Existence of X

Post Reply New Topic

Bang on. Beauty is not Truth no matter how much we would like it to be. I do miss Feynman's plain talk approach. He was one in a zillion.

ruveyn

If you really believed that, why would you have a problem with other people disagreeing with you?

If there is no such thing as justice, but some deluded people in the world who think that there is; that would mean that you could lie to them but they can't lie to you, you could steal from them but they can't steal from you, you could cheat them but they can't cheat you.

Isn't that a win-win situation?

Humans have an intuitive notion of what is right and fair. This is because we have evolved using a system of reciprocal altruism to survive. The Chimps also have this but to a lesser degree.

ruveyn

It depends upon what you mean as win-win. Madoff and a good many congressmen and a huge number of businessmen do feel that way and a good many of them seem to be getting away with it. The internet is full of people with that philosophy. But don't want to live in a world that permits that so I act differently. I make very little difference in the world but it's all I can do. There are cultures that feel fine about punishing women who have been raped and children born out of wedlock and cutting the hands off thieves and putting people in prison for a few grains of pot in their pockets. That's not my idea of justice and I behave according to my own standards.

Human cultures existed for centuries where it was considered the right thing to punish Jews just for being Jews. Gypsies are still mostly in that status. In many cultures men beat their wives and treat them horribly and that is considered OK. There are cultures within cultures where the murder of innocents is accepted and ignored as "collateral damage". There is nothing inherent about decent behavior. It must be taught. Kant is full of crap.

You are reading it correctly. Thank you for a response that actually helps me clarify my position.
A very long time ago I noticed that the only reason I refrained from doing unjust acts was because I didn’t like the way I felt afterward. I also noticed that for every righteous act I did, I always had a selfish motive somewhere behind it. Not necessarily my primary motive, but at least an auxiliary motive. I disliked this about myself, but was unable to do anything about it. Try as I may, I became forced to admit that I was all I cared about. The only reason I care about other people is because I need to in order to get what I want for myself. But upon examining other persons who appeared (and often claimed) to be doing righteous things for unselfish motives, I noticed that they also had the same auxiliary motives. I soon concluded that everyone is like this, which made me very proud of myself for having seen it, and more so for admitting it. I felt like the smartest and noblest person in the world, until I found others who saw and admitted the same.

The fact is, I want the big rewards. If I have to change my motives in order to get those rewards, I’m S.O.L. I also want to deserve the big rewards, because I noticed that when I had good stuff that I didn’t deserve, I didn’t feel right about it.

So, in order for me to get to worthwhile life, there must be an afterlife in which people are rewarded or punished for their willful actions independently of their motivation. If that doesn’t exist, again I’m S.O.L.

So the possibilities are these:

1. No afterlife, and I’m S.O.L.
2. Afterlife where you need to do righteous stuff without selfish motivation, and I’m S.O.L.
3. Afterlife where you get rewarded or punished independently of motivation, and I have a chance of getting to worthwhile life.

Therefore, #3 is my only sensible bet.

If the guilt that follows an unjust act neutralizes the pleasure obtained from it, you are not betting anything by giving them up. What do your theological opinions have to do with it? Wouldn't an Atheist who behaved the same way be judged the same.

It sounds like you are simply choosing to believe what is most comfortable for you to believe; and you call this truth seaking?

Honestly, if I had to put forward your options, here's what they'd be.

1) No afterlife
2) Afterlife based upon theory of justice A
3) Afterlife based upon theory of justice B
4) Afterlife based upon theory of justice C
....
N+1) Afterlife based upon theory of justice ?

Some of the theories of justice will be impossible options, as you will never be able to sate them, this includes NobelCynic's view of justice, as that which is done unselfishly. It also includes some religious afterlife options, which might be what you would consider subsets of "God is an arbitrary tyrant", but with which some people might disagree with you. In any case, given N possible theories of justice, some conflicting, and no epistemic right to distinguish between them, the postulate becomes meaningless.

The only thing that can salvage your Pascalian wager is to create a metaethic stand in which makes the plausible stands on ethics extremely limited, which seems as if it would be very difficult given your high level of ethical relativism, as you would have to argue for an overarching standard while denying it at the same time.

Because of the problems, I would argue that your position reduces to absurdity. You have to make a number of arbitrary assumptions before you get to the point of a plausible choice, and in doing so, you end up being absurd. And thus, I would argue that even if your stance is accepted, it has fallen into the irrationality and nihilism you were so afraid of from atheism.

I would already argue that he has no epistemic right to believe his own position, AKA he is not truth-seeking at all but rather has blatantly transgressed this line already.

The OP has done this AG, reducing the choices down to this:

1) No afterlife
2) Afterlife baised upon a theory of justice that corresponds with my own
3) Afterlife baised upon some other theory of justice

Analyzing the situation like that, his choice becomes a no-brainer. The only thing I am having trouble understanding is why he wants to discuss it.

True, but if I had chosen to, I doubt that I would have had any more trouble annihilating my conscience than those who have obviously succeeded at it. The first decade or so it was very difficult to bypass opportunities. But after passing the point of no return, those opportunities became less and less tempting.


Not much any more. Though I arrived at this location via Christianity, I don’t think Christianity is necessary to arrive at this location. A just afterlife would imply all necessary preconditions of its existence, and that would imply just beings in charge of it. Such a system would be unstable without a just being in charge, so I’m committed to monotheism.


Yes! He definitely would. We would all be judged by what we did with the data we found. An honest atheist would do better than a dishonest theist, and an ethical atheist better than an unethical theist.


I can’t deny that. It has been very uncomfortable getting here, but now that I’m here, it would be uncomfortable moving out of here.


The bet itself is not truth seeking; it’s simply a bet. The truth seeking preceded it. Still, I want to talk to truth seekers, because I’ve found a lot of truth that I can help them see, and they can help me see flaws in my position. Non-truth seekers waste my time.

Well, the big issue is that this seems relatively absurd to me. I mean, he is basically saying that 2 is the solution without any good or valid reason for it. You are right, there is no reason for him to talk about it. Like, an assertion is an assertion, and this is an arbitrary one. It is hard to say that one is making an arbitrary assumption and assert that in doing so one is avoiding irrationality.

That a concept of justice must rely only on a theoretical punishment after death does not apply in my case since an after life and a theoretical super judge merely strikes me as naive foolishness. The old Christian concept of treating others as one would prefer to be treated one's self is basically more potent. It has nothing to do with an imaginary super being but deals with all other living beings with empathy. On that basis it can (in my case) be carried to what other people consider extremes since I extend my empathy to all life. Naturally, living things struggle against each other to gain necessities and existence demands one struggle against other aggressive life, but there is a margin of consideration within life to minimize the mayhem. Religions in general with their concepts of punishments and rewards in an afterlife, are more focused on death than life which strikes me a psychopathic. We all eventually fall to death but focusing on it as the coercive corrective of living behavior strikes me as being way off the mark. The point of living is to enjoy it as much as possible while it lasts and help other beneficent living creatures do the same. Death is implacable and not a factor except to avoid it as much as possible.

Do you have a problem with the concept itself Sand, or just what organized religion has done with it?

I would agree that the effects that organized religion has on society is a bad one; so would the OP. His problem is that he has openly admitted that he only cares about himself, and the only way he would do anything for someone else would be if there was something in it for him. That is pretty much my definition of evil and that old Christian concept of treating others as one would prefer to be treated is a fair definition of good.

Hypotherticaly, if there was a life-force, that had a plan to make good prevail and eradicate evil; wouldn't you worship it?

I more or less concur that we all act selfishly in everything. But the concept of the self is important here. When I see a man or a child or an animal in need or suffering I incorporate that creature into myself and feel relief if I can help. It also does something for my ego to be competent in giving aid. I tend to be extreme in these matters. If I see a bee or a hornet buzzing against a bus window where I am a passenger I take a small plastic bag and capture it and free it when I get out. I am currently helping about 200 wild ducks get through the winter by feeding them. I saved a baby sparrow and raised it when I discovered it on the street. If an indigent person asks me for money I always give something if I can. I am living on a meager social security income but my pleasures in life are helping those who need it and it is a real selfish pleasure and it brings about to a very tiny degree the kind of world I prefer to live in. As an AS I find most people insensitive and not very bright but as fellow animals I do my minor best to make a better world. That's very selfish.

In general I am repelled by religion because death is so central to it. I am devoted to life.

I think your last sentence is most repellent to me. The concept of worship of anything, gods, extraordinary people, life, etc. is that of a slave crawling and groveling before some sort of dominating master and it is totally alien to any of my thinking. I don't worship anything. I try to understand it and somehow find it useful in my life. I admire a great many things and examine the basis of that admiration to dissect out why I feel that way. As a designer and artist and poet I turn my admiration into tools to use in fabricating my own productions which are not imitations but things following interesting and revealing principles. Nature has produced extraordinary beauty and utility and there is not one particle of aesthetics involved. It is all engineering. I am fascinated by this but I do not worship anything.