toldailytopic: Stephen Hawking says Heaven is a 'fairy story'

[badp]

toldailytopic: Stephen Hawking says Heaven is a 'fairy story', what do you think about that assertion?

Yes, Steven Hawking is "fairly sorry"

 

[nicholsmom]

Morality comes from humanism. Humanism is concerned with the interest and welfare of other humans. It is a good thing that comes with the survival of social species.

Where does humanism come from?

(sorry about not multi-quoting here) I asked: "...what makes one's reactions moral and another's immoral? " and you responded

That depends on the circumstances and context. A feeling of indignation can be misdirected but at other times appropriate.

Do you see the value judgments needed here? Tell me from whence come such value judgments, and don't tell me "humanism" because then I'll have to ask from whence comes humanism again, and then we will have to deal with from whence comes that source of humanism, ad infinitum until we finally get you to see that ultimate source of morality before which nothing was... or at least admit that it must come from the evolutionary process that produced mankind (from your stated presupposition of no creator god).

Yeah, that's a movie. It is fiction. You're conflating the objectives of the characters with that of the writer. I see there's a remake planned for 2012. Might have to watch it when (if) it comes out.

You claimed that no one had even thought of the things I had suggested (murder for population control and improvement of the species) and I gave you several examples of those who had, indeed, thought of just such a thing. And there are many more I could provide, including Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.

Excuse me, I did not say that. I said that if overpopulation became an obscene problem then an argument would have to take place on it. I did not say and I would not consider murder as a resolution for it. It is anti-humanistic in its methods. You seem so desperate to have me endorse this overpopulation genocide fantasy of yours.

Humanism is no more real than is existential nihilism - both are constructs of the human brain, which, according to Steven Hawking is "a computer which will stop working when its components fail." So if the brain is an organic computer, then humanism (and all philosophies) are just outputs of a computer. Outputs of a computer are the result of a program (in this case written by genetics and past input). So it's not real if we are creatures without a creator who gives another dimension to our being than blind chance and natural selection.

No, because evolution doesn't work like that and even if it did I am not a transhumanist and so I do not measure success to that end.

What makes your measure any better than that of the transhumanist? Who measures the measuring tool? Who calibrates it, and with what standard?

what do you suppose the consequences of those societies would be to those living in it? What sort of life do you think people there would live?

What difference does that make? Why is your view (or mine for that matter) better than that of the existential nihilist? Who measures "better" and with what yardstick?

I talk from the perspective of a humanist, a rationalist and an empiricist who happens to appreciate entertainment in life.

What makes your humanism, your rationalism and your empiricism moral and that of the existential nihilist not?

So I ask again: from whence comes morality if not the organic computer produced from evolutionary processes without purpose aside from survival of the species?

No, I said that allowing random murder would lead to anarchy. The government imposing obscene anti-population measures and killing people based on genetics would lead to an abject dystopia.

Not for the genetically advantaged - they'd make out like bandits.

To what end? For what cause?

Why would someone want to be at the top of the heap? Ask any politician. Ask any self-made multi-billionaire. Ask any war lord or despot.

Ambition is self-driving. It's the survival instinct on hyperdrive. Isn't that beneficial to an evolutionary process? That you and I don't like such people speaks to jealousy or altruism, but in the end means nothing if there is no purpose to life other than survival.

The fact that we don't fully understand consciousness does not lay credence to assuming that we are progammed automatons.

If we are not programmed by natural processes (genetics from evolutionary processes), then there is some force outside nature - something supernatural - granting us transcendent freedom to overcome our natural programming. If it's not natural, it's supernatural.

We invoke our own purposes in life.

But if that purpose does not come from the natural processes of the organic computer we call a brain (making it only a programmed response to stimuli), then it comes from something outside of nature - something supernatural.

So your answer is a credulous as mine. "Because I can". Nevermind the insert of a God, the essence is still exactly the same.

Not if God is real. If there is a God, He transcends all that we know - He is a supernatural force - existing apart from, as well as in and around, nature. Whereas you are stuck with the natural - which is pretty dismal, making you an organic robot and all. The difference is that supernatural plane of existence, freeing us of what is base and fatalistic.

As do I. As a humanist.

But why? Your organic computer spit that out. What makes your organic computer better than that of the warlords of Somalia?

As I said. Evolution has no goal. What are you talking about?

Quite right. No goal. No purpose. No hope. No freedom. Just organic machines doing what they are programmed to do...

Concerning what you have called my "sanctimonious tendencies"

It is apparent when you preface things with "As a Christian..."

Wow. "as a Christian" is like "in my opinion" - it shows the source of my thought process. It's a humble admission that no such though come naturally from me, but rather from the teachings of Christ.

Earlier on you seemed to imply Christian or at least theist exclusivity on declaring both rape and murder as wrong.

It isn't the declaration that is important, it's the source of the authority for saying it that makes the difference. Any murderer can say, "Rape is wrong," but what gives the statement authority? What actually makes rape wrong? Only religion gives a standard for one thing to be evil and another to be good: a supernatural measuring stick. Without that outside measuring stick, all we have is human opinion which, as I keep saying, is just the result of meaningless and random programming by evolutionary processes and societal inputs which are likewise meaningless and random.

Earlier than that (which prompted my indignation) you thanked God for being merciful (you can't begin to consider how abhorrent that looks to me in recognition of the hell doctrine).

So expression of an opinion that is contrary to your own is somehow "sanctimonious?" Were you aware that this is a Christian-owned Christian forum?

You are aware that "sanctimonious" means falsely pious, aren't you?

 

[nicholsmom]

You may be right. The Mosaic Law (in Deuteronomy) actually lays down some rules. It says if a soldier lusts after a pretty captive girl, he should give her 30 days to get her affairs in order, after which he is free to have at her. That make you feel better, having those girls know that after a month that a soldier who they have no reason to love, and ample reason to despise, will then violate her at will?

It says nothing of violation. And I think you missed the point of the passage. The man sees the woman and desires her for her beauty. He is to take her to his home and let her mourn for her lost father and mother for a month. During that time, he is to decide if he really does want her for a wife (notice that just raping her or keeping her for a sex slave is not an option) and I would think that he would woo her. If we remember that the man is looking for a wife and not a slave, then we can see that he will want to treat her well (like a wife), to do all he can to make her happy to be his wife. After all, Proverbs tells us that "...the contentions of a wife are a continual dripping." That man will not want the continual dripping :nono: Also consider (not that you ever do, but I can hope) that the woman who does not want to marry the man who brings her home from battle, can wail and cry or rant and rave and otherwise make him miserable so that he will not want to marry her after the month is over. Then he is not to brutalize her, but set her free.

How did you miss all that? :think:You can't claim that this is rape without supposing and interjecting your own worldview.

I don’t think I am forcing you to participate in this conversation, you can walk away anytime.

:crackup:

First, it presumes what I strongly challenge – that the God of the Old Testament is a kindly soul.

It presupposes that the book is to be taken as is and in its entirety. The trouble you have here is that you want to make God into a man and then judge Him based on equality with man. The Bible describes a God who is not only Omnipotent, having created the entire natural world; but also Omnipresent, existing both naturally and supernaturally; and Omniscient, knowing every thought, every action, every detail of every molecule in the natural and supernatural plains for all of time, for He transcends time (since it is part of the creation). He sees into the souls of man.

If you are going to judge the God of the Bible, you should know what you are judging. I never called Him a "kindly soul" because He cannot be squished into such an inane description. God is described in the Bible as Holy and Just - and that's a scary thing (just think of the robot Santa in The Santa Clause 2 - or think of Clu in Tron) unless it is tempered with Mercy and Love which the Bible also attributes to God.

So when you say that I've presupposed God to be a "kindly soul" you have so oversimplified my argument as to show yourself unwilling to really engage the arguments I presented at your request.

All of the most despicable tyrants combined never achieved a body count like your God did.

Did they have the power to see into the souls of men? Did they have the keys to Heaven and Hell? Did they, in fact, have any control whatever in the disposition of the souls they reaped?

And laced throughout the OT we see where, in stark contrast to the love of children that Christ taught, the OT God specifically ordered them be killed.

Supra.

Your argument that those children would most likely have grown up in their heathen societies learning the same evil ways as their parents is true. But if someone were to switch each Hebrew baby with a heathen one at birth, those Hebrew babies, growing up in the heathen society would also become corrupted, and the heathen baby in Hebrew society would learn the Torah. So it’s not that the Hebrews or heathen children are innately different, it is just which society the baby is lucky enough to be born into.

I agree. So there must have been something else going on here. What, I don't know, but then neither can you. So we can fall back on the clear descriptions of God in that same text which describes these war-time events - the Bible - for clarification. It again describes for us a Holy, Just, Merciful, and Loving God. So if we can find a way to reconcile the two things, the account of war and the descriptions of God, then we ought to do so out of common courtesy to the author, which we would do for any author.

If you convince me that is true, then I will act accordingly and specify that every cent of my charitable giving go straight to supporting abortions at Planned Parenthood.

I handled that one in my original argument And you think you argued against it with this:

After you made the case that children might actually be blessed by their early deaths, you quickly tried to forestall the natural counter – then why don’t we similarly kill kids en masse to hasten their journey to God? Rather than explaining why that was an invalid option, you seem to have swallowed a fly, and so what you said was “blah blah blah”. Care to give that reason again, this time in coherent English?

Here, try reading it again and tell me what parts aren't English (with impeccable grammar):

Theocratic Israel is the nest in the analogy I painted for you before. Now that was only an analogy and it breaks down badly in that God will not abandon the nest, though His interaction with that nest changes. It's only an analogy. So in the beginning, God singled out Abraham, then Isaak, then Jacob who became Israel. Israel had to grow into a great nation before God could give them a land of their own. So He tucked them away safely in Egypt until they had grown to a very large people. Then He made sure that they were oppressed enough to want to leave Egypt to go to a land of their own, that God had planned for them all along. But two important things were happening while Israel grew in Egypt - people were settling in the land that God had given to Abraham; and the Israelites were learning the wicked ways of the Egyptians and their gods. God's answer to these things was two-fold: He gave Israel a theocratic government in which God's Law was very strict to eliminate any wicked influence brought from Egypt and to engender righteous living; and kept them separate from the wicked nations which had overrun Abraham's land. He was building the nest - the exact sort of society needed - for the Messiah's coming. He had certain requirements for that nest and it took hundreds of years to build it through many adversities and trials, but build it He did. By the time of the arrival of Christ, Israel was a nation under a greater, more stable nation. They were humble, but weighed down by the added restrictions of the religious leaders of the time. He came to free them from the bondage of both that increased law and their own sin. The mass deaths of Israelites during that time was just like a momma bird removing a rotten stick from her nest. The mass deaths of the people inhabiting Abraham's land were like a really strong, mighty momma bird getting rid of the foxes and raccoons and opossums that would try to eat her chicks and destroy her nest. God protected His own. He still does.

 

[nicholsmom]

This is a really funny thing to say for a person who's "answers" stink of far reaching pie-in-the-sky naivety and a stubborn unwillingness to admitting that there are ugly passages in the bible that are difficult, if not impossible, to explain from a modern theological perspective. Something that a lot of other Christians are able, or at least willing, to do. Even if I was still a Christian I would be utterly embarrassed at the answers you have given which basically amount to "the women were probably OK with it."

They are scorn worthy from any perspective. Unless, that is, one is completely unreasonable or grossly naive in their approach. But I can't say that I'm that surprised of your answers considering that your the only one I've met to answer frankly that, yes, you would gladly murder a small child if God told you to.

You too, it seems, have forgotten that the Bible is a work that is to be taken in in its entirety. If you are to understand any of the stories within, you must be familiar with the characters, the main one being God Himself. And you seem to only want to judge the actions of God without care or comprehension of the person (along with his abilities and attributes) or intent of either God or the people with whom He interacts. You think that action is sufficient to make judgment, but the intent behind the action and the specific abilities of the players in that action speak louder.

As an example: let's say that one fine sunny day in June, a man walks up to a teenager in a park who is sitting on the swings chatting with his friends, pulls out a gun and shoots the teenager dead. What a horror! The man must be evil! What don't you know about this situation? You don't know the intention or ability of the man with the gun, nor the intention or ability of the teen who now lies dead. What if the man is not a man at all, but an alien who not only can travel through time, but also can view all possible routes of events future to us? What if the gun isn't really a gun but an instrument that only replaces the teen with a dead body that looks like the teen, and whisks that teen off to another location to be confined for crimes committed? What if the "man" can see through careful inspection of the possibilities of our future time that this teen will, in every possible future, kill another person who will one day discover an energy source that will eliminate poverty world-wide and usher in a new era of prosperity for all humanity? What then?

If you keep in mind the ability of God to see all and His ability to commune with souls after the death of the body (which makes carnal death a totally different thing from His perspective), then you will do better in reading through the OT.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

The materialist preconception of physical death as the ultimate end is probably why they think it's so heinous for God to kill anyone or allow them to die. They don't understand that it's simply the stepping-stone from one stage of existence to another. And it's something everybody goes through.

 

[rexlunae]

The materialist preconception of physical death as the ultimate end is probably why they think it's so heinous for God to kill anyone or allow them to die. They don't understand that it's simply the stepping-stone from one stage of existence to another. And it's something everybody goes through.

Does that mean that death is a good thing? Should we legalize murder?

 

[DavisBJ]

This is as speculative as mine, but I appreciate you thinking through the dilemmas.

Probably not a good idea to pat me on the back for entertaining the facets of this problem. Truthfully, I feel probably much as you would, if you found yourself in a discussion with a very religiously devoted resident of Afghanistan who is convinced that his countrymen that ran into Christian elementary school playground and detonated bombs were actually doing a great service in the name of Allah. Almost every arrow in your quiver of arguments fits equally well into his.

I'm just showing that war ethics are necessarily different than civilian ethics. There are also differences between ancient cultures.

Been there, done that. Like many others here at TOL, I am not a stranger to war. And I have integrated myself rather deeply into a foreign culture much different than the English-speaking ones.

How would we know that? Were these written before or after the wars started?

Do you want the party-line answer, or might I offer my opinion? In the Bible the orders telling who to include in the killing were supposedly passed down by the prophet before the army marched. But I personally think that the Hebrews took it on themselves to mercilessly attack a neighboring society. Afterwards, knowing the extent of the murderous rampage would have to be answered for – what better cover than to say it was God’s command? The account, including the manufactured (not revealed) divine marching orders, were added to the scrolls once they realized the magnitude of the horror they had perpetrated.

That wasn't my specific point. I was, in as forward a manner as I perceived, pointing out that we both had prior commitments before coming to these texts and that they drove our particular contrasting agendas.

But what you authored was a rather impressive example of poisoning the well – numerous claims that I am a poor one to listen to since I have an agenda that supposedly keeps me from being impartial.

And it should be rather easy to give chapter and verse where the Bible says "here is the good that will be accomplished by killing the kids."

 

[Lon]

Probably not a good idea to pat me on the back for entertaining the facets of this problem. Been there, done that. Like many others here at TOL, I am not a stranger to war. And I have integrated myself rather deeply into a foreign culture much different than the English-speaking ones.

To even begin discussion is a step in the right direction.

Do you want the party-line answer, or might I offer my opinion? In the Bible the orders telling who to include in the killing were supposedly passed down by the prophet before the army marched. But I personally think that the Hebrews took it on themselves to mercilessly attack a neighboring society. Afterwards, knowing the extent of the murderous rampage would have to be answered for – what better cover than to say it was God’s command? The account, including the manufactured (not revealed) divine marching orders, were added to the scrolls once they realized the magnitude of the horror they had perpetrated.

I still applaud that you are least working on it. It keeps it from being a baby/bathwater conclusion.

But what you authored was a rather impressive example of poisoning the well – numerous claims that I am a poor one to listen to since I have an agenda that supposedly keeps me from being impartial.

Such cannot be helped. Even here, you suggest not patting you on the back and how you liken the discussion. I wouldn't say I'm poisoning anything but pointing out where it may/has occured.

And it should be rather easy to give chapter and verse where the Bible says "here is the good that will be accomplished by killing the kids."

Sure, it'd have been nice. What we have is something different. As I've read about the cultures of the time, we can see a marked difference begin concerning barbarianism. The Ninevites flayed the skin off of live victims, others burned their own children to Molech. Again, I have sympathies for what God had to work with. He wasn't saving a perfect race. They weren't chosen because of their fine ethical standards. We see attempts at their reform frustrated. I take something different away from my OT readings than "go and do likewise." I see grace extended to a people who were "not His people," through mercy.

The only scenario that comes to mind is how I would be villified for taking over dictatorship of all of Africa, no matter what I did. The blame would set upon me, right or wrong, no matter if those ills were present before I ever got there.

I would suggest this particular is barely different. We have a God who takes up the cause and then the press hits the fan with public opinion. Some good, others castigating.

Oh, lest I forget: war ethics have always troubled the entire civil world. War is a different kind of animal and the lines of right/wrong are severally strained. I didn't protest the Vietnam war (was a kid then, but still).

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Does that mean that death is a good thing?

Of course not. It's just not the worst thing that can happen to someone, from a Christian perspective.

Should we legalize murder?

No.

 

[Skavau]

Where does humanism come from?

Us. Just like where all ethical ideologies come from.

Do you see the value judgments needed here? Tell me from whence come such value judgments, and don't tell me "humanism" because then I'll have to ask from whence comes humanism again, and then we will have to deal with from whence comes that source of humanism, ad infinitum until we finally get you to see that ultimate source of morality before which nothing was...

I don't believe in an 'ultimate source of morality'. Morality is an endeavour by us, for us. There is no coherent 'ultimate source' anymore then there can be any coherent objective best colour or best song. It is a nonsensical term. Behavioural constraints with consideration and understanding of others, or what one ought to do or not do within the consideration and context of others cannot be objectified.

or at least admit that it must come from the evolutionary process that produced mankind (from your stated presupposition of no creator god).

We would have of course derived it from our evolution. In any case, I don't presuppose there is no God. I am an agnostic atheist, not a gnostic atheist.

You claimed that no one had even thought of the things I had suggested (murder for population control and improvement of the species) and I gave you several examples of those who had, indeed, thought of just such a thing. And there are many more I could provide, including Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.

Regarding your example, it is fiction. I cannot emphasis this enough. You might as well be arguing that if we encountered extra-terrestrial life then we would impose racial apartheid upon them and submit them to excluded camps (as the movie District 9 suggests). You might as well argue that there exists people who want to abolish human emotion (as Equilibrium does). Almost everything is covered in literature, movies and video games. There's all sorts of alternate history, cyberpunk possibilities, vast space opera hypotheticals and post-apocalyptic predictions. None of them though are actually real.

Regarding Mein Kampf, sure. It was an inane book Hitler produced whilst in prison. Any relevant modern-day movements that aspire to nullify overpopulation through murder?

Humanism is no more real than is existential nihilism - both are constructs of the human brain, which, according to Steven Hawking is "a computer which will stop working when its components fail."

Okay. So?

So if the brain is an organic computer, then humanism (and all philosophies) are just outputs of a computer. Outputs of a computer are the result of a program (in this case written by genetics and past input). So it's not real if we are creatures without a creator who gives another dimension to our being than blind chance and natural selection.

This is some extreme literalism you're taking to Hawkings statements. It seems about as accurate as the representation of the 'God particle' by theists.

What makes your measure any better than that of the transhumanist? Who measures the measuring tool? Who calibrates it, and with what standard?

These are loaded questions: no-one. I have yet to meet any transhumanist (beyond the possible exception of Scientologists and other UFO cults) though they are benign in nature (excluding Scientology) and just find themselves waiting for alien interaction. In any case, my measure respects human liberty. If any transhumanism as you suggest I should support was directed towards the human species then know that millions if not billions would suffer and die for it and it would statistically be to the detriment of the human population.

What difference does that make? Why is your view (or mine for that matter) better than that of the existential nihilist? Who measures "better" and with what yardstick?

Both respect other people's right to live their own lives. I could, say, hypothetically have my own views of how people should act or what they should do but I should only influence myself and direct myself. I am in no position to tell other people what to do. You have to advance the argument (on my behalf, humorously) that others should be in the position where they can impose their will upon others.

Regarding though your frivolous "what difference does it make?" It makes every difference. The peacefulness in totalitarianism is often unnerving. It can produce some grand artifacts and impose a lot of military might - but all those held captive inside have no life. They have no point of existing. If you reject the human spirit in a society then you make it entirely pointless.

What makes your humanism, your rationalism and your empiricism moral and that of the existential nihilist not?

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the existential nihilist. I know one and he doesn't reject civilisation, just all objective meaning. In any case, supposing we have one that decries it all then they would probably just commit suicide (there would be no ideology to impose upon others, as that would be an imposition of meaning) or come along quietly. In any case, such a nihilist wouldn't even describe himself as moral.

Not for the genetically advantaged - they'd make out like bandits.

Until the next group of genetically advantaged (if evolution even works out like that, which it does not) suppresses them. Millions would be suppressed and killed for this to happen and would lead to an abject dystopia for the masses.

Why would someone want to be at the top of the heap? Ask any politician. Ask any self-made multi-billionaire. Ask any war lord or despot.

What's the point of being on the top of a completely meaningless heap? Politicians don't all act solely on self-interest and those that do often are just happy living a materialistic life (not necessarily gaining power).

Ambition is self-driving. It's the survival instinct on hyperdrive. Isn't that beneficial to an evolutionary process? That you and I don't like such people speaks to jealousy or altruism, but in the end means nothing if there is no purpose to life other than survival.

We make our own purposes in life. Again: There is no objective purpose. Survival is just the necessary requirement if you consider life to be worth living.

If we are not programmed by natural processes (genetics from evolutionary processes), then there is some force outside nature - something supernatural - granting us transcendent freedom to overcome our natural programming. If it's not natural, it's supernatural.

[citation needed]

But if that purpose does not come from the natural processes of the organic computer we call a brain (making it only a programmed response to stimuli), then it comes from something outside of nature - something supernatural.

Again, the fact we don't understand the brain does not completely preclude sentience by natural means. You are answering an unknown with another unknown. It is intellectually pointless.

Not if God is real. If there is a God, He transcends all that we know - He is a supernatural force - existing apart from, as well as in and around, nature. Whereas you are stuck with the natural - which is pretty dismal, making you an organic robot and all. The difference is that supernatural plane of existence, freeing us of what is base and fatalistic.

But on what you said: the reasons for our enjoyment are still there. If God exists, then we both enjoy fiction based on God providing us with the capacity to do so (beyond that it is still "because we do") and if God does not exist, then we still enjoy it.

Quite right. No goal. No purpose. No hope. No freedom. Just organic machines doing what they are programmed to do...

We do not derive an ought from an is (or as I've actually have to say before, the converse). I am sure you disagree. The fact that we might not like how amoral the natural universe is does not mean it can't be that way.

It isn't the declaration that is important, it's the source of the authority for saying it that makes the difference.

This part is complete rubbish. Supposing it was remotely true then the authority behind it could decree anything and you would hold it to be moral. I am sure (I hope) that you do not only say that murder and rape are wrong purely because God says so. I am sure and hope that you have a more complex moral understanding than that.

Any murderer can say, "Rape is wrong," but what gives the statement authority? What actually makes rape wrong? Only religion gives a standard for one thing to be evil and another to be good: a supernatural measuring stick.

Going by your prior logic, the question as to what makes rape wrong would be pointless. You could only answer in one way (that God says so). This tells us how you know but does not tell us why it is wrong.

Without that outside measuring stick, all we have is human opinion which, as I keep saying, is just the result of meaningless and random programming by evolutionary processes and societal inputs which are likewise meaningless and random.

Your contempt of the human condition and by extension humanity persists.

So expression of an opinion that is contrary to your own is somehow "sanctimonious?" Were you aware that this is a Christian-owned Christian forum?

No, an expression of support and exuse-making for torture is sanctimonious at best. Yes I am aware this is a Christian owned forum.

You are aware that "sanctimonious" means falsely pious, aren't you?

Very much so.

 

[Dr.Watson]

As an example:...

The unfortunate thing for you in this hypothetical is that we (well, at least I,) live in reality and not your little make-believe worlds you keep imagining in order to justify horrible acts of human malice. Sorry, but your excuses are borderline insanity and have me seriously questioning your mental state. They give evidence that you have completely divorced reality here.

 

[nicholsmom]

The unfortunate thing for you in this hypothetical is that we (well, at least I,) live in reality and not your little make-believe worlds you keep imagining in order to justify horrible acts of human malice. Sorry, but your excuses are borderline insanity and have me seriously questioning your mental state. They give evidence that you have completely divorced reality here.

Here's the point, Doc: if you are to judge the characters in a story, you must do so in light of the context of that story. We have been talking about the stories in the Bible and its characters. I have not asked anyone to believe that the Bible is true, I have only been asking that the characters, mostly the main character, be judged based on the context of the book in which they are found.

I don't have a problem with you thinking that the context of the Bible is a make-believe world where there are at least two plains of existence (natural and supernatural). What you have done though is to take the main character out of the context of that world and force him into a mold of your choosing in a totally different world - the one that you perceive as real; the one where there is only one plain of existence and that is the natural.

I mean, what if you took Harry Potter out of his books and placed him in a completely natural world where there is no magic or magical creatures or magical plants? If you expected him to prove to you that he could do magic while restricted to the rules of a totally other world than that described in his books, you'd have made only the point that his ability to do magic (or even exist) relies on being in the world described in his books.

It's the same thing here. If you are to judge the God of the Bible, then you must do so within the context of the world being described therein. So it makes sense to deride Christians for believing in such a world (though no evidence can disprove it, nor at this time in our scientific evolution can it be proved that more than one plain of existence is experienced by humans simultaneously), but it makes no sense to criticize the main character in the Bible for behaving in its stories according to the rules of that world described therein.

I do hope this helps :e4e:

 

[Jukia]

Here's the point, Doc: if you are to judge the characters in a story, you must do so in light of the context of that story. We have been talking about the stories in the Bible and its characters. I have not asked anyone to believe that the Bible is true, I have only been asking that the characters, mostly the main character, be judged based on the context of the book in which they are found.

I don't have a problem with you thinking that the context of the Bible is a make-believe world where there are at least two plains of existence (natural and supernatural). What you have done though is to take the main character out of the context of that world and force him into a mold of your choosing in a totally different world - the one that you perceive as real; the one where there is only one plain of existence and that is the natural.

I mean, what if you took Harry Potter out of his books and placed him in a completely natural world where there is no magic or magical creatures or magical plants? If you expected him to prove to you that he could do magic while restricted to the rules of a totally other world than that described in his books, you'd have made only the point that his ability to do magic (or even exist) relies on being in the world described in his books.

It's the same thing here. If you are to judge the God of the Bible, then you must do so within the context of the world being described therein. So it makes sense to deride Christians for believing in such a world (though no evidence can disprove it, nor at this time in our scientific evolution can it be proved that more than one plain of existence is experienced by humans simultaneously), but it makes no sense to criticize the main character in the Bible for behaving in its stories according to the rules of that world described therein.

I do hope this helps :e4e:

Is the Bible just a story? Or is it an accurate history? We know Harry Potter is just a story, but I thought many people on TOL took the Bible as literal.

 

[nicholsmom]

Us. Just like where all ethical ideologies come from.

I don't believe in an 'ultimate source of morality'. Morality is an endeavour by us, for us. There is no coherent 'ultimate source' anymore then there can be any coherent objective best colour or best song. It is a nonsensical term.

Right. This is what I've been getting at. Your view of morality is no better than that of the nihilist. And since morality is a measure of relative goodness and badness (value judgments - this is better than that), then it is useless. Let me see if I can explain it better with an example.

Joe has adopted a morality in which spitting is just fine so long as the spit doesn't land on someone else's property because you have no right to mess with other people's stuff. Fred's morality has a different take on it - in his, you don't spit on your own stuff because it is hating yourself which is counter-productive.

One day, Joe goes over to Fred's place for a game of chess. Joe brings his case containing his chess set - pretty nice, all lined with velvet for each polished piece. He takes out the board and begins placing the men on it, and Fred spits into the case.

"What the heck, Fred?" says Joe.
"Oh, sorry about that - had a nasty taste in my mouth." responds Fred.
"Well, don't do it again." grumbles Joe as he wipes the spit out with a napkin.

Fred spits again, right into the case. "Taste just won't go away. I'm getting a beer to wash it out. You want one?" he asks.

Joe is beside himself with fury at Fred's lack of scruples - I mean, if he needed to spit, he could have spit on his lawn or something, but to spit on another man's property, that was just wrong. So he packs up his stuff and goes home, leaving Fred wondering what his problem is - he'd just offered Joe a beer, he'd apologized about his need to spit. I mean what did he expect? Did he think Fred ought to mess up his own sink or lawn with that stuff? That would be just wrong! Didn't Joe understand the importance of respecting one's own property? Shesh!

If there is no base standard of morality, it is pointless to even have one - especially concerning the behavior of others. I mean it makes some sort of sense to have a personal code of conduct designed to increase your happiness, whether that means maintaining good relations with others or just getting what you most desire without getting tossed in jail. What doesn't make sense is expecting anyone else to abide by your code, because it's all relative if there is no ultimate standard of morality that comes from outside our ability to affect it.

We would have of course derived it from our evolution.

So we have no real power over our own idea of morality - it is the product of programming by random chance, natural selection, and prior input. Biological computers with programmed responses to stimuli. No real thought, so no real morality - just a construct of the computer mind.

Regarding your example, it is fiction. I cannot emphasis this enough....None of them though are actually real.

Regarding Mein Kampf, sure. It was an inane book Hitler produced whilst in prison. Any relevant modern-day movements that aspire to nullify overpopulation through murder?

The point, once again, was that you had said that no one had even thought of such a thing as murder and rape as a means to an evolutionary end, but clearly men have - the writers of these fictions and their advisers and people like Stalin and Hitler. That is the only point I wished to make - that people do, in fact, think of such things - even if some of them conclude that it would not be a happy world that would be produced by such purposeful action. It has been and continues to be thought of.

Okay. So?

So you have no right to claim that your morality is better than anyone's - even that of the God of the Bible - if morality is just your own opinion, regardless how it's shared by some others, then there is nothing whatever to make your opinion on morality better than mine or God's, or Hitler's. And therefore, you've no right to judge others for their behavior or their belief.

This is some extreme literalism you're taking to Hawkings statements. It seems about as accurate as the representation of the 'God particle' by theists.

Not familiar. You think Hawkings doesn't believe his own rhetoric? You think he believes in an afterlife? The notion of the biological machine is one that comes from logic and reasoning. It's the only path through evolution that makes any sense at all if there is no influence outside the natural. That I believe him when he says he believes that our minds are like a computer that just shuts down, never again to be re-booted, at death, only speaks to my understanding of his ability in logic and reason. That you don't believe him means that you haven't fully thought this one out.

The only natural responses to the questions of emotion, art, religion, and the like are the ones where scientists try to pinpoint them in the human brain as programmed responses to stimuli. Had you not noticed? And the only reason that they make this attempt is to respond to the supernatural feel of these heuristic concepts. They are either constructs of our brains or they are evidence of an influence outside of what is measurable - outside of nature.

I could, say, hypothetically have my own views of how people should act or what they should do but I should only influence myself and direct myself. I am in no position to tell other people what to do.

Right. So why is it that you presume to judge anyone, including the main character of the Bible?

Regarding though your frivolous "what difference does it make?" It makes every difference. The peacefulness in totalitarianism is often unnerving. It can produce some grand artifacts and impose a lot of military might - but all those held captive inside have no life. They have no point of existing. If you reject the human spirit in a society then you make it entirely pointless.

So? If there is no afterlife, it is pointless anyway :idunno: Why bother with stuff like peace and happiness if it will all end and we won't even be able to remember all that peace and happiness? Why bother if happiness and love are only responses to stimuli - a computer program that was put there by evolutionary processes for the purpose of survival? The futility of naturalism is so shocking that I wonder that anyone can stand it for a moment, much less a lifetime.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the existential nihilist.

Because it's a philosophy with a morality different from your own - it's only an example of how your moral opinion is no better than anyone's unless there is an objective standard - which necessarily come from outside our influence.

What's the point of being on the top of a completely meaningless heap?

None that I can see, but there are many who somehow desire it. Anarchy is one means to that end.

We make our own purposes in life.

Out of what? If the really smart atheistic scientists are right, then your "purposes" are merely pre-programmed responses to stimuli - programmed for the purpose of survival of the species and the individual.

Again, the fact we don't understand the brain does not completely preclude sentience by natural means. You are answering an unknown with another unknown. It is intellectually pointless.

I'm only giving you the answer given by the best and brightest scientists in the area of the brain. They know that in order to keep out the supernatural for things like love and joy and sorrow, they have to find natural reasons for them. So they look to the computer brain and try to find it in there, in the programming.

If God exists, then we both enjoy fiction based on God providing us with the capacity to do so (beyond that it is still "because we do") and if God does not exist, then we still enjoy it.

But if God does not exist, then our "enjoyment" is only a pre-programmed response to stimuli - not real in any meaningful sense of the word. Nor lasting even in memory if we are all to go to oblivion upon death.

This part is complete rubbish. Supposing it was remotely true then the authority behind it could decree anything and you would hold it to be moral.

That is true. The disciples said the same to Christ when many abandoned Him for explaining a very uncomfortable bit of the gospel. He asked them if they would also leave and they (Peter speaking for them) responded, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

But happily, the God described in the Bible is determined to provide us with joy, peace, newness (adventure), love, light, truth, security, and every good thing we can think of.

I am sure (I hope) that you do not only say that murder and rape are wrong purely because God says so.

You are partly right in this. It isn't because God says so, but rather because He is so. I do not think that murder, rape, nor homosexuality are wrong for any intrinsic reason. They are wrong because they are contrary to the purpose for which God made us.

I am sure and hope that you have a more complex moral understanding than that.

I do, but it's all wrapped up in the being of God, not in the heart of sinful, depraved man. I don't presume to shrink God into the natural world, stripping Him of the supernatural. I don't assign Him a place among men who are helpless to either know the heart of a man or determine the dwelling place of that man's eternal soul.

Going by your prior logic, the question as to what makes rape wrong would be pointless. You could only answer in one way (that God says so). This tells us how you know but does not tell us why it is wrong.

Right. Supra.

Your contempt of the human condition and by extension humanity persists.

Yep.

No, an expression of support and exuse-making for torture is sanctimonious at best.

Support for torture is falsely pious? Tell that to the Chinese; tell it to the North Koreans; and Hitler...

 

[nicholsmom]

Is the Bible just a story? Or is it an accurate history? We know Harry Potter is just a story, but I thought many people on TOL took the Bible as literal.

You have missed the point entirely, Jukia. Try reading it again and if you don't get it then, go through the argument point by point stating your questions along the way, and I'll do my best to answer.

 

[Jukia]

You have missed the point entirely, Jukia. Try reading it again and if you don't get it then, go through the argument point by point stating your questions along the way, and I'll do my best to answer.

Make it easy for me. Is it just a story as your post seemed to say or is it historically accurate? If historically accurate and driven by your particular god, then he or she cares not a whit about the little chilluns killed by the Israelites or Noah's flood.

 

[rexlunae]

Of course not. It's just not the worst thing that can happen to someone, from a Christian perspective.

Well, I'd agree that death isn't the worst thing that can happen to someone. But objectively, even for Christians, it's pretty bad.

No.

Even if a person claims to have God's permission for it?

 

[Skavau]

Right. This is what I've been getting at. Your view of morality is no better than that of the nihilist.

That depends on the form of the Nihilist.

Joe has adopted a morality in which spitting is just fine so long as the spit doesn't land on someone else's property because you have no right to mess with other people's stuff. Fred's morality has a different take on it - in his, you don't spit on your own stuff because it is hating yourself which is counter-productive.

One day, Joe goes over to Fred's place for a game of chess. Joe brings his case containing his chess set - pretty nice, all lined with velvet for each polished piece. He takes out the board and begins placing the men on it, and Fred spits into the case.

"What the heck, Fred?" says Joe.
"Oh, sorry about that - had a nasty taste in my mouth." responds Fred.
"Well, don't do it again." grumbles Joe as he wipes the spit out with a napkin.

Fred spits again, right into the case. "Taste just won't go away. I'm getting a beer to wash it out. You want one?" he asks.

Fred is being completely out of line. By all means he may feel that spitting onto his own stuff is 'self-hating' but to simply take it upon himself based on that to spit on the property of others without even informing them prior is completely selfish, inconsiderate and the direct imposition of values onto another. It would (although minor in evaluation of everything else) be amoral.

Joe is beside himself with fury at Fred's lack of scruples - I mean, if he needed to spit, he could have spit on his lawn or something, but to spit on another man's property, that was just wrong. So he packs up his stuff and goes home, leaving Fred wondering what his problem is - he'd just offered Joe a beer, he'd apologized about his need to spit. I mean what did he expect? Did he think Fred ought to mess up his own sink or lawn with that stuff? That would be just wrong! Didn't Joe understand the importance of respecting one's own property? Shesh!

Joe could have asked him to stop spitting on his stuff rather than leaving him completely confused. That he didn't doesn't help anything. This analogy is strange.

If there is no base standard of morality, it is pointless to even have one - especially concerning the behavior of others.

Sure, if you're for the complete dissolution of civilization. Thankfully most of us tend to be sane and welcome civil society as a tool for everyone to live long, full and free lives.

I mean it makes some sort of sense to have a personal code of conduct designed to increase your happiness, whether that means maintaining good relations with others or just getting what you most desire without getting tossed in jail.

Except if everyone held this mindset the corruption would effectively quidluple and civilization would quickly find itself crippled and there would no longer remain any benefit in abusing other people for your own gain.

What doesn't make sense is expecting anyone else to abide by your code, because it's all relative if there is no ultimate standard of morality that comes from outside our ability to affect it.

That's why Fred is absurd in your analogy. He is expecting Joe to just accept that he should spit on his property (as he has some absurd problem with doing it to his own). That is why I am sympathetic to libertarianism and it is why I support human rights. I don't believe another human being should impose themselves on others. You really should take this to someone like Traditio or any pseudo-theocrat apologist on here that has an unimagined fantasy of the world or the USA living under some Christian Law.

So we have no real power over our own idea of morality - it is the product of programming by random chance, natural selection, and prior input. Biological computers with programmed responses to stimuli. No real thought, so no real morality - just a construct of the computer mind.

Ironically, I knew you'd say that. Evolution providing us with sentience necessarily provided us with our morality. It accounts for the origins of our morality, not what we actually ought to do. If you can't see the difference between that then you simply can't see the difference between that and there's nothing I can do.

The point, once again, was that you had said that no one had even thought of such a thing as murder and rape as a means to an evolutionary end, but clearly men have - the writers of these fictions and their advisers and people like Stalin and Hitler.

I said that no-one has seriously proposed it as a reaction to overpopulation. The fact that you cited a single work of fiction to suggest that it has been considered was just absurd. Again, I point to the fact that almost every hypothetical has been covered in fiction. So what?

That is the only point I wished to make - that people do, in fact, think of such things - even if some of them conclude that it would not be a happy world that would be produced by such purposeful action. It has been and continues to be thought of.

Yeah. So? (Overpopulation trimming it might be added is not a specifically interesting or overused theme).

So you have no right to claim that your morality is better than anyone's - even that of the God of the Bible - if morality is just your own opinion, regardless how it's shared by some others, then there is nothing whatever to make your opinion on morality better than mine or God's, or Hitler's. And therefore, you've no right to judge others for their behavior or their belief.

I'll judge people morally based on what I consider important for civilization. I will do it through reason and empiricism. I work and operate on those grounds.

Not familiar. You think Hawkings doesn't believe his own rhetoric? You think he believes in an afterlife? The notion of the biological machine is one that comes from logic and reasoning. It's the only path through evolution that makes any sense at all if there is no influence outside the natural.

Hawkings does not believe in an afterlife (and the pathetic whining over his description of the afterlife was amusing to say the least. Who didn't already suspect he was atheistic towards it?). Hawkings does believe that the brain ceases to be after death. So what?

That I believe him when he says he believes that our minds are like a computer that just shuts down, never again to be re-booted, at death, only speaks to my understanding of his ability in logic and reason. That you don't believe him means that you haven't fully thought this one out.

That's the literalism there. When he described our minds as like a computer you took it to mean that he necessarily believed that our minds are exactly like a computer. In this context he only referred to it being like a computer in the sense that it ceases to function once the 'hardware' is gone.

Right. So why is it that you presume to judge anyone, including the main character of the Bible?

How is judging the actions of someone telling them what to do? I can judge, observe and critique but I cannot direct their actions.

So? If there is no afterlife, it is pointless anyway

That's not your call to make. Certainly not for me. I'll decide what is important to me. The fact that I believe life is not eternal makes it all the more precious and worth holding onto. I could argue that you view life on earth itself as nothing more than a waiting room for eternal life and therefore make the claim that everything that from your perspective everything that happens to you on here is pointless. I won't do that though, because it is presumptive and insulting.

Why bother with stuff like peace and happiness if it will all end and we won't even be able to remember all that peace and happiness? Why bother if happiness and love are only responses to stimuli - a computer program that was put there by evolutionary processes for the purpose of survival? The futility of naturalism is so shocking that I wonder that anyone can stand it for a moment, much less a lifetime.

I happen to like living. I'm not so anti-human as to hold existence in contempt.

Because it's a philosophy with a morality different from your own - it's only an example of how your moral opinion is no better than anyone's unless there is an objective standard - which necessarily come from outside our influence.

You could barely call the existential nihilist an adherent to either philosophy or morality. By definition.

None that I can see, but there are many who somehow desire it. Anarchy is one means to that end.

Anarchy would dismantle the heap. I'm not sure what you mean here.

Out of what? If the really smart atheistic scientists are right, then your "purposes" are merely pre-programmed responses to stimuli - programmed for the purpose of survival of the species and the individual.

Can you give me some information on this please? I'd like to see some information that says that everything we do is a result of biological pre-programming.

I'm only giving you the answer given by the best and brightest scientists in the area of the brain. They know that in order to keep out the supernatural for things like love and joy and sorrow, they have to find natural reasons for them. So they look to the computer brain and try to find it in there, in the programming.

You have not citated any of this yet. You've just kept repeating the claims. You're also now parroting a ludicrious conspiracy theory by suggesting all cognitive scientists are conspiring together to 'keep out' supernatural explanations for love, joy and sorrow (amongst all other emotions).

That is true. The disciples said the same to Christ when many abandoned Him for explaining a very uncomfortable bit of the gospel. He asked them if they would also leave and they (Peter speaking for them) responded, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

So God could, hypothetically approve of murder and you would support it?

You are partly right in this. It isn't because God says so, but rather because He is so. I do not think that murder, rape, nor homosexuality are wrong for any intrinsic reason. They are wrong because they are contrary to the purpose for which God made us.

Then if God chose to be other than what he is and approved of murder, rape and homosexuality for our purposes then you necessarily would have to endorse it.

Right. Supra.

Ugh. Frivolous response.

Yep.

Wow. You're a nihilist yourself in disguise.

Support for torture is falsely pious? Tell that to the Chinese; tell it to the North Koreans; and Hitler...

Give me a direct line to the North Korean and Chinese leadership and I shall. Support for torture is disgraceful no matter who is propping it up and no matter who for. It is inexcusable.

 

[Silent Hunter]

That depends on the form of the Nihilist.

Fred is being completely out of line. By all means he may feel that spitting onto his own stuff is 'self-hating' but to simply take it upon himself based on that to spit on the property of others without even informing them prior is completely selfish, inconsiderate and the direct imposition of values onto another. It would (although minor in evaluation of everything else) be amoral.

Joe could have asked him to stop spitting on his stuff rather than leaving him completely confused. That he didn't doesn't help anything. This analogy is strange.

Sure, if you're for the complete dissolution of civilization. Thankfully most of us tend to be sane and welcome civil society as a tool for everyone to live long, full and free lives.

Except if everyone held this mindset the corruption would effectively quidluple and civilization would quickly find itself crippled and there would no longer remain any benefit in abusing other people for your own gain.

That's why Fred is absurd in your analogy. He is expecting Joe to just accept that he should spit on his property (as he has some absurd problem with doing it to his own). That is why I am sympathetic to libertarianism and it is why I support human rights. I don't believe another human being should impose themselves on others. You really should take this to someone like Traditio or any pseudo-theocrat apologist on here that has an unimagined fantasy of the world or the USA living under some Christian Law.

Ironically, I knew you'd say that. Evolution providing us with sentience necessarily provided us with our morality. It accounts for the origins of our morality, not what we actually ought to do. If you can't see the difference between that then you simply can't see the difference between that and there's nothing I can do.

I said that no-one has seriously proposed it as a reaction to overpopulation. The fact that you cited a single work of fiction to suggest that it has been considered was just absurd. Again, I point to the fact that almost every hypothetical has been covered in fiction. So what?

Yeah. So? (Overpopulation trimming it might be added is not a specifically interesting or overused theme).

I'll judge people morally based on what I consider important for civilization. I will do it through reason and empiricism. I work and operate on those grounds.

Hawkings does not believe in an afterlife (and the pathetic whining over his description of the afterlife was amusing to say the least. Who didn't already suspect he was atheistic towards it?). Hawkings does believe that the brain ceases to be after death. So what?

That's the literalism there. When he described our minds as like a computer you took it to mean that he necessarily believed that our minds are exactly like a computer. In this context he only referred to it being like a computer in the sense that it ceases to function once the 'hardware' is gone.

How is judging the actions of someone telling them what to do? I can judge, observe and critique but I cannot direct their actions.

That's not your call to make. Certainly not for me. I'll decide what is important to me. The fact that I believe life is not eternal makes it all the more precious and worth holding onto. I could argue that you view life on earth itself as nothing more than a waiting room for eternal life and therefore make the claim that everything that from your perspective everything that happens to you on here is pointless. I won't do that though, because it is presumptive and insulting.

I happen to like living. I'm not so anti-human as to hold existence in contempt.

You could barely call the existential nihilist an adherent to either philosophy or morality. By definition.

Anarchy would dismantle the heap. I'm not sure what you mean here.

Can you give me some information on this please? I'd like to see some information that says that everything we do is a result of biological pre-programming.

You have not citated any of this yet. You've just kept repeating the claims. You're also now parroting a ludicrious conspiracy theory by suggesting all cognitive scientists are conspiring together to 'keep out' supernatural explanations for love, joy and sorrow (amongst all other emotions).

So God could, hypothetically approve of murder and you would support it?

Then if God chose to be other than what he is and approved of murder, rape and homosexuality for our purposes then you necessarily would have to endorse it.

Ugh. Frivolous response.

Wow. You're a nihilist yourself in disguise.

Give me a direct line to the North Korean and Chinese leadership and I shall. Support for torture is disgraceful no matter who is propping it up and no matter who for. It is inexcusable.

. . . good enough to be posted a second (and a third) time . . .

:thumb:

 

[nicholsmom]

That depends on the form of the Nihilist.

No, it doesn't. Morality, apart from a supernatural standard, is all natural and therefore relative to all else natural. No made up standard is better than another because there is no ultimate standard against which to measure "better."

Stupidly, I'll try another analogy here (you seem to completely miss the point of the use of analogies, but it's the best I have for trying to trick you into actually considering my points). There is no accounting for taste. One person enjoys a cup of black coffee made strong with medium-roast, freshly ground beans from Ethiopia, whereas another person would say "Blech" while sipping a cup of cafe au lait made with very-dark-roast Colombian beans (Starbucks, for example). Can we say that the African coffee drinker has better taste than the one drinking coffee so burnt that it needs milk in quantity? Only if we personally prefer the African beans roasted medium. Another person's taste can only be measured according to our own - it's all relative to what we personally like and dislike.

As to this:

Fred is being completely out of line.... This analogy is strange.

You actually used the word, "analogy," but from your comments, you clearly don't get the purpose of the use of analogy - or you are being purposely obtuse in making yourself absolutely certain that you cannot understand my pov. It reminds me of the girls in high school who wouldn't take the higher science and math courses because they didn't want anyone knowing that they were that smart It's sad really.

Here's a nice assertion (without foundation, without evidence of any sort - bare naked :shocked

Sure, if you're for the complete dissolution of civilization.

... because there's only one sort of civilization that's worthy of the title - the one that you like? :rain:

Except if everyone held this mindset the corruption would effectively quidluple and civilization would quickly find itself crippled and there would no longer remain any benefit in abusing other people for your own gain.

Quite the string of value judgments there, and nothing else. Do you like your coffee black or with milk or cream?

Oh look! Even more here:

That's why Fred is absurd in your analogy. He is expecting Joe to just accept that he should spit on his property (as he has some absurd problem with doing it to his own).

Wow. You are a very intolerant individual, aren't you?

This shows some honesty:

That is why I am sympathetic to libertarianism and it is why I support human rights.

See? You are telling us your opinion and saying that it's your opinion. :thumb:

But then you ruin it here:

I don't believe another human being should impose themselves on others. You really should take this to someone like Traditio or any pseudo-theocrat apologist on here that has an unimagined fantasy of the world or the USA living under some Christian Law.

More intolerance. What right have you to impose yourself on others to claim that they ought not impose themselves on others? I mean, it's your own standard to not impose yourself on others, so why do you try to impose your own personal standard on others? It's hypocritical.

This is very telling:

I'll judge people morally based on what I consider important for civilization. I will do it through reason and empiricism. I work and operate on those grounds.

So what do you think? Shall we all bow to your superior reason and experience? What gives you the right? How dare you judge others based on your personal standard. You are seriously intolerant :mmph:

How is judging the actions of someone telling them what to do? I can judge, observe and critique but I cannot direct their actions.

So you don't advocate that laws change based on your opinion of morality? You don't support the laws against murder and rape? What would you do if someone murdered your child or your mother? Would you demand justice? Yes you would, and that is how your opinion concerning morality does indeed amount to your forcing your morals on others.

The fact that I believe life is not eternal makes it all the more precious and worth holding onto.

To what end? What do you really have here? A few short decades and its all over - forever and nothing with which to look back on it all. Why bother? What's the point?
No really. I want to know what you think the point is, and why anyone ought to bother, but don't write your answer, please, until you've read the part below about the brain-computer and its constructs.

I could argue that you view life on earth itself as nothing more than a waiting room for eternal life and therefore make the claim that everything that from your perspective everything that happens to you on here is pointless. I won't do that though, because it is presumptive and insulting.

Not insulting to anyone but yourself since it's presumptive because it couldn't be further from the truth. Christ made it clear, and Paul and the other epistle-writers expounded on it, that how we live here in this plain affects deeply our life in eternity. We are promised reward; we are told to lay up treasures in heaven by our conduct here; we are told to be careful not to waste our time with useless endeavors because they will be burned up at the judgment (while we could instead be storing up those treasures). Earth is more than a waiting room - it's more of a staging ground where all is prepared diligently for the action to come.


On to the other point: biological computers.

Evolution providing us with sentience

Is our sentience real? How can you know? Scientists would say it is not real, but rather a programmed response to stimuli. See, have a look:

"There is no single, definitive 'stream of consciousness,' because there is no central Headquarters, no Cartesian Theater where 'it all comes together' for the perusal of a Central Meaner. Instead of such a single stream (however wide), there are multiple channels in which specialist circuits try, in parallel pandemoniums, to do their various things, creating Multiple Drafts as they go. Most of these fragmentary drafts of 'narrative' play short-lived roles in the modulation of current activity but some get promoted to further functional roles, in swift succession, by the activity of a virtual machine in the brain. The seriality of this machine (its 'von Neumannesque' character) is not a 'hard-wired' design feature, but rather the upshot of a succession of coalitions of these specialists." [Ibid., p. 253-254] Dennett likes to use the term "Joycean machine" [ibid., pp. 214, 275-281] to describe any system that fits his Multiple Drafts model of consciousness. Dennett is so bold as to declare that anything controlled by a virtual machine fitting this model is "conscious in the fullest sense." [Ibid., p. 281] He further writes, "in principle, a suitably 'programmed' robot, with a silicon-based computer brain, would be conscious, would have a self." [Ibid., p. 431]

This scientist calls a computer program "conscious in the fullest sense." So according to this man, a futuristic android like the character, Data, in STTNG would be "conscious in the fullest sense" - but we see that, having a sort of self-will, Data simply removes the subroutines he'd earlier written for "love" when his "relationship" with a crew mate ended (because she realized that Data's "feelings" weren't real in any meaningful sense of the word). His ability and willingness to do this proves that the "love" wasn't love at all, but just a set of responses to stimuli that worked to emulate the love that he saw in movies. Don't you see the difference?

I know, I know, Data's not real. But the scientist quoted above would tell you it doesn't matter. The theory applies equally to the biological computers that we call brains. It isn't something I have made up - this is one of the leading scientific explanations for what we call sentience. It has been forwarded to fight against the notion of supernatural origin of heuristic concepts like sentience, love, sorrow, and the like.

You seem to think that this makes a difference in the argument:

... sentience necessarily provided us with our morality. It accounts for the origins of our morality, not what we actually ought to do. If you can't see the difference between that then you simply can't see the difference between that and there's nothing I can do.

The difference between origin and result makes no difference to my argument that morality is a construct of the evolved human brain and is therefore merely programming that varies from brain to brain. It's like you complaining that a sock is blue and not red, when we are discussing whether or not it is a sock, color notwithstanding.

Hawkings does not believe in an afterlife Hawkings does believe that the brain ceases to be after death. So what?

If you don't think that Hawkings doesn't believe us to be merely organic machines programmed by genetics (arrived at through evolutionary processes) and past input - that our "feelings" are just programmed responses to stimuli, then you are going to have to come up with some evidence (scoffing doesn't count as evidence, btw).

You have not citated any of this yet. You've just kept repeating the claims. You're also now parroting a ludicrious conspiracy theory by suggesting all cognitive scientists are conspiring together to 'keep out' supernatural explanations for love, joy and sorrow (amongst all other emotions).

See above (since you don't like the word "supra" apparently :chuckle But frankly, I'm surprised at your ignorance of this recent scientific endeavor.
Here's something on love.
How romantic lain:
Here's one that tries to explain sorrow scientifically.
And here's one trying to explain perception of beauty.

I've left out two things because they honestly make you look ridiculous - one the stubborn clinging to an absolute "no-one" when you should have just admitted you were being hyperbolic (meaning rather, "hardly anyone, and those are lunatics imo"). The other a problem with definitions (existential nihilism is a philosophy, so how in the world can it not be concerned with philosophy?)


One last question for you. You seem to be at odds with the dichotomy between the natural and supernatural - that if something doesn't come from the supernatural (outside the natural, material world), then it must come from the natural. What other options are there? If we reject the existence of the supernatural (based only on faith, since negatives cannot be logically proved), then what's left is the natural/material. What seems wrong about that statement to you?