Spinoza

[Sasun]

Observed, such as, an apple is an apple is an apple is an apple.

Is that all?

[gevo27]

Observed, such as, an apple is an apple is an apple is an apple.

whats an apple.. ??

 

I think its a shapplle.. its relative to my thinking, so its a shapplle.. LMAO.. see where rleativism fails???

[den_wolf]

whats an apple.. ??

 

I think its a shapplle.. its relative to my thinking, so its a shapplle.. LMAO.. see where rleativism fails???

That an apple can be considered a shapplle by you or rhapplle by another person is irrelevant. That the apple can be observed, compared to other apples, and agreed upon it being an apple (note difference between apple and "apple", the latter referring to the terminology, which could vary from one person to another) is relevant.

[Anonymouse]

I tend to agree with Plato that ideas are real and eternal.

[angel4hope]

I tend to agree with Plato that ideas are real and eternal.

care to expand on your hypothesis? sounds interesting....i understand plato's stand on the subject, but would like a bit of clarification...

[Sasun]

Wolfie, do you think all existence is observable?

[den_wolf]

What I think is observable is irrelevant. I am not talking about relativism here and whether my view of what is observable differs from your view of what is observable. I am talking about things that are universally observable. In fact, there is no relativism in observation. Only in syntax and semantics arguments, which undermines the NATURE of things, and deals with language and terminology. This is what I meant by the difference in apple and "apple." You can call an apple a "chair," but the apple is still an apple.

[den_wolf]

Wolfie, do you think all existence is observable?

To answer your question in a more direct mien, I don't know if all existence is observable. But to prove the validity of something, one must base one's proof on observable premises, otherwise anything can qualify as a "premise," and hence one can prove anything using anything, which is not (I assure you), what we want. The existences that are not observable COULD be existant, I am not denying that, but to use that inobservable thing (which is then nothing more than a "belief", after all, what distinguishes a fact from a belief?) in order to prove that something else exists, or to prove that something works in such and such a way based on that inobservable thing, is not what the idea of proof is all about.

[den_wolf]

Here's a BEAUTIFULLY written excerpt from Jostein Gaarder's Sophie's World (a MUST read!!):

 

"You have a box of Lego and you build a Lego horse. You then take it apart and put the blocks back in the box. You cannot expect to make a new horse just by shaking the box. How could Lego blocks of their own accord find each other and become a new horse again? No, you have to rebuild the horse, Sophie. And the reason you can do it is that you have a picture in your mind of what the horse looked like. The Lego horse is made from a model which remains unchanged from horse to horse."

 

And another excerpt, to clarify Plato's view:

 

"[Plato] was astonished at the way all natural phenomena could be so alike, and he concluded that it had to be because there are a limited number of forms 'behind' everything we see around us. Plato called these forms ideas. Behind every horse, pig, or human being, there is the 'idea horse,' 'idea pig,' and 'idea human being.' [...] Plato came to the conclusion that there must be a reality behind the 'material world.' He called this reality the world of ideas; it contained the eternal and immutable 'patterns' behind the various phenomena we come across in nature. This remarkable view is known as Plato's theory of ideas."

[THOTH]

OK not Spinoza - but directly relevant to thsi concept that morality and such requires God (a very silly concept IMO - and observably false i might add..)

 

This is an excerpt from a book review that appeared in the Washington Post recently...

 

Ethics & Codes of Conduct - Michael Shermer

 

A professional skeptic tries to find evidence for morality in the natural order.

 

Reviewed by Anthony Brandt

 

Sunday, February 1, 2004 ; Page BW05

 

If God is dead, said Dostoyevsky in The Brothers Karamazov, then everything is permitted. Without religion, in other words, there can be no morality. This has been the position taken by religious conservatives as long as there have been religions, and it is Michael Shermer 's principal target in The Science of Good and Evil. Shermer's new book is the final volume in a trilogy that began with Why People Believe Weird Things and continued with How We Believe, a critical survey of religious belief systems and their rationales.

 

It would not be unreasonable to conclude from Shermer's books and his past that he is obsessed with religion. Indeed, he makes no secret of it: He was, in college, a fundamentalist Christian, taking a degree in psychology and biology from Pepperdine University , a fundamentalist fortress in the hills above Malibu . Then at some point he turned on the beliefs of his youth and became the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine and the director of the Skeptics Society, which he still runs. He calls himself an agnostic now, and an evolutionary psychologist. If he has a god, it is Charles Darwin. In 1999 Shermer co-hosted a 12-part series on the Fox Family Channel called "Exploring the Unknown" and devoted it to debunking everything from the Shroud of Turin to spontaneous human combustion. He has made himself into one of the leading spokespersons in the country for the rational scientific approach toward questions of belief and the unknown. That's quite a switch for a man who cut his intellectual teeth on the Bible.

 

But Shermer does, as a result, know his enemy, and it gives him a decided advantage in writing a book such as this, which aims to demonstrate that we don't need God at all to be moral human beings, that in fact human evolution has built a tendency toward moral behavior into our brains. We are moral by nature. He draws upon the work of anthropologists with so-called primitive peoples to make his case, showing that man in a state of nature does not, as Hobbes claimed, behave as if life were a matter of all against all. Rather, Shermer marshals research showing that altruism, cooperation, mutual aid, attachment and bonding, concern for the community and other moral behaviors appear not only among tribal humans but in great-ape societies and among dolphins, whales and other large-brained mammals as well, none of which, as far as we know, is monotheist. Since the doctrine of natural selection cannot account for this behavior -- there is no selective advantage to a creature in being altruistic, for example, sacrificing itself for the good of the group -- he turns to the controversial concept of group selection, which most strict Darwinists abjure, and quotes Darwin himself in support: "There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection." "Better" tribes, then, tribes with a greater adherence to principles of justice and altruism and courage, would displace "worse" or more "evil" tribes, and therefore morality would evolve, and natural selection could indeed account for the universal appearance among human beings of moral goodness.

[Sasun]

To answer your question in a more direct mien, I don't know if all existence is observable. But to prove the validity of something, one must base one's proof on observable premises, otherwise anything can qualify as a "premise," and hence one can prove anything using anything, which is not (I assure you), what we want. The existences that are not observable COULD be existant, I am not denying that, but to use that inobservable thing (which is then nothing more than a "belief", after all, what distinguishes a fact from a belief?) in order to prove that something else exists, or to prove that something works in such and such a way based on that inobservable thing, is not what the idea of proof is all about.

Wolfie, you keep telling me what and how things should be proven, and I keep telling you that I am not trying to prove anything.

 

The existences that are not observable COULD be existant, I am not denying that, but to use that inobservable thing (which is then nothing more than a "belief", after all, what distinguishes a fact from a belief?) in order to prove that something else exists, or to prove that something works in such and such a way based on that inobservable thing, is not what the idea of proof is all about.

 

You believe in the absolute truth. Have you ever observed it? Have you any proof that there is absolute truth? I don't think so. Then why do you try to prove things using the EXISTENCE of the absolute truth (implicitly or explicitly)?

 

Should I also point out that ALL sciences, all logical reasoning assume that the absolute truth exists and they are all after it. In every proof, every little step a scientist makes to prove something it is assumed that there is absolute truth according to which a smaller truth - the objective of the proof - can be achieved. Yet 'absolute truth' is a concept, nothing to see and touch, in other words an unobservable thing.

 

What you call the TRUTH I call God and believe that it exists. It is self-evident and cannot be proven. All smaller truths are proven and measured their degree of truthfullness in comparison to the absolute truth. All proofs are made based on the implied absolute truth.

 

Do you see that there is no objective difference between your premises and God as premise in arguments? I suggest you think before you answer - not that you don't think but you have repeated things that could be avoided

[den_wolf]

My premises are objective. You don't prove existence. You prove non-existence. Trying to prove your own existence is begging the question. Neither do you assume that you exist. That is why I used "observation." By absolute truth I mean, absolute ideas of things. The one Plato uses (read the excerpt from Jostein Gaarder's book). It is an observable thing that the things we experience can be taken all the way back to the inherent underlying idea, of a horse being a horse, of an apple being an apple. Again, it is all about semantics. Even the term "absolute truth."

 

You are trying to go all the way back to the beginning of things, and say that the root of all proofs is based on assumptions. If that is the case, does it follow that all proofs can be based on assumptions? Where do we draw the line? And yes, we were talking about proofs and the process one should follow in order to arrive at a universal proof. Does a universal proof exist? Do we exist? OUR (only OUR, not God's) existence, is a necessity for making those proofs, and it is that that we can take into consideration when proving things. Therefore, your argument that everything is based on at least one assumption does not work. One must exist in order to prove something. Therefore, that existence lies outside of any proof.

 

Is there proof that we exist? And if no, does it mean that everything we do is meaningless? And does the observation that WE are doing SOMETHING (interacting, doing, proving) work to prove that we exist? What if we are only thoughts in someone's mind, driven by determinism, with no free will whatsoever? Our existence is the bases of all thought, feeling, and all other systems. If we do not have that as a premise, it would be pointless to live, talk, argue, etc. God's existence, however, is not a necessity to that. The fact that atheists do survive without believing in God is a proof to that. Therefore, God's existence and OUR existence are not comparable in our attempts to prove something.

 

I am trying not to repeat myself, but it is difficult not to, because you keep coming up with arguments that are parallel to what you previously said.

[Sasun]

It is an observable thing that the things we experience can be taken all the way back to the inherent underlying idea, of a horse being a horse, of an apple being an apple. Again, it is all about semantics. Even the term "absolute truth."

 

Just because Plato said doesn't mean it is the truth. Not that I am arguing against it.

 

Here is my version (not my invention but that's beside the point): all that there exists in this universe is a mainfestation of an inherent underlying absolute consciousness (read "idea" to draw the parallel with Plato thinking that you are describing). The manifestation is readily observable and experienced as we experience the material world, while the transcendental consciousness is not observable. Nonetheless, it is possible to fully realize the transcendental consciousness. Both the manifestation and the concsiousness are real, very real.

 

You are trying to go all the way back to the beginning of things, and say that the root of all proofs is based on assumptions. If that is the case, does it follow that all proofs can be based on assumptions?

 

We must go back to the beginning of things to fully understand. It would be more correct if we say: the root of all proofs are things that we assume to be true because they are self-evident truths. It is beyond the reach of proofs and methodology, at this basic level there is no other way to pick what is true and what is false.

 

Where do we draw the line?

 

The line is drawn, we just have to see it. There are 2 things only - truth and falsehood. Truth is self-evident, if something is not true then it is false. We are unable to see it without expanding our own consciousness.

 

I am arguing that our knowledge consists of self-evident basic truths and huge constructions developed on that ground. Some truths are easier to be convinced of than others. There is no proof that doesn't use self-evident truths. These self-evident truths in turn are aspects of the single absolute truth.

 

I never doubted our existence or tried to prove it. I don't understand the reason of your argument about our existence. We cannot prove our existence, it is also self-evident.

 

Our existence is the bases of all thought, feeling, and all other systems. If we do not have that as a premise, it would be pointless to live, talk, argue, etc. God's existence, however, is not a necessity to that. The fact that atheists do survive without believing in God is a proof to that. Therefore, God's existence and OUR existence are not comparable in our attempts to prove something.

 

Agreed, our existence is the basis of all that we do and represent. If we do not exist we cannot think and do things. If God doesn't exist then God cannot do anything. But the fact that atheists exist doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. I don't understand your argument.

We all exist due to God, God doesn't make a distinction between atheists and theists when granting and sustaining life.

[den_wolf]

Just because Plato said doesn't mean it is the truth.

You’re right. But I never said that it was right because Plato said it. I am simply referring to the “ideas” behind things. Can you change the idea of an apple in your mind? (not talking about terminology here).

 

There are 2 things only - truth and falsehood.

How do you know? Again, I am not saying I believe you’re wrong. I am just trying to point out that you cannot know. Maybe things are relative? Perhaps the absolute truth is that everything is relative, and that there are no absolute, universal truths?

 

 

These self-evident truths in turn are aspects of the single absolute truth.

You just drove my point home. How do you know that there is a single absolute truth, i.e. God? Maybe all there are, are smaller truths that are not related to any bigger picture or being? Maybe all there is is chaos?

 

I never doubted our existence or tried to prove it. I don't understand the reason of your argument about our existence. We cannot prove our existence, it is also self-evident.

I am not claiming you did. I am trying to compare the issue of our existence and the issue of God’s existence used in proofs.

 

If we do not exist we cannot think and do things. If God doesn't exist then God cannot do anything. But the fact that atheists exist doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. I don't understand your argument.

Then how does the fact that we exist prove that God exists? Yes, I agree with you 100% about: If God doesn’t exist then God cannot do anything. But that doesn’t mean that if God doesn’t exist, humans could not have existed. Or does it? I can’t see your point. I never said that if atheists exist it implies that God doesn’t exist. I simply said that God’s existence (and our belief in it) isn’t a necessity for our own existence, and atheists are a proof to that. And you then claimed that “God doesn’t make a distinction between atheists and theists when granting and sustaining life.” How do you know? Has God told you that? Yes, the Bible, but how do you know that the Bible was INSPIRED by God (not even written – it was written by human beings just like you and me).. How can you base an entire philosophy on something that you claim to know based on the assumption that has its roots in an inspiration?

[axel]

But in case of being unable to prove that God exists, you cannot assume that God exists

 

Following the same line of reasoning, in case of being unable to prove that God doesn't exist, one cannot assume that God doesn't exist. So your attitude has to be the sterile one of the skeptic.

 

In case of being unable to prove that Love exists, you cannot assume that Love exists.

In case of being unable to prove that Beauty exists, you cannot assume that Beauty exists.

...

 

1. If God exists then he is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.

2. If God were omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent then the world would not contain evil.

3. The world contains evil.

Therefore:

4. It is not the case that God exists

 

I am glad you noted that (1) is fallacious. I will just add a few observations.

 

God gave Man free will and Man misused it. From this misuse follows the existence of evil. If you understand the idea of free will, then you shall admit the fact that God is not omnipotent to the level of playing around with the soul of humans and their will as if men were mere puppets.

 

Attributing evil (man's own shortcoming) to God is fallacious if not blasphemous. It is the point of view of the cynic to justify man's baseness by his nature as if Man was enslaved to his instincts. This is precisely what religion rejects by proclaiming Free will.

 

God sent his Son for the remission of our sins. He who suffered on the Cross and whose Resurrection stands as the triumph of Life over Death, of Good over Evil, shows the one and only true path for Man to attain Freedom.

 

Of course the latter is not arguable as it belongs to the domain of Faith, not to that of reason which is inherently limited. Rationalism cannot give meaning to life.

 

I have received a Christian education, but I have transcended all that, to have an objective view of religion, belief, and spirituality

 

This is quite presumptuous a belief. Objectivity?

 

I simply said that God’s existence (and our belief in it) isn’t a necessity for our own existence, and atheists are a proof to that

 

It depends on how you define "existence". If it is that of wild beasts or that of humans.

Edited February 12, 2004 by axel

[den_wolf]

Following the same line of reasoning, in case of being unable to prove that God doesn't exist, one cannot assume that God doesn't exist. So your attitude has to be the sterile one of the skeptic.

No, that is not true. You're using a fallacy of slippery slope. You cannot assume that something exists if you can't observe that it does. You start from point 0, point 0 being non-existence. Something has to exist in order for it to exist. Otherwise it doesn't exist.

 

In case of being unable to prove that Love exists, you cannot assume that Love exists.

In case of being unable to prove that Beauty exists, you cannot assume that Beauty exists.

Well, you cannot compare Love and beauty to what we're talking about. God either exists or does not, correct? Love and beauty, however, are things that one cannot be objective about. I might consider something beautiful, whereas you might not. That is an observable fact. People's tastes of beauty differ. Hence, you cannot say that, (1) she is beautiful (2) beautiful people are nice => (3) she is nice. Because your assumption of her beauty is nothing more than a personal belief. Similar to your belief in God. This differs from the idea of the apple, and the following: (1) Apples are either green, yellow, or red. (and if there is a blue applie, then you can add that to the list of observable colours) (2) i am eating an apple => (3) the apple I am eating is either green, yellow, or red.

 

God gave Man free will and Man misused it. From this misuse follows the existence of evil. If you understand the idea of free will, then you shall admit the fact that God is not omnipotent to the level of playing around with the soul of humans and their will as if men were mere puppets.

MMmmm.. And were you there when God gave man free will? Can you observe it? How do you know we have free will? What if we are pre-determined to act in one way or another, or are thoughts in the mind of another creature?

 

Of course the latter is not arguable as it belongs to the domain of Faith, not to that of reason which is inherently limited. Rationalism cannot give meaning to life.

How do you know that rationalism cannot give meaning to life? What if the meaning to life is rationality and thinking based on observation and deduction? Are you telling me that atheists have no meaning in their lives?

 

This is quite presumptuous a belief. Objectivity?

I look at things from all sides. Unlike people who claim what you said above, that God created man and gave him free will, etc.

 

It depends on how you define "existence". If it is that of wild beasts or that of humans.

So atheists then are like beasts, being non-believers?

[axel]

You cannot assume that something exists if you can't observe that it does.

 

Why is that? It is not because our perception of absolutes is relative that these absolutes do not exist. Man can go beyond his mere perceptions. But that he may only do through faith. The other alternative is solipsism. Faith is not about proofs. In fact, life is not about proofs.

 

Are you telling me that atheists have no meaning in their lives? ... So atheists then are like beasts, being non-believers?

 

One has to distinguish between atheists who think they are atheist but who are not and the true atheist who negate the existence of God in a manner that is more akin to theophobia/satanism than agnosticism. Most self-proclaimed atheists do not understand the true implications of their faith.

Faith is the word for atheism is not rational. Only agnosticism is acceptable from the standpoint of reason.

 

PS: I do not see any fallacy in my reasoning. The question of the existence/non-existence of God is not one that can be addressed through reason.

[den_wolf]

Man can go beyond his mere perceptions. But that he may only do through faith.

Could be, could be, but that still doesn't mean that faith can be taken as a premise in a proof.

 

Faith is not about proofs. In fact, life is not about proofs.

I never said faith was about proofs. I said faith cannot be used IN proofs.

 

proof, n. evidence of truth or correctness (Webster's English Dictionary).

 

So do tell me how you can use faith as an evidence of truth or correctness.

 

Life is not about proofs? Why not? Can you prove it? You are making huge assumptions and assertions based solely on your VIEWS (or BELIEFS, or FAITH). That rarely if ever qualifies as proof.

 

The question of the existence/non-existence of God is not one that can be addressed through reason.

And why not? Just because we haven't yet reached a conclusion about it doesn't mean that it's impossible. Open up your imagination. If everyone had thought like that, we wouldn't have had planes right now. Because flying is simply not in our nature, and we're not supposed to, because God supposedly "created" us without wings.

 

Here's an excerpt from James Rachels' The Right Thing to Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy (including it just for the heck of it, and because it is in a way relevant):

 

The Provability Argent. Now let us consider in more detail the question of whether it is possible to prove a moral judgement true or false. The argument, which we might call the "Provability Argument," is as follows:

 

-If there were any such thing as objective truth in ethics, we should be able to prove that some moral opinions are true and others false.

But in fact we cannot prove which moral opinions are true and which are false.

Therefore, there is no such thing as objective truth in ethics.

 

Once again, we have an argument with a certain superficial appeal. But are the premises true? And does the conclusion really follow from them? It seems that the conclusion does follow. Therefore, the crucial question will be whether the premises are in fact true.

 

The general claim that moral judgements can't be proven sounds right: Anyone who has ever argued about a matter like abortion knows how frustrating it can be to try to "prove" that one's point of view is correct. However, if we inspect this claim more closely, it turns out to be dubious.

 

Suppose we consider a matter that is simpler than abortion. A student says that a test given by a teacher was unfair. This is clearly a moral judgement -- fairness is a basic moral value. Can the student prove the test was unfair? She might point out that the test was so long that not even the best students could complete it in the time allowed (and the test was to be graded on the assumption that it should be completed). Moreover, the test covered trivial matters in detail, while ignoring matters the teacher had stressed as very important. And finally, the test included questions about some matters that were not covered in either the assigned readings or the class discussions.

 

Suppose all this is true. And further suppose that the teacher, when asked to explain, has no defense to offfer. (In fact, the teacher, who is rather inexperienced, seems muddled about the whole thing and doesn't seem to have had any clear idea of what he was doing.) Now, hasn't the student proved the test was unfair? What more in the way of proof could we possibly want?

 

The point is that we can, and often do, back up our ethical judgements with good reasons. Thus it does not seem right to say that they are all unprovable, as though they were nothing more than "mere opinions." If a person has good reasons for his judgements, then he is not merely giving "his opinion." On the contrary, he may be making a judgement with which any reasonable person would have to agree.

 

If we can sometimes give good reasons for our moral judgements, what accounts for persistent impression that they are "unprovable"? There are two reasons why the Provability Argument appears to be more potent than it actually is.

 

First, there is a tendency to focus attention only on the most difficult moral issues. The question of abortion, for example, is an enormouse difficult and complicated matter. If we think only of questions like this, it is easy to believe that "proof" in ethics is impossible. The same could be said of the sciences. There are many complicated matters that physicists cannot agree on; if we focused our attention entirely on them, we might conclude that there is no "proof" in physics. But of course, there are many simpler matters in physics that can be proven, and about which all competent physicists agree. Similarly, in ethics there are many matters far simpler than abortion, about which all reasonable people must agree.

 

Second, it is easy to confuse two matters that are really very different:

 

1. Proving an opinion to be correct.

2. Persuading someone to accept your proof.

 

Suppose you are having an argument with someone about some moral issue, and you have perfectly cogent reasons in support of our position, while they have no good reasons on their side. Still, they refuse to accept your logic and continue to insist they are right. This is a common, if frustrating, experience. You may be tempted to conclude that it is impossible to prove you are right. But this would be a mistake. Your proof may be impeccable; the trouble may be that the other person is being pig-headed. (Of course, that is not the only possible explanation of what is going on, but it is one possible explanation.) The same thing can happen in any sort of discussion. You may be arguing about creationism versus evolution, and the other person may be reasonable. But that does not necessarily mean there is something wrong with your arguments. There may be something wrong with him.

[Sasun]

proof, n. evidence of truth or correctness (Webster's English Dictionary).

 

Proof then is not the goal but the means to achieve it where the goal is the truth. If you can get to the goal then the choice of the means is not so important.

 

Wolfie, I don't know if you accepted my assertion that every process of proof is based on self-evident truths. If you don't accept then I can't convince you, however I think that you are wrong.

If you do accept then you should see that favoring proof over self-evident truths is arbitrary and subjective. There are so many things that can be questioned in every proof, those are elements of logical reasoning that are accepted as truth. Thus proofs are really universally accepted convictions. Why are they universally acceptable? Because the building blocks - basic self-evident truths are easily observable and not questioned. But what about truths that are not easily observable? Of course such truths are not used in proofs. That is the problem with proofs, or rather not a problem but limitation. For everything else proof has no real advantage over not so obvious and unprovable truths.

 

In the end, what matters is the truth, not how you arrive at it. Proof is one method of arriving at truth, but not the only method. If you limit yourself to proofs you will have limited knowledge.

 

Axel has made some valid points. Let me add something: faith is very important for attaining knowledge. It allows you to transcend the limits of proofs and the domain of provability. Wowever, faith itself is not knowledge, it must be accompanied with aspiration to become knowledge. One should not confuse faith with universal knowledge, something that agnostics and atheists often criticize the belivers for.

It is a trivial mistake to say that faith is a fantasy. Of course, there is also mental fantasy which is not faith. True faith is the awareness of the knowledge of the beyond, and aspiration through spiritual discipline is the means to achieve that knowledge. All one needs is courage to recognize it rather than stick to proofs which are good for many things but in reality give incomplete knowledge and a false sense of security.

[gevo27]

OH MANNN Im gonna start dreaming about this stuff now.

 

Kinda scary!!!!

[den_wolf]

Again, from James Rachels, this guy is simply amazing:

 

Arguing against the Divine Command Theory:

 

(1) Suppose God commands us to do what is right. Then either (a) the right actions are right because he commands them or (B ) he commands them because they are right.

 

(2) If we take option (a), then God's commands are, from a moral point of view, arbitrary; moreover, the doctrine of the goodness of God is rendered meaningless.

 

(3) If we take option (B ), then we have admitted there is a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will.

 

(4) Therefore, we must either regard God's commands are arbitrary, and give up the doctrine of the goodness of God, or admit that there is a standard of right and wrong that is independent of his will, and give up the theological definitions of right and wrong.

 

(5) From a religious point of view, it is undesirable to regard God's commands as arbitrary or to give up the doctrine of the goodness of God.

 

(6) Therefore, even from a religious point of view, a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will must be accepted.

 

There is more than just blind faith in God. Philosophy is just that.

 

Kinda scary!!!!

You will find the contrary to be scary if you did this sort of thing for a living.

Edited February 13, 2004 by den_wolf

[axel]

The question of the existence/non-existence of God is not one that can be addressed through reason.

 

And why not? Just because we haven't yet reached a conclusion about it doesn't mean that it's impossible

 

I repeat God is not an "object of study" for reason. Even Kant would agree with me.

 

Life is not about proofs? Why not? Can you prove it?

 

 

Can you prove that life is worth living?

 

Btw, I think someone has already mentionned that all philosophical systems are based upon axioms which constitute their dogmatic part. Adhering to these axioms or creeds is in itself a matter of faith.

 

There is more than just blind faith in God.

 

This is an extremely arrogant statement on your behalf that shows you do not have a clue about what true Faith is.

 

PS: The following is not to serve as an argument but I'd like to point out that my own background is scientific and that I graduated from university when I was still a teenager so that I am neither a complete idiot nor an irrational individual.

Edited February 13, 2004 by axel

[Sasun]

Again, from James Rachels, this guy is simply amazing:

 

Arguing against the Divine Command Theory:

 

(1) Suppose God commands us to do what is right. Then either (a) the right actions are right because he commands them or (B ) he commands them because they are right.

 

(2) If we take option (a), then God's commands are, from a moral point of view, arbitrary; moreover, the doctrine of the goodness of God is rendered meaningless.

 

(3) If we take option (B ), then we have admitted there is a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will.

 

(4) Therefore, we must either regard God's commands are arbitrary, and give up the doctrine of the goodness of God, or admit that there is a standard of right and wrong that is independent of his will, and give up the theological definitions of right and wrong.

 

(5) From a religious point of view, it is undesirable to regard God's commands as arbitrary or to give up the doctrine of the goodness of God.

 

(6) Therefore, even from a religious point of view, a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will must be accepted.

This argument is based on a superficial idea of God and has no truth, that's why it comes to a false conclusion

 

There is more than just blind faith in God. Philosophy is just that. 

 

Blind faith is not true faith. Philosophy and faith can very well go together but philosophy is not necessary for someone to have faith.

 

Wolfie, are you going to tell me if you agree with my previous post or not? I am curious

[gevo27]

how is this true, in his arguement he has many flaws, but this specially.. how does rachels prove this??

 

(2) If we take option (a), then God's commands are, from a moral point of view, arbitrary; moreover, the doctrine of the goodness of God is rendered meaningless.

[den_wolf]

I repeat God is not an "object of study" for reason. Even Kant would agree with me.

Excellent. You drove my point home! That God is not an object of study implies that God should not be used to prove anything. God is nothing more than a belief. If you can use God to prove something, then you can also use the "presence" of aliens to prove something. So let us base astronomy and all our knowledge of the solar system on the assumption that aliens exist. Mmmm, sounds interesting! Moreveor, that Kant said it does not mean that he is any more correct than I am.

 

Can you prove that life is worth living?

That is irrelevant. That we exist is the point. That we can prove things, that we are beings of reason and thought, are good reasons to consider life worth living, and what's more, that life is and should be about proofs and logic. Because without logic, the world would be a chaos of he said-she said and other things like cultural relativism, which would imply that infanticide is correct for some, incorrect for others. Which would also mean that there are no moral truths and that everything goes. Which would then mean that murder can be right. MMmmm. Not that I am saying that murder is wrong, just that we should be able to prove that either it is wrong or right, a few exceptions permitted (there are exceptions in everything, but that does not imply that the theory is wrong - exceptions are the things that go out of their way, not the theory).

 

Btw, I think someone has already mentionned that all philosophical systems are based upon axioms which constitute their dogmatic part. Adhering to these axioms or creeds is in itself a matter of faith.

No it is not. Axioms are observable truths. The fact that the existence of God is not widely accepted in all societies like the axiom A = A goes to show that A = A is universal, because it is a logical conclusion we arrive to following our observation, whereas God is not. That is not to say that God exists or does not exist. It tells nothing of the sort about that. It just tells that God cannot be used like A = A is used.

 

This is an extremely arrogant statement on your behalf that shows you do not have a clue about what true Faith is.

This is an extremely arrogant statement on your behalf that shows you do not have a clue about what my Knowledge is. Mmmm. Can you say argumentum ad hominem fallacy?

 

I am neither a complete idiot nor an irrational individual.

The following is not to serve as an argument

You're right. But, why did you mention it then?

 

This argument is based on a superficial idea of God and has no truth, that's why it comes to a false conclusion

How is it superficial? Just because you said so does not mean that it really is superficial. Please tell me what fallacy it used, and/or what is it in the argument that assumes that God is superficial or represents "him" as such.

 

Philosophy and faith can very well go together but philosophy is not necessary for someone to have faith.

Philosophy and faith can very well go together, correct, but that doesn't mean that faith can prove philosophy. It can only work the other way around, because philosophy DOES work with logic, whereas faith works with beliefs in non-observable things, and assumes they are true, for whatever reason, be it lack of imagination (where would we have come from if we weren't created by God, etc.). So it works the other way around, Sasun. Faith is not necessary for (and in fact it should NEVER EVER be used) for someone to arrive to a universal philosophy that claims truth (personal philosophies can be based on whatever your heart desires).

 

Wolfie, are you going to tell me if you agree with my previous post or not?   I am curious

Yes, I will tell you. I disagree. See above for explanations.

 

how is this true, in his arguement he has many flaws, but this specially..

Please explain what the flaw in that sentence is. if he is using a fallacy, point out which fallacy he is using.

 

how does rachels prove this??

Dig out that book from your closet, and read it!! LOL. But for the benefit of those who don't have the book, I have typed what Rachel says:

 

In both the Jewish and Christian traditions, God is conceived as a lawgiver who has created us, adn the world we live in, for a purpose. That purpose is not completely understood, but much has been revealed through the prophets, the Holy Scriptures, and the church. These sources teach that, to guide us in righteous living, God has promulgated rules that we are to obey. He does not compel us to obey them. We were created as free agents, so we may choose to accept or to reject his commandments. But if we are to live as we should live, we must follow God's laws. This, it is said, is the essence of morality. This line of thought has been elaborated by some theologians into a theory about the nature of right and wrong, known as the Divine Command Theory. Essentially, this theory says that "morally right" means "commanded by God" and "morally wrong" means "forbidden by God."

 

From a theoretical point of view, this conception has a number of pleasing features. It immediately solves the old problem about the objectivity of ethics. According to this theory, ethics is not merely a matter of personal feelings or social custom. Whether something is right or wrong is a perfectly objective matter: It is right if God commands it, wrong if God forbids it. Moreover, the Divine Command Theory suggests an answer to the perennial question of why anyone should bother with morality. Why not just look out for one's on interests? If immorality is the violation of God's commandments, there is an easy answer: On the day of final reckoning, you will be held accountable.

 

There are, however, serious problems for the theory. Of course, atheists would not accept it, because they do not believe that God exists. But the problems that arise are not merely problems for atheists. There are difficulties even for believers. The main problems was first noted by Plato, the Greek philosopher who lived 400 years before the birth of Jesus.

 

Plato's writings were in the form of dialogues, usually between Socrates and one or more interlocutors. In one of these dialogues, the Euthyphro, there is a discussion concerning whether "right" can be defined as "that which the gods command." Socrates is skeptical and asks: Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right? It is one of the most famous questions in the history of philosophy. The British philosopher Antony Flew suggests that "one good test of a person's aptitude for philosophy is to discover whether he can grasp its force and point."

 

The point is this. If we accept the theological conception of right and wrong, we are caught in a dilemma. Socrates's question asks us to clarify what we mean. There are to things we might mean, and both lead to trouble.

 

1. First, we might mean that conduct is right because God commands it. For example, according to Exodus 20:16, God commands us to be truthful. On this option, the reason we should be truthful is simply that God requires it. Apart from the divine command, truth telling is neither good or bad. It is God's command that makes truthfulness right.

 

But this leads to trouble, for it represents God's commands as arbitrary. It means that God could have given different commands just as easily. He could have commanded us to be liars, and then lying, and not truthfulness, would be right. (You may be tempted to reply: "But God would never command us to lie!" But why not? If he did endorse lying, God would not be commanding us to do wrong, because his command would make lying right.) Remember that on this view, honesty was not right before God commanded it. Therefore, he could have had no more reason to command it than its opposite; and so, from a moral point of view, his command is perfectly arbitrary.

 

Moreover, on this view, the doctrine of the goodness of God is reduced to nonsense. It is important to religious believers that God is not only all-powerful and all-knowing, but that he is also good; yet if we accept the idea that good and bad are defined by reference to God's will, this notion is deprived of any meaning. What could it mean to say that God's commands are good? If "X is good" means "X is commanded by God," then "God's commands are good" would mean only "God's commands are commanded by God," an empty truism. In his Discourse on Metaphysics (1686) Leibniz put the point clearly:

 

"So in saying that things are not good by any rule of goodness, but sheerly by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?"

 

Thus if we choose the first of Socrates's two opinions, we are stuck with consequences that even the most religious people must find unacceptable.

 

2. There is a way to avoid these troublesome consequences. We can take the second of Socrates's options. We need not say that right conduct is right because God commands it. Instead, we may say that God commands right because it is right. God, who is infinitely wise, realizes that truthfulness is far better than deceitfulness, and so he commands us to be truthful; he sees that killing is wrong, and so he commands us not to kill; and so on for all the commandments.

 

If we take this option, we avoid the troublesome consequences that plagued the first alternative. God's commands turn out to be not all arbitrary; they are the result of his wisdom in knowing what is best. And the doctrine of the goodness of God is preserved: To say that his commands are good means that he commands only what, in perfect wisdom, he sees to be the best. But this option leads to a different problem, which is equally troublesome for the theological conception of right and wrong: In taking this option, we have virtually abandoned the theological conception of right and wrong.

 

If we say that God commands us to be truthful because truthfulness is right, then we are admitting that there is some standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will. We are saying that God sees or recognizes that truthfulness is right, and that is very different from his making it right. The rightness exists prior to and independent of God's command, and it is the reason for the command. Thus, if we want to know why we should be truthful, the reply "Because God commands it" will not take us very far. We may still ask "But why does God command it?" and the answer to that question will provide the underlying reasons why truthfulness is a good thing.

 

All this may be summarized in the following argument:

 

[this is what I had posted before]

 

Many religious people believe that they must accept a theological conception of right and wrong because it would be impious not to do so. They feel, somehow, that if they believe in God, they should think that right and wrong are to be defined ultimately in terms of his will. But this argument suggests otherwise: It suggests that, on the contrary, the Divine Command Theory of right and wrong itself leads to impious results, so that a pious person should not accept it. And in fact, some of the greatest theologians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225 - 1274), rejected the theory for just this reason.