in common.
I think you mean Westboro. This is the mainstream Protestant God in both its Calvinist and Lutheran incarnations.
Thanks for correcting the name for me. Sorry for the inconvenience.
So, you say "God sends billions of people to Hell for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time" is mainstream Christianity. Then I suppose it won't be too hard for you to dig up an actual reference for this claim by a theologian you consider mainstream, right?
Also, I note that you make this a case against Christianity rather than against religiousness as such. Christianity is our culturally traditional downtrending religion, already submissive and doesn't resist much. If you think that by refuting one easy victim among religions you refute them all, I disagree. It would be thinking like by refuting Newtonian physics one refutes all physics, or perhaps even all science.
Craig says God is good, yet his God also sends billions of people to hell for no good reason.
Or maybe you didn't listen to the reason. Such as, if good and evil people exist, and God is just, then appropriate reward and punishment for the people also exist. Where would you put Hitler? In heaven? With Hitler there, how can you call it heaven?
The more serious question to you is this: What is a good reason for you? Good according to whom? Good according to hippies? Religions are well-rehearsed in defining good and evil. Let's see you perform better right now.
Of course I am perfectly aware that you won't define anything. As long as this is so, it's dishonest of me to accept any of your judgements that some things are good or evil. You have to make the concepts of good and evil intelligible first, then it will be intelligible to judge. Your judgements thus far are unintelligible.
God doesn't help victims of a disaster, ergo we must. I could go into more detail, but your longer text above gave me the impression you understood the principle.
The principle is that human beings are agents who according to their free will perform good and evil acts, thus defining themselves as good or evil. However, this obviously does not mean that the good, evil, free will, etc. are rooted in the agents severally. The properties and attributes such as free will, capacity to act, etc. are common to the entire humanity and are derived from a common source wherefrom we all acquire.
For example, we have life. We are alive. Does this mean that I have one life and you have a second life, and some other person has a third life? No, life is common to all and it predates us. We can be born because life was already here. We are born into it. The same with free will, etc.
Everybody have parents who enable their birth. We don't enable our own birth. The same way, the entire humanity has a parent or guardian. Without it, the common properties and concepts shared by all humans, such free will, responsibility, good and evil, etc. don't make sense and should provide no topic.
Both are obvious straw men. What's there to explain? No atheist has said anything even remotely like that, ever.
This is what you said and you already saw the questions that I had:
- "If God does exist, he/she/it does not have the properties Craig ascribes to it" -- If not these properties, then what other properties and why? - "any good will have to come from you—regardless whether God is actually being good, bad, indifferent or nonexistent." -- How did the good get into you so that it can come from you, even will have to come from you? Good by whose definition?
But I don't need these answers any more. You already basically answered by strawmanning Christianity above. If you produce the relevant quote I asked from you, we'd see what you consider mainstream Christianity.
Even though Christianity never was at issue for me. I was seriously interested in how you manage to find these sentences meaningful and purposeful - in the most basic sense, quite apart from any religion.
How does the semantics of these statements work for you? What is the theoretical concept system that provides the background against which you read them? The answer appears to be that since these staments make a mockery of theological definitions, then this is for you a sufficient reason for accepting them, nevermind that at the same go they violate any and all logical definitions, including the rules of scientific terminology and taxonomy. I am simply baffled how this is all okay for you. But okay, I just take note and move on.
You're not making much sense. If you want to be informed, a debate is a very bad place to go. Read a book or two. I believe Harris' is called The Moral Landscape.
First, when I say you don't make sense, I also explain what specifically does not make sense and what further clarifications I require. In your case, you see it often possible to dismiss me without any explanation. When you do not make sense to me, I go about it in a qualitatively different manner.
Second, I define terms all the time. I ask questions. When I pass judgement, I explain the relevant terms. To me it's intellectually dishonest to pass judgement without verifying if the basis of the judgement is intelligible or not. I give answers. I clearly know what I want from this debate. You, on the other hand, never define, you dismiss casually, and your explanations are not even rephrasings, but outright topic-changers.
Third, you refer me to that book, but I am too familiar with it already. The atheist consensus verdict on it is that it alleges to be a moral theory, but isn't. The verdict is supported even by other neoatheists, such as Dennett. The only one who disagrees with the criticism is the author.
Fourth, my aim with this debate was to get to learn about your world view, fairly personally. Harris has nothing to say on this. At least hopefully not too much. Based on the previous points, you see how I have drawn some conclusions that hopefully at least clarify your character, if not much else. As to your world view, it appears to be splintered. Above you casually mentioned something called apathism to Jim. This sounds like it could explain much. I don't feel like being informed about it further, but if I would, another debate with you is precisely the way. Thank you very much.
On a slightly more serious note, is anybody here aware of a discussion between a person who follows some sort of religion and a person who thinks that religion is bollocks that has led one of them to say, "Damnation, you're right! I'm changing sides now!"
I haven't.
I have - when Colonel Rebel over at the old site clashed with Bantay. It was with a slight modification: "Damnation, you can't be right! I'm changing sides now!"
If God sends billions of people to Hell for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time, "good" is not an epithet I would apply. Would you?
No, I wouldn't call it good. But when did he do that? I have seen this claim only from hardcore militant atheists - and the likes of Gainsboro Baptist Church. Talk to them. You have a lot in common.
Obviously God isn't going to do anything about, say, helping the victims of *insert the latest natural disaster*, whatever the reasons may be.
But when natural disasters occur, lives must be in danger. Otherwise, how can you call it a natural disaster?
Didn't I explain adequately enough in my long post why and how non-intervention makes sense? It would not make sense to intervene miraculously and destroy causal links in the world. Causal links are how this world makes sense. This is what "makes sense" means. Or is it that when we say "explain" and "to make sense", we mean something totally incompatible with each other?
Seriously, your remarks explain nothing to me. They come out of the blue and change shape all the time. The statements you had earlier were: "If God does exist, he/she/it does not have the properties Craig ascribes to it" and "any good will have to come from you—regardless whether God is actually being good, bad, indifferent or nonexistent." You did nothing to explain them. You only added other claims without any apparent link.
The first statement looks to me stemming from this idea: "Hey, let's attach some random contradictory properties on God. After all, this is what theologians do, hehe. And then we can declare God is evil or self-contradictory and thus refuted. QED!" If not, please explain.
The second looks like "Let's say that the source of good is anywhere else than God, so God has no reason to exist, hence he doesn't. QED!" If not, please explain.
If I suspect rightly and this is indeed the rationale behind the statements, then imagine Sam Harris applying the same reasoning at his own job: "Okay, here's a nerve cell. Looks like a totally random purposeless thing to me, but here I am getting paid to do something with it, so let's feed it to Mr. Schrödinger's cat. If the cat eats it, we'll say this project has been completed successfully and celebrate. If he doesn't, we'll say we need more funding for research." However, if Harris doesn't work this way in his own area of expertise, but instead approaches matters with a sense of purpose, trying to reveal the links and relations between the object and its surroundings, then on what basis does he adopt a different approach whenever God is the topic? Isn't this like double standards?
It doesn't trouble me if you have different ideas. Differences by themselves don't matter at all. What matters is the consistency, scope, and explanatory power of your ideas. They have to serve a purpose. They have to be workable theories, as complete as possible. For example, for any theory to be relevant in my view, I expect it to ANSWER its own WHY and HOW. If this condition is not met, the theory or statement under scrutiny lacks explanatory power and most likely it also lacks purpose. In such case, either further elaboration is called for or it must be discarded. Which way will it be?
It doesn't trouble me if you have different ideas. It troubles me when you say things that are not ideas in the first place, You say things that have no context, no source, no aim, things that do not explain anything, things that don't make sense in any way. If you think this is okay, if you think that rationality should take a free fall in you when this topic is brought up, answers must not exist in this area, then, well, point taken. Just that it would be nice of you to say so too. Something like: "Hey, I am just fooling around. Hope you have fun too!"
Well, evidently I must accept that these kinds of explanations work for you. Sorry but they don't for me. This is not a cultural gap. It is a methodical gap, systemic gap.
One could summarize the argument by saying that if God does exist, he/she/it does not have the properties Craig ascribes to it, but I think the underlying point is more accurately paraphrased by saying that any good will have to come from you—regardless whether God is actually being good, bad, indifferent or nonexistent.
Sorry, but none of this rises to the level of any kind of argument. At best, I can detect some kind of reactionary pressing point, but no complete idea or self-sustaining reasoning.
Let's try to proceed slowly. "If God does exist, he/she/it does not have the properties Craig ascribes to it" -- If not these properties, then what other properties and why?
"any good will have to come from you—regardless whether God is actually being good, bad, indifferent or nonexistent." -- How did the good get into you so that it can come from you, even will have to come from you? Good by whose definition?
We are fundamentally divided on this issue. For you a philosopher must be a social reformer and activist. You are effectively asking me to be like Martin Luther King or the good old original Martin Luther, a preacher, mover of masses and of heads of state. You seriously have not had your fill of those? Want another one?
More like the Buddha, who advocated sapere aude. But yes, I think it's about time for another Martin Luther King.
A global one this time, right? Anything wrong with the Pope? And I am not being silly here. Do you have a shortage of authorities, past and present, spiritual, clerical, political, military, etc? Harris is not good enough, I gather. Why?
Looks like the thing is that you are actually yearning for someone you could unreservedly idolise. Like God, you know. Looking for such among fallible people is a bumpy road to take, but take it, if you must...
Craig: But that's exactly your retort, Sam, that God has not issued such a command, and therefore, you're not morally obligated to do it. Harris: No, if God did, he would be evil. So I can get behind that God (emphasis mine). If God is issuing that command, he's an evil bastard.
You can get behind the evil God, if he exists. As long as he doesn't, behind whom can you get?
To Craig, Craig's version of God matters. To Harris, no version of God should matter. If he makes other people's gods his own business, he has to inform himself about other people's versions, not make up his own and think he is refuting other people's gods.
What is the form of his reasoning supposed to be? Maybe:
1. My God is evil, therefore yours is too. 2. Evil God does not exist because no rational person can like an evil God. 3. Ergo: Your God does not exist. Neither does mine. Theism is irrational.
Do you have socio-political ambitions? The rest of your post points that way.
Telling people to shut up and preserve the status quo is just as much a socio-political ambition. And accepting the status quo doesn't square with choosing to do good. It's a bit like lying by omission.
We are fundamentally divided on this issue. For you a philosopher must be a social reformer and activist. You are effectively asking me to be like Martin Luther King or the good old original Martin Luther, a preacher, mover of masses and of heads of state. You seriously have not had your fill of those? Want another one?
For me, a philosopher is one who has found the truth, and lets truth merge with his own nature. It takes time and it's a strictly individual thing. Nobody outside can tell the philosopher at what stage his merger of truth is and if he is ready to come shine the light to the world or not. Nobody can tell if this is his mission on earth in the first place. Maybe it is, but who are you to tell? If he lets someone outside shout orders at him, he is not a philosopher. My view is in keeping with Plato's insights on philosophers (maybe you disagree that Plato was a philosopher, but hopefully you still agree that he knew some close enough). Some quotes from the allegory of the cave:
Quote
Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted. [...] And the only life which looks down upon the life of political ambition is that of true philosophy. Do you know of any other?
Indeed, I do not, he said.
And those who govern ought not to be lovers of the task? For, if they are, there will be rival lovers, and they will fight. [...] [There are] States, in which men fight with one another about shadows only and are distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is a great good. Whereas the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst.
So, even if a philosopher accepted the political or social task, he would go about it reluctantly and without advertising himself. He may be having his social impact or not, you would not know about it either way nor should you, because it's not up to you to dictate tasks and roles to philosophers. For any lesser philosopher, self-improvement and self-perfection is the most important task above all other tasks, regardless of any objections citing pressing social issues. A wise man in the right role is good of course, but only the wise man knows his right role.
Instead of lying by omission, it's avoiding mistakes. It may seem overly cautious to you, but a wise man knows better how much caution he needs. I, for example, mixed up Euthyphro's dilemma and Epicurus' paradox yesterday. This means I crossed the intellectual speed limit suitable for me.
And yet it is somehow wrong to make it easier for them to inform themselves or to spur them into at least thinking about their beliefs?
If you believe that rational arguments spur irrational people towards reason, be ready for surprises. Lots of surprises. The last thing that irrational people care about is informing themselves. Vide Harris' view of Christianity (for him the Pope is Taliban), Dawkins' concept of God (he takes it for granted that only the skydaddy version matters, because it's handy to refute it quoting Russell), etc. No improvement throughout their public career.
The tricky thing is that irrational people are full of themselves. To get along with them, the wise philosopher has to pretend he is one of them, or preferably a bit lesser than them. Not everybody can pull off this acting, and when the deception is uncovered, the immediate consequences are devastating. Caution is strongly advisable...
You discount that as irrelevant because Christianity means nothing to you. With fatalistic, apocalyptic thinkers at or near the metaphorical launch buttons of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, I'd say maybe it should.
Intellectually and philosophically speaking it doesn't move me at all and shouldn't move you either. If it does, then for reasons other than intellectual and philosophical.
Philosophically, only truth matters. What fatalistic and apocalyptic thinkers such as Harris and, less so, Craig falsely think, doesn't matter. It may socially matter, if you are easily pissed by events in your neighbourhood, but neither Harris or Craig are in my neighbourhood, nor any of their likes, so I don't care. The issue may politically matter, if you are a politician, which I am not.
Do you have socio-political ambitions? The rest of your post points that way.
contrary to what you indirectly implied, these Dutch Reformed Protestants are not choosing to be evil. They are doing what they falsely believe to be good.
No. What I pretty directly implied in my section on moral psychology, it's a form of evil to not inform oneself as to the true nature of what is good. Both self-deception and seemingly innocent ignorance are evil.
The right way is: Think, then act. It's unreasonable to try to busy oneself with things that one can't change. That's what I mean when I say in a more blunt way: I don't care. It's because the issue is out of my hands. Let powers that be deal with it. How is it my responsibility to convert apocalyptic thinkers like Harris or groups like Dutch Reformed protestants?
Edit 2: an anecdote One Finn in WWII to another: "Okay, buddy, cover me. I'll go surround the Russians."
Should we try this against the Dutch Reformed protestants who annoy you so much, Frenzie?
@Frenzie, my long post is a response to the Euthyphro dilemma.
Right, I suck at names of aggregate things again. Internet life is way too virtual for me.
The dilemma is not Euthyphro dilemma, but of course this one, attributed to Epicurus:
Quote
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God.
This is what Harris essentially cited in his from neoatheist point of view laudable ramble. This is what String asked about from me, but I have tended to glide over it because I never saw what the whole fuss was about. I won't fix my references above, because I addressed the substance of the issue correctly and adequately. Let it stand. My sincere apologies though to Euthyphro and Epicurus for getting their names wrong.
@Frenzie, my long post is a response to the Euthyphro dilemma. Atheists tend to believe that the dilemma is a knock-down argument against theism. You implied that the dilemma should involve an intellectual struggle for theists like Craig. Sam Harris emphatically presents the dilemma as such. String also seemed to believe so and asked for my response.
For me personally the dilemma was always a non-issue. I can see how it may upset one's sensibilities, but intellectually it's completely uninteresting. I have only elaborated the response over time in discussion with others who had an issue with it. It continues to baffle me how the Euthyphro dilemma manages to pose an obstacle at all. It must be that Plato knew human psychology better than me. He knew what kind of tensions between concepts pull the strings in most souls.
Regarding @ersi's comment on "making fun of your forefathers", that is a dangerous path to take, as you are assuming his ancestors were Christians.
I had assumed the same (same train of thought as you posted) for most of my life, but come to find out of late, such was not the case. My ancestors were Cherokee Native Americans, and worshiped no such deity.
If your forefathers suddenly turned out to be something different than you thought, then they are not forefathers in the relevant sense. You know your forefathers, end of story. If you don't, you can't call them forefathers. Jim looks Irish, not Cherokee. Catholicism of his kins further solidifies the assumption that he is Irish. Up to him to make himself appear something different. Edit: And, to stay relevant, this is not about his Irish looks, but about Catholic past and present. He is amply proving this point by his preoccupation with Christianity.
@Macallan, I am not making a case for Christianity. Not because I think it's indefensible (it actually is defensible), but out of sheer intellectual honesty - I'm not a Christian myself, never was, never had a reason myself nor was I ever given any reason. And I shouldn't need to repeat this point too much, because it makes it appear that you are not paying attention.
Must say I am terribly disappointed that Mr. Howie and Belfrager and mjmsprt40 aren't in here teaming up to debate us "heathens".
At least Belfrager was active in these threads when you weren't. Besides, you personally don't qualify as a heathen. You are a fresh convert into atheism. I remember when you declared that Bantay had converted you. Now stay where you are. Too much conversion is bad for you. Seriously.
omnipotence in a God and goodness in a God (any God, not just the Christian God) are incompatible with the real world. Is that something you would agree with?
So, this is the way you phrase the Euthyphro dilemma. Take a look at Wikipedia if any of the responses sound good for you. Even if they don't, it's good for you to know that there are responses, always have been. The following response is mine, totally independent from the Wikipedia article.
Everything in philosophy is about relevant distinctions. At least that's how it works for me. You make the distinction between "goodness in a God" and "real world".
QUIBBLING
First, supposing that God exists, it's unfair to assume that God is any less real than the world, so "real world" distinguished from God won't wash. Second, "goodness in a God" assumes there could be room for other things in God too. Perhaps evilness? That would be anthropomorphic. Third, "a God" assumes there could be other gods. Then you could always quibble about which god takes precedence in this or that case. So that phrase won't wash either. There's only one God who is relevant to everything in accordance with singular nature.
THE PREMISES
Let's rephrase it now: God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence are incompatible with the way the world appears to us. This is your contention. The premises must be that the world is not good to everyone as it should and, if God is omnipotent, he should intervene to make the world a better place than it is. So, I have to make the case that God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence are not mutually contradictory and that evil in the world is not as bad or unjust as it appears to be.
GOOD, PLEASANT, JUST
A relevant distinction here. What is good? Is it the same as pleasant? "I want it" = "good for me"? I disagree here. You could want chocolate, but is it good to have only chocolate? After a few hours of chocolate-eating you would be puking or, if you eat it in more moderate amounts, malnutrition would soon show.
Therefore, when "good" converges with "appropriate" and "just", things hopefully begin to make more sense. Justice is good. Everything in its proper measure, place, and time.
MORAL ONTOLOGY
Considered in light of the concept of justice, omnibenevolence is not contradictory with omnipotence. They both converge with justice. Justice is good because it distributes the fruits of good and evil ultimately in an appropriate way, and only an omnipotent being can wield such justice.
God has singular nature, i.e. God's attributes are inseparable. Consider his qualities ontologically as one single thing. The attributes are distinct only verbally when translated into human language. It's like a geometrical plane which is a single thing, but has two sides. The two sides form a single plane. So, there appears to be three things - two opposite sides plus the plain itself -, but the distinctions are merely verbal. Ontologically it's all one.
Ontologically, absolute justice accounts both for omnibenevolence and omnipotence. If the qualities were separable and mutually competing, you could endlessly quibble about which quality should take precedence in this or that case. Multiple attributes raise the same logical problem as multiple gods.
MORAL EPISTEMOLOGY
It's just to punish evil and to reward good. For justice to operate, relative good and evil must exist. Therefore, good and evil deeds and their doers (agents) must exist. And they do.
People in this world commit evil deeds, thus defining themselves as evil. If not stopped before the act, the thief or murderer exercises his will and choice to follow through with the act, thus defining himself as a thief, or murderer, evil-doer. Otherwise it would not be possible to tell a criminal apart from a respectable citizen, but in our world it is.
FREE WILL AND RESPONSIBILITY
The complaint is that God doesn't intervene to prevent people's evil acts. However, non-intervention makes sense for many reasons.
First, it's compatible with free will. We are supposed to choose good or evil freely. This makes us directly responsible for our good and evil deeds. Everybody can do as per one's own will, thus becoming responsible for one's own acts. This is what agent means. Only this way it makes sense to even begin to consider what this or that person perhaps ultimately deserves and devise complaints based on perceived sense of justice.
Second, if evil acts were stopped by God, shouldn't he also intervene with good acts? Why be partial? Maybe God should improve half-good acts to make them all-good? Such intervention would of course neuter in us all sense of good and evil.
Third, when only some acts are intervened, wouldn't this make the world a random place rather than something that would make perfect causal sense as it is now? When all acts are intervened, this would make all causal links and free will totally moot. People's intentions could be good or evil, but when God intervenes everywhere, the world wouldn't reflect the way people are. God would perhaps still know people's hearts, but people wouldn't know each other and themselves.
Fourth, if God intervened to stop evil acts, he would intervene according to his own definition of evil, not by people's definition. So, divine intervention actually would not eliminate the complaints of people who perceive justice differently than God does. And, of course, the complaint originates in the first place from the fact that concepts of justice and definitions of evil differ.
Fifth, God has no obligation to intervene. Assuming that God's relationship with the world is that of creator and creation, then it's like a potter and a pot. The potter serves his purpose by creating the pot, whereas it's the pot's responsibility so to speak to serve as the pot. If the pot fails, it will be cast away, re-done or replaced. Simple. There's no obligation for the potter to make a half-broken pot feel nice and cosy or such. If you want to construe the obligation the other way around or on a par, go ahead and try to make a case for it.
AGENTS AND VICTIMS
Hopefully you see that it clearly follows from the above that the way the world appears to us right now actually makes best sense. People can define themselves good or evil by means of their own acts according to their own free will and the effects of this will be in plain sight. The problem of evil therefore is not in the mere fact that good and evil agents operate in this world, but rather in suffering of the hapless victims. The collateral damage of evil acts, so to say.
THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING
So, now I have narrowed the problem of evil down to the problem of suffering. The contention is that suffering is horrible and painful, innocent suffering is futile, unjust and such. It's horrible that helpless people die. It's futile and senseless to bury a host of people in natural catastrophes (legally, "acts of God"). It's unjust when totalitarians kill innocent masses while they themselves live to old age peacefully. Etc. (Note that the injustice now is only human sense of injustice. Above I have already sufficiently argued that there's no injustice in that God appears to not intervene. Divine non-intervention is perfectly rational.)
My answer to the problem of suffering is threefold. First, evil and suffering is not the only force in the world. The same way as evil deeds bring forth evil fruit, good deeds bring forth good fruit. Let's remember that in this world it's not only evil people being allowed free reign to spread evil, but also good people to spread good. Both are free to define themselves and operate. It's only just that God is impartial here: Free will for everyone. Impartiality is just and justice is good.
PLAIN ACTS, HIDDEN SEEDS AND FRUITS
Second, behind the effects in plain sight there are hidden causes. Causes are hidden by their very nature. What we see in the world currently is effects of prior causes. The causes of this are in the past, i.e. hidden. You could say that the current state of affairs is the cause to the state of affairs in the future. This is true, based on our past experience, but the future state of affairs is not manifest yet, so it's also not manifest yet that the current state of affairs is a cause of anything. Still, agreed, based on our past experience it's implied that the current state of affairs is the cause of future state of affairs - it's implied, i.e. hidden in that sense.
Therefore, assuming that everything in the universe is causally linked, past causes have ripened to current events, and similarly current plain acts plant the seeds for future fruits.
MORAL PSYCHOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS
The third answer to suffering is to put it into psychological and metaphysical context. The manifest sense of injustice implies justice. Good and evil are manifestly allowed free reign, but if justice be served, evil fruits are distributed - implicitly, behind the scenes - to evil agents and good fruits to good agents. When we see injustice happening, based on the events apparent to us we may not properly know who is in the really good or really bad role, because we don't see the hidden causes. Nor do we see the way the fruits of good and evil are distributed in the ultimate sense, because this distribution of fruits is a hidden cosmic law operating eternally rather than temporally.
Either way, this point is to clarify that at least half of the relevant explanations for any particular events are hidden from us. An immediately apparent situation may upset us, but the extent or amount of unknowns should invite to further reflection. Science can explain the phenomenal causal relations, the rest is explained by philosophy (direct logical implications based on what is manifest) and religion (prophetic revelations and otherworldly promises), or, if you have none of those things, you will accrue blind faith, hope, doubt, desperation, etc. to compensate for your lack of science, lack of philosophy, lack of intellectual and spiritual culture.
The arrangement of the world the way it is now motivates people to figure out its true constitution and their own place in it, to make the relevant distinctions, to perceive the hidden causes behind the visible effects, to find out the way logic operates and learn to rely on it and build on it. The current arrangement of the world helps to understand the relevance of this all in the first place, i.e. the relevance of the concepts of good and evil, the relevance of responsibility and free will, hidden causes and manifest effects, the concept of relevant distinctions, the roles of science, philosophy, religion, of intellectual and spiritual culture. It stimulates the mind and motivates to work, so that you can die an accomplished human being who has even figured out death so that there's no fear of it, and no psychological suffering at the event.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of suffering is to provide a sense of accomplishment. We get a sense of accomplishment by overcoming difficulties, by producing some fruit by means of work. In this world of ours, if difficulties and work did not exist, the sense of accomplishment would not exist. If evil would not exist, good would not exist. But we surely want good to exist, so much that it feels, right?
This world displays causal links and logical correspondences. Both are necessary to make full sense of all states of affairs. Instead of a problem of evil, I see how evil makes sense as a causal result of the acts of evil agents. And there's also good in the world to counterbalance the evil in the world. Evil as such makes logical sense in metaphysical conjunction with good as such. Phenomena make sense in conjunction with noumenon, the temporal in conjunction with the eternal, the world in conjunction with the otherworldly, life in conjunction with death (and/or pre- and afterlife), creation in conjunction with the creator, etc. It's all logically self-evident and, in their own contexts, all these concepts are relevant as necessary implications of each other.
In conclusion, God is good in balance with justice, and so is the world when we consider the eternal rather than the temporal. Temporally the world seems good and evil in turns, just and unjust in turns, but from the eternal point of view it's all in balance. If God intervened, it would be partial, i.e. unjust, but inasmuch as he appears not to intervene, he is impartial, i.e. good.
And how is it atheists' business to complain about God they don't believe in anyway? It isn't. It only makes sense to issue complaints and demands regarding someone or something if that someone or something exists. This last thing was crystal clear to me when I was atheist (or agnostic), so I didn't issue such complaints. The so-called problem of evil is irrational at its core. Only irrational people make a problem of it.
Do you agree that "that omnipotence in a God and goodness in a God (any God, not just the Christian God) are incompatible with the real world."?
The short answer is no, I don't agree that they are incompatible. The longer answer would quibble with the form of the question and some of the terms therein. I can expand on my answer to the Euthyphro dilemma, if needed.
The problem of evil never posed any problem for me, whether in my atheist (or more like agnostic) times or now. It has taken lots of effort for me to even begin to understand how this is a problem at all. Absolutely good God and apparently evil or non-caring world have always been perfectly compatible for me.
But even there you merely quibble over one facet of his thesis and miss a point he was making that omnipotence in a God and goodness in a God (any God, not just the Christian God) are incompatible with the real world. Is that something you would agree with?
First, I didn't merely quibble. Either God is evil or he doesn't exist. You have to make these two separate arguments, if you want to use these arguments, but they cannot be the same argument. In Harris' case, neither of these is an argument. An argument has premises and conclusions. Harris merely asserts. His presentation can be called cumulative emotional argument, if you insist that it is an argument.
Second, no, I didn't miss that he brought up Euthyphro dilemma and actually managed to get it formally right at some point when it was already too late. This is how close he got to an actual philosophical argument, borrowing an ancient historical one.
The thing is, the Euthyphro dilemma may engage you, but it doesn't engage me. The dilemma rests on the assumption that creator has obligations towards creation rather than the other way round, and that we as people have no obligations to each other and to the rest of environment we live in. Wrong assumption. God has no duty to miraculously save people from their self-caused calamities. If he still chooses to, then in his own manner and at his own time, not when we feel like it. Case closed.
Sincerely, how was I not specific? I summarised pretty much everything that Harris said in the clip. Did you watch the clip?
Without further ado, I dismiss everything the dude says, because there's no philosophical argument in him. Everybody else dismisses him for the same reason. As to what a philosophical argument is, see any video I have linked in the topical threads.
Edit: For example he says in the video that God is evil and does not exist. These two things don't go together. Either God is evil or he doesn't exist. Which way is it? Harris has insisted on that God is both evil and doesn't exist throughout his public career. To qualify as a public speaker, your statements should at least be internally consistent. And on that particular event, his tirade was off topic. I don't know why he is allowed to perform.
Also, I don't want to dwell on Harris, because I personally am completely uninterested in Christianity, as I hope I have made clear. Universal truth is what matters, that which applies everywhere at all times like a law of nature. If not, it's not really truth, so whining about the history of Christianity is a non-starter for me.
Frans, where's the ADVANCED quote tool? I liked it! I used it! It allowed mes us to easily make multiple quoting!
This might be too advanced. To do multiple quotes, I have gotten used to by now to > quote > select all text > save to a file > back to browser > quote another > select all text > add to the file > repeat the above steps as necessary > edit-compose-conduct the file > select all text in the file > back to browser > publish
Looks and sounds advanced? It's because it is. My fav browser has no js.
What did automatically change? I use Wand this way: I saved the login for this website and every time I need to log in, I press Ctrl+Enter. And it logs me in. On some websites I have to refresh. On some websites I somehow have to select from multiple credentials in a dialogue box. This has been the same for years, no change.
This one I suspected, but wasn't sure. It's a good thing my country has no Starbucks.
Quote
Coffee companies such as Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts sometimes use "fake coffee smell" to entice shoppers. ScentAir, a so-called "scent provider," is a popular choice in the coffee industry as well as retail stores, restaurants and hotels, where methods of "aromachology" are used along with the "latest in fragrance technology."
If we choose to kill ourselves with automobiles, recreational vehicles, firearms, or by any other means of choice, we freely understand & accept that freedom is not free.
Freedom to kill. Love it so much that you are ready to die for it. So noble that everyone must look up to you...
