So if philosophers wish to comprehend the bigger picture, perhaps they should stop trying to map human scale concepts on to the very largest of scales, ie. scope of god claims. — Hippyhead

That's why I try to limit my G*D postulates to abstract metaphors, like Logos, rather than mapping physical human attributes onto a metaphysical inference from physical evidence. My god-model is like Infinity and Eternity, immeasurable and incomprehensible. I only use that amorphous model as an ideal axiomatic "core assumption" from which to interpret how and why the real comprehensible world works in ways that our limited intelligence can make sense of. :smile:

"The most incomprehensible fact about the universe is that it is comprehensible".___Einstein

I don't see why we are so limited. I think instead it's a deliberate choice to be limited. — Hippyhead

Actually, our partial-blindness to Reality may not be completely self-caused (deliberate self-obfuscation). Don Hoffman, in his book The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality, plausibly speculates that Evolution itself has selected for just enough perception of the world for its organisms to replicate. But humans, have evolved the rational ability to become aware of their own blind spots, and seek to fill-in the gaps. Unfortunately, we too often color-in those gaps with uninformed imagination, such as Weather Gods to explain tornadoes. :smile:

Against Reality : https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

Cantor justifies my initial infinite to 1 probability. https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-measure-infinities-find-theyre-equal-20170912/ — Philosophim

Apparently, Cantor was thinking in terms of number lines, which for practical applications we can imagine as a whole, or in parts. So, the mathematicians are comparing sub-sets ("actual" infinities) of Ideal or Theoretical Infinity. But if those sub-sets can be comprehended as isolated entities, they are not truly infinite (incomprehensible). My G*D model is based on the concept of indivisible Theoretical Infinity. So, these other so-called infinities are actually finite, and their Olympian gods would also be only partially divine. And the ratio of Absolute Infinity to Finite Infinity is One to Zero :joke:

Vernacular Infinity : a really long distance
Theoretical Infinity : an un-measurable indivisible distance, without beginning or end
Absolute Infinity is the Set of all sets.
Absolute G*D is the Set of all sets.

Universal Set : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_set

In the number set image below, Absolute or Universal Infinity is the white space behind

Can anything compare with the idea of infinite probability? It's like the ultimate cheat code. — BrianW
Heh, yes. And that is the nature of my flaw. I only considered one aspect of infinity, and not any other. — Philosophim

That also may be the flaw in your flaw-finding. There are no other aspects (parts) of Infinity. By "definition" of the word, Infinity is immeasurable & unquantifiable & indivisible & unlimited & undefinable. Ironically, mathematicians, with nothing better to do, have determined that any concept or value of infinity is equal to another, hence no different aspects. There is only one undefined unitary boundless Infinity. Everything else is an analogy with finite measurable Time. Moreover, Infinity is Potential, not Probable. The notion of Probability only applies in a finite measurable system of constant change. So, re-defining Infinities to allow for alternative god-models, is a futile exercise in circular reasoning. Plug any value you want into the equation, and In-finity still equals un-defined.

Brian may think that any reference to Infinity is cheating, because it assumes something outside of our sequential cause & effect space-time. But, correct me if I'm wrong, we are talking about a super-natural or pre-Natural or pre-space-time First Cause here. So we either include Eternity & Infinity in our determinations, or we limit the cause of our existence to Olympian Gods or a turtles-all-the-way-down race of super-intelligent natural Aliens. :smile:

Infinity : a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).

Multiple Infinities : two mathematicians have shown that two different variants of infinity are actually the same size.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-measure-infinities-find-theyre-equal-20170912/

Positive or Negative Infinity : it's just as meaningless as plus or minus Zero.

... It is always possible to think of a larger number: for the number of times a magnitude can be bisected is infinite. Hence the infinite is potential, never actual; the number of parts that can be taken always surpasses any assigned number.
___Aristotle. Physics 207b8
I might add that an Infinite G*D is Potential, not Actual.

I'm hardly a physics major, but from documentaries I've watched it sounds like time may be a more complex phenomena than merely a sequence of events. Don't know myself, not sure anybody does. — Hippyhead

The concept of Time is indeed more complicated since Einstein muddied the waters with his Relativity theories (General & Special). But it's still not so complex & paradoxical that us non-geniuses can't wrap our minds around it --- to some extent.

Relativity says --- and this is my layman's interpretation --- that a> Subjective Time, from the human perspective, is linear and sequential; but b> Objective Time, from a perspective outside the space-time universe, is eternal and unchanging. Unfortunately, subjective Relativity means that the rate of change varies depending on the observer's motion. So our notion of time as a steady flow from Past to Future, is what Einstein called an "illusion". But then, all of our subjective perceptions are illusions, in the sense that they capture only a partial view of the whole system of Reality.

Causality is another subjective "illusion", in that we infer the Cause by imagining an invisible link from the immediate Precedent to the Effect. For all practical purposes that's a useful assumption. But philosophers are sometimes Idealists, and try to comprehend the bigger picture. For Einstein's philosophy of Time, the big picture is as seen from God's timeless Perspective. So, our notion of Causation is an inference, that assumes a god-like omniscience to provide the link between the presumed Cause and the observed Effect. Hume pointed-out the common "illusion" of a "necessary" connection between two sequential events.

Therefore, as Philosophim stated : "The core is about causality, and causality assumes sequential time." Only God or Einstein can see Time & Causation objectively, although Time Scientists are gradually narrowing the gap. For the purposes of this thread on the Probability of God, we are limited to seeing "in a glass darkly" through our subjective telescopes. So yes, no-one knows for sure, but we can speculate based on our "core" assumptions. :nerd:


Block Time : Eternalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

Hume on Causation : Once we realize that “A must bring about B” is tantamount merely to “Due to their constant conjunction, we are psychologically certain that B will follow A”, then we are left with a very weak notion of necessity.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

Or is it a combination of causality and randomness? — Philosophim

Yes. In my musings on the topic of FreeWill, I like to use an analogy with Evolution. Many scientists seem to think of the Evolutionary process as completely random. But total randomness would be Chaos, not the organized system we see around us. It's true that mutations and such are random, but Natural Selection is what "chooses" the next generation from among the options available. In that case Cause & Effect is not just a series of deterministic accidents, but the step-by-step construction --- from inorganic materials --- of a universe that is like a living organism. So the "Selector" is like a fishnet, it doesn't create the varieties of fish, but it's a negative Cause of what "shall not pass". Therefore, one of the two determinants of evolutionary direction is the Natural Selection evaluation of fitness (weeding out) : an algorithm that decides how big to make the holes in the net. Only Moral Agents, with the rare ability of Rational Choice, can decide to fight Fate. I call it "Freedom Within Determinism".

The question of Conscious Choice has been debated to death. But I think Michael Shermer made a pragmatic point : accepting that Neuroscience has revealed that even the behavior of rational humans is motivated primarily by emotional subconscious processes. Which leaves only the last stage of that process --- to press the Go/No Go button (a moral choice) --- for rational Consciousness to Allow (pass) or to Veto (weed out) the motivating output of lower level competition between non-conscious brain modules. Shermer called that last minute negation "Free Won't". :cool:


Free Will vs Free Won't : So, Shermer intoduces the concept of “Free Won't”. In our contingent world, humans are never totally free to make unconstrained moral choices.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page63.html

Oh I see. Actually I'm not familiar with his views on Good and Evil. Where could I find that? — 3017amen

I wasn't referring to any particular quotes from Davies on the topic of a Good/Evil deity. The comment was simply my take-away from reading several of his books. I'm not aware that he ever used the term "Di-polar", but my impression was that his god model would fit that definition. The specific concept probably originated in the Process Theism of Whitehead, Hartshorne, etc.

But I had never heard of that notion when I developed my own G*D model from the Enformationism thesis. Our universe can be characterized in terms of Good in some respects, and Evil in other perspectives. Yet, rather than characterizing the original Cause of the world as one or the other, I assume that, what I call the eternal principle of BEING (the power to Be, to Exist), must have the Potential for both Good & Evil, as viewed from the perspective of temporal humans. So, I would say that G*D or Logos is "beyond good & evil", as explained below. :smile:

Dipolar God : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/

Good/Evil G*D : If the creator is omnipotent and omniscient, then why is the creation so flawed? Why should the dichotomy of Good versus Evil “make sense”? Traditional arguments attempting to justify our Yin/Yang situation, have not been convincing to atheists, who find the existence of Evil to be evidence against the biblical portrayal of God. That’s why my PanEnDeist god-model is assumed to be “beyond good and evil”.
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page22.html

Deistic Theodicy : Nevertheless, if G*D is omnipotential, and omnipresent in the real world, then s/he can be logically characterized as both Good and Evil. From the perspective of space-time reality, G*D’s providence is experienced as sometimes Good, and sometimes Evil. But from the vantage of Enfernity, deity encompasses all possible qualities from Best to Worst. The positives & negatives are in balance, and cancel-out. So the overall holistic quality of G*D is neutral, neither Good nor Evil, but BothAnd.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page28.html

Yep, it also speaks to the concept of a Dipolar God (via physicist Paul Davies/The Mind of God). — 3017amen

Yes. I understand what Davies was talking about : that whatever G*D is, it must be responsible for both Good and Evil. Our real world of many parts is undeniable Di-polar. But I prefer to think of transcendent Deity as unitary : a singular whole, rather than an array of particular values from Good at one pole and Evil at the other. It's us humans trying to make sense of our imperfect world that have analyzed it into Black vs White terms of Good vs Evil. But I doubt that our world was created from a heavenly war between a Good God and an Evil God : Ahura Mazda vs Ahriman, or Jehovah vs Satan. Instead, the world was created with the potential (the freedom) for positive (good) and negative (bad) developments.

So, our human choices are what, collectively, set the erratic direction that the world takes. For example, in the Garden of Eden, there was no Good or Evil : it was just a perfect world for its creatures : the vegetarian Lions lay down with the innocent Lambs. Only when the Power of Reason was unleashed upon that idyllic realm did contrast & conflict become an obstacle to human flourishing. Good & Evil are human values, not G*D qualities.

However, my "un-tethered" imaginings of the Pre-Big-Bang state of things can be summed-up as Infinite Possibility (Potential). In Platonic terms, there was nothing Real until Ideality was Actualized : Logos, the principle of Reason, cut-off a piece of Infinity to create a finite world (Cosmos) from infinite possibilities (Chaos). And one unavoidable result of that division of the whole (Random Chaos contains all possible states from 0 to 100, from Bad to Good, but nothing Actual) is imperfection. So, when our world was "born", we inherited some of those parental possibilities, but not the full range --- in which Positives and Negatives cancel-out to neutral. . . . . Does any of that little myth make sense?

Cosmos from Chaos : Plato & Aristotle argued their theories from the assumption of Logos as the creator of Cosmos from Chaos.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page35.html

Yourself and Amen are more interested in they relationship and personal aspect of a God. — Philosophim

I can't speak for 3017Amen, but I have no need for a personal relationship with God or G*D. My thesis is not a religious tract, but a search for a more complete scientific & philosophical understanding of how the world works. As I said, I don't imagine G*D as a person, in any relatable sense. Instead I refer to the Causal Principle of our world's creation as more analogous to Gravity : it's not a thing, but a property of things, that causes changes in space-time. G*D or First Cause or Logos or BEING is the only "thing" that we can say "simply is". Everything in our world traces back to the Power to Be : the ability to make something-from-nothing. And by "nothing" I mean un-actualized Potential.

The only personal property of G*D is what I call "Intention" --- and others have called "Will" --- the cause of a specific direction to creation and evolution --- as opposed to random chaos. For example, in our world, Time doesn't go around in circles, but in a straight line from Past to Future : from Cause to Effect. I have no idea if G*D is conscious in the same sense that humans are conscious. But, since Consciousness is a property of our world, it must have been a Potential in the Source of our world. My blog --- an extension of the thesis --- has nothing to say about our relationship to a transcendent personal G*D. But it has a lot to say about developing a rapport with the real world, and real people.

So apparently, you still don't Grok what I'm saying about the God Question. Admittedly, it's an unorthodox concept, but I am not alone in seeing Information (EnFormAction) as the essence of Reality. :cool:

Those kinds of questions are more meaningful than mathematics and formal logic. — 3017amen

Yes. My Enformationism thesis was intended to provide a reasonable foundation from which to deal with such real-world questions as you mentioned. Unfortunately, it requires people to flip-the-script, and think of the world both Logically & Emotionally, both Scientifically & Philosophically, both Idealistically & Realistically, both Holistically & Reductively. That's why I call it the Bothand Principle.

BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

"The first cause must be X" from this argument. You can only conclude a first cause is what must be, and that this first cause could be anything. — Philosophim

Since I was not presenting a formal logical argument for academic review, I had more liberty than you in reaching my conclusion. So. I tried to infer what properties a First Cause would have to possess in order to create the world we know.

One of those requirements was that the Prime Cause must be Intentional (non-random), because random chance in our world is incapable of creating organization. Some scientists like to imagine that evolution is a blind random process. But they don't take into account that Natural Selection is a sort of If-then algorithm making on-the-spot choices, based on whatever criteria were programmed into the algorithm in the beginning. Atheists will presuppose that the selection criteria were an accidental result of infinite roiling randomness. I just take it as-it-is in the here & now.

This Natural Algorithm is just one of many facts that led me to conclude that the “Programmer” of our world must have some of the characteristics typically attributed to creator gods. Hence the FC couldn't be "just anything". For example it must have the Potential to create (cause) space, time and mind. If the hypothetical Multiverse has that programming power, then it could be the First Cause.

And it would loosely fit my Real & Ideal definition of G*D. Who, like Spinoza's deity, is both metaphysical (Ideal) and the physical (Real) "substance" of reality. Spinoza arrived at his infinite/eternal Substance concept of God, long before the Big Bang theory dispelled the notion that our world is eternal. So, in my thesis, there is a need for a creative act, but not for a humanoid Person --- merely the power of BEING.

Natural Algorithm : In computer science and operations research, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a metaheuristic inspired by the process of natural selection that belongs to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

My statement is, "It is logically possible that a God exists from the conclusion that there is a first cause." No atheist can claim that a God is an illogical or impossible being at this point. — Philosophim

Yes. The famous Atheist, Richard Dawkins once wrote that he had no rational problem with Deism as a religious philosophy. But that was probably because he assumed the non-intervening Deus was a do-nothing deity, and was only a logical possibility (thought-stopper) for those who don't like the idea of a godless world.

For me though, the Deus is not only possible, but the Necessary Being. And my thesis proposes that the Prime Programmer would have no need to tinker with his evolutionary system once it had been executed in the Big Bang. Unfortunately, that also means that humans were provided with sufficient smarts to work-out their own problems, without praying for personal favors.

Spectrum of theistic probability : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

Cosmic Computer Programmer : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page26.html

I wanted to assure you that we do not fall into the "Gods all the way down" argument. — Philosophim

Thanks. I didn't think you meant it was “turtles all the way down”. But origin-less causation is a common response to First Cause arguments.

I think you have a different definition of a God then I do, which is perfectly fine, and it seems nice. This argument here is more about a pure philosophical God, that is extremely limited in scope. — Philosophim

Yes. After I discovered the basic principle of Enformationism --- that Information was not just dumb data (per Shannon) --- I was no longer content with my Agnostic Deistic "god-of-the-philosophers", who is merely an impotent metaphor, or a statistical probability. My G*D (Enformer) has real world powers, that are dismissed by reductive scientists, because you have to think holistically in order to see the Enforming power working in the natural world. And it's overlooked by most Theists, because they are looking for minor miracles, like a drowning victim who revived. But I am much more impressed by the miracle of creating an autonomous living world-organism from scratch.

My G*D definition is based on a very particular line of reasoning that began with an unusual understanding of the role of Information in the world. Information is not just a container for ideas & values, it is also the cause of new forms of matter (energy). That's why I define G*D, not just as a logical First Cause, but as the active agent Enformer (creator) of everything in the world.

What is Information ? : The power to enform, to create, to cause change, the essence of awareness. It's Energy & Matter & Mind
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

God of the philosophers : What the philosophers describe by the name of God cannot be more than an idea. __Blaise Pascal

does my assessment that if we look at our universe, there is only one possibility that its first cause was not a God, versus an infinite number of possibilities [,but] that the first cause was some type of God? — Philosophim

I added the "but" in quotes to make it say what I think you meant : "the First Cause is a God". With that I agree. For several years, I tried to find some alternative to the familiar, but baggage-laden, term "God" to refer to my 21st century Enformer/Programmer notion. So, I compromised with a neologism, G*D, that suggested a deity, but not necessarily the God of Theists.

G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Logically, the bare possibility of a First Cause may be a satisfactory conclusion. But scientifically, I want to know much more about the actualities of Causation. And that is the point of my thesis -- in which I didn't use the term "God".

Enformationism thesis : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page11.html

Enformationism website : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

Thank you Gnomon for participating! You spent a good deal of time on your post, and will attempt to honor you in kind. We may come into disagreement at point, but know that it is from a place of respect. — Philosophim

I suspect that our god models may have a lot in common. The main difference may lie in our starting points. My worldview and god-model are based on my layman's non-academic non-rigorous, yet science-based, Enformationism thesis, not on a critical-logical-philosophical Ontology. So our vocabulary, and some assumptions, may be different, even though we arrive at similar conclusions about the existence and characteristics of a non-empirical metaphysical Ultimate Cause of our imperfect, but progressing, world.

I'm simply sharing some of my own ideas on a topic that still fascinates me, long after I lost my faith in the Bible-God of my upbringing. On this forum, I know better than to expect to win any Yes or No arguments about un-provable opinions or beliefs. Humans have been debating such Transcendent notions since the first creatures looked-up at the sky and began to wonder "why?"

At this point, I'm not assuming there is a creator, or there is not a creator. — Philosophim

I too, tried to begin with a blank slate, without any presumptions. And to simply follow the available scientific & philosophical evidence where it led. Unfortunately, our conclusion that logically there must be an uncaused First Cause for this world's sequence of secondary causes is open to question. Some Cosmologists argue that the "ultimate explanation" for our temporal Natural world is an "infinite regress" of Natural worlds (Multiverses). That non-empirical, but reasonable-sounding, possibility allows them to avoid any notions of a Supernatural Cause or Creator. Yet, they may still be uncomfortable with the necessity for Infinities beyond our space-time world.

"Theists and atheists agree there must be some ultimate explanation, some end to the infinite regress. But they disagree over which properties this 'ultimate being' must have".
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=835

what you need to disprove — Philosophim

Atheists "disprove" your assertion of a First Cause for our Natural world, by asserting that automatic impersonal random Evolution itself could be a self-existent eternal Cause --- like gravity "it just is". This unfounded presumption gets around the need to debate any miraculous interventions into the progression of the world. But my god-model also accepts Evolution, and denies the need for divine meddling with the ongoing process.

A is not defined by anything else, and thus can only be understood as its existence, not by something that is not its existence. — Philosophim

I suspect that some Multiverse proponents would agree with your logic, but still disagree with your implication that the First Cause has no causal precedent.

If you imply there is a reason, you imply something BEHIND that first cause. — Philosophim

I was merely noting what you had already implied : that an ultimate First Cause would not "pop into existence", since it continually exists forever. The answer to a "why" question must be a reason or intention, not necessarily a "something". But in the absence of a divine revelation, we may have to accept a mere place-holder : a loosely-defined G*D Concept.

only one "Why" answer — Gnomon
Until you show the above logic as incorrect, this cannot be claimed. — Philosophim

I have no need to refute your impeccable logic. I'll simple define the Causal Creator of our world, whether a> God or b> Multiverse, as the one-&-only answer to why the creation exists. I'm not aware of any other viable answers (e.g super-aliens).

A God Concept : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page34.html

c> If so, the universe itself would have to possess the power of sudden self-creation or eternal self-existence. — Gnomon
No, if it is a first cause, it did not cause itself. It was not, then it was. If it has the power of eternal self-existence, as a first cause, it does, because it does. — Philosophim

That's what I said. "Self-creation" is a circular oxymoron notion, like "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps". "Self-existence", though, is a viable characteristic of a hypothetical entity that can create new Worlds & Beings, rather than just cause new forms of pre-existing things. Other self-existent beings could exist, but if they are independent minded, like the quarreling Pantheon of Olympus, it would be more like Chaos than Cosmos.
BEING, per se, could be inert immobile existence, equivalent to nothingness. But "Creative BEING" would be able to use its inherent power of existence to cause other beings to exist. No one can deny that our existence implies the "power to be", and the sudden appearance of our world from who-knows-where is impossible without the prior Potential for existence. So I'm simply defining an eternal Law of Being that must logically cause & create all other laws, principles, and things in existence.

Self-existent : existing independently of other beings or causes.

As long as you understand the underlying concept that at any point of creative power, we can imagine a greater creative power — Philosophim

No. That is the understanding of Atheists who challenge Theists with "who created the creator?" But the "Creative Potential" I have in mind is the Power to Exist, that I call "BEING", for short. There could be no space-time limit on an Infinite Pool of Possibilities. You could imagine that PoP as the eternal law of statistics, governing what is possible in Enfernity (Infinity-Eternity), and what is probable in space-time.

God definition : "a being than which no greater can be conceived" ___Anselm

. . . . the First Cause would have to possess infinite Potential — Gnomon
I don't think this is logical. . . . the infinitely powerful God is only one of an infinite other possible gods. — Philosophim

I was talking about the infinite Potential (possible creations) of a single omnipotent deity, not a sequence of Creator Gods all-the-way-down. The First Cause (Agent) is also the Final Cause (Design) --- all-in-one.

I hope I misunderstood you. Can the set of [Infinity] logically or mathematically contain an infinite array of [Infinite] sets? [[[[[[[[Infinity]]]]]]] Or were you allowing for a hypothetical infinite regress of First Causes, where each new First Cause would possess some fraction of Total Power? Or did you have in mind something like the Hindu notion of an infinity of universes cycling forever. Anyway, my puny brain can't deal with such mind-boggline un-definable concepts, so I simply use the shorthand of a single graphic symbol : Ꝏ.

13. If we take this to its conclusion, there is nothing to stop a God of greater power being . . . An infinite number of [possible] beings — Philosophim

For Atheists, that might be true. But for my thesis, a multiplicity of gods is no better, no more powerful, than Creation by Random Accident. And that's not a God by my definition. It's statistical Chance. So, if I was a betting man, I'd put my money on a Unitary Creative Cause, instead of waiting for infinite rolls of the dice. :joke:

About Bergson I don’t know, but it is clear the quote suggests a valid counter-argument from The Esteemed Professor Himself. — Mww

Since modern philosophy is mostly analysis of metaphysical questions, I doubt that Bergson, as a practicing philosopher himself, intended to deny Kant's Metaphysics of Pure Reason. Instead, he may have wanted to focus attention on the Intuition that underlies our reasoning.

All of our "reasons" begin as "feelings". But Feelings are holistic, and difficult to express in words. Yet, metaphysical philosophy is precisely an attempt to justify our intuited inferences in words, arranged in logical order. That's why some philosophical arguments may at first sound good or bad, but hard to say exactly why. The creative ideas of rational thinkers usually begin as holistic intuitive light-bulbs that are later developed into practical reasonable illuminators. :joke:

Reasoning is more intuitive than we think : https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-design/201108/reasoning-is-more-intuitive-we-think

"The Probability of God". . . . . Can you figure out my flaw? — Philosophim

No. But I have gone through my own reasoning process regarding the probable existence of a Creator God. It was in the form of a layman's non-academic non-mathematical thesis statement, and was based on a variety of modern scientific "facts".
Statistical probabilities may apply only within the mathematical system we observe in our local universe. But, we tend to assume that mathematics is universal, in all possible universes.

1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which all others follow. — Philosophim

Either infinite intermediate causes or an eternal final Causal Principle.

Final Cause : the purpose or aim of an action or the end toward which a thing naturally develops.

3. This leads us to 3 plausibilities.
a. There is always a Y for every X. (infinite prior cause).
b. Y eventually wraps back to an X (infinite looped prior cause)
c. There comes a time when there is only X, and nothing prior to Y (first cause) — Philosophim

a> Turtles all the way down
b> Infinite chain of cyclical universes
c> Nothing cannot be a Cause

there is no rule on how that first cause has to exist — Philosophim

Yes, the Creator makes the rules. Our local First Cause could be an Eternal Principle of Causation.

4. a first cause could be anything without limitation — Philosophim

The only limitation for our human definition of the Creator is that it must make sense to our imperfect logical minds.

5. then we're right back where we started. The only answer that can be given is, "It simply is". — Philosophim

Multiverse theorists tend to take the unexplainable "just is" diversion to avoid further questions that are unanswerable with empirical scientific methods. It's like a parent's answer to a pestering child's
"why" questions : "just because . . ." But philosophers are not bound by empirical evidence, and often speculate based on logical evidence : "this follows from that".

6. Therefore the only conclusion is that there is a "First Cause" to our universe. This means that there is no rule or reason why the universe exists, besides the fact that it does. That being the case, wouldn't it be fun to examine the potential of what a first cause would entail, — Philosophim

Would that it were so simple!

The existence of the universe has only one "Why" answer : intentional creation.
But scientists typically dismiss philosophical "why" questions as irrelevant. What they want to know is "how". And the Big Bang, although still debated, is our best answer. Unfortunately, it was rejected at first, because it seemed to imply an intentional "act of creation" rather than a random accident.

My personal G*D theory is based on extrapolations from our knowledge of the Creation to postulate the necessary characteristics of the Creator. We come to know the Artist by examining the Art-work. Our gradually evolving world currently entails a somewhat different kind of Creator from the gods of human societies prior to the Theory of Evolution. Back then, they assumed that the only evolution was negative, in that humans were expelled from the perfect idyllic Garden into a thorny world of blood, sweat & tears.

7. a> We already know that a God forming as a first cause is possible, because with a first cause, there are no rules.
b> Of course, this also means that a universe could have formed without a God just as easily. In either case, it simply is.
c> At first glance, this might mean that it is equally likely that a universe could have formed on its own, — Philosophim

a> Does that imply that the First Cause simply popped into existence at an arbitrary point in eternity, for no reason at all? I find that hard to believe. Instead, I think that some Power or Potential or Principle must have always existed, in order for anything to exist. I call that Principle "BEING" : the power to be.
b> Our universe is a chain of cause & effect extending back to a singular point, beyond which we have no idea what existed. But our logical minds tend to assume some prior Cause, even in a timeless state. Spontaneous existence with no precedence is not an idea we have any evidence for. "It simply is" is no answer for a philosopher.
c> If so, the universe itself would have to possess the power of sudden self-creation or eternal self-existence. But the Big Bang put an end to such notions, that assumed the ever-changing physical universe was inherently Eternal. For the physical universe to be self-caused, the theoretical mathematical Singularity would be its First Cause : from Math to Matter?
BTW --- If G*D is an eternal creative principle, it would have the potential to create an infinite number of mini-verses. But the only actual world we have experience with is obviously finite, and bounded by space & time.

8. What is a specific universe? — Philosophim

A Specified Universe would be the effect of a specific Cause. But our universe is not completely specified or deterministic. Instead, it seems to have begun with "program" similar to DNA that had the potential for gradually developing into a functioning living thinking "organism", but with the freedom to adapt along the way to random variations. Freedom within Determinism.

9. A God would be a being that has the power and knowledge — Philosophim

In our real world experience, "Creative Power" is what we call Potential, to bring into existence something that does not yet exist. Intelligent Creative Power would have the power & know-how to create intelligent beings.

10. We can simplify this power to think and manipulate environments as a number. — Philosophim

Relative to our imperfect finite universe, the First Cause would have to possess infinite Potential, or at least something like an asymptote to Infinity --- is 67% creative power sufficient to produce a world from nothing?

11. A God would be a prime cause that meets this minimum capability, creates the big bang, and our universe occurs exactly as in the one situation in which the big bang was the prime cause. — Philosophim

See 10 above.
But what "exactly" was the Big Bang? Was it a statistical accident, or a quantum fluctuation, or an act of God?

13. If we take this to its conclusion, there is nothing to stop a God of greater power being . . . An infinite number of beings — Philosophim

Infinite independent-minded Beings instead of a single Infinite BEING? That sounds like Chaos.

14. an infinite number of Gods — Philosophim

See 13 above.

15. It may be good or evil, . . . . it would be indistinguishable from a universe which has no God, — Philosophim

Good & Evil are human evaluations of our less than perfect world. But an infinite creator would have to encompass both Good and Evil, which in equal amounts would cancel-out to Neutral. Neither Good nor Evil, just all possible values.

If an intentional divine creation worked like an Evolutionary Program, and operated as designed, without any need for intervention, it would be indistinguishable from the universe we find ourselves in. A properly designed computer program, once executed, would compute its own internal adaptations via feedback loops, until the final solution is found, and the answer printed out : "42" perhaps.
Evolutionary Programming : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

16. it is infinite to 1 that our universe was formed by a God instead of simply forming on its own. — Philosophim

I'm not quite that optimistic. We don't have enough information to calculate such odds, without making some arbitrary unfounded assumptions. So, I simply say the universe looks like it could be a progressive program created by a Prime Programmer. But what was the question that prompted the program????

Alright, the challenge is on! Where is the flaw I finally found? Can you introduce a flaw I missed? — Philosophim

I don't know . . . did I miss something? :joke:

Odds for God : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page51.html

Reality would be like a TV screen with no actual substance behind what you see. — Michael McMahon

Cognitive Psychologist Don Hoffman is not an anti-realist, according to your definition. But he has written a book, The Case Against Reality, which uses your analogy of a TV or computer screen with graphic symbols (icons) that stand in place of a more complex underlying Reality. You may find that his "hidden realism" is similar to your own "mental" reality. :smile:

The Case Against Reality : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman

Interface Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Reality is Ideality : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html

I ultimately determined its conclusion was wrong, but no one else was able to at that time. Can you figure out my flaw? — Philosophim

I have no formal training in analytical philosophy, so I'm not qualified to detect flaws, such as unwarranted assumptions, in your argument. So, I'll just note that argumentation in words has the inherent weakness of subjective interpretation of intended meanings.

Perhaps, with that deficiency in mind, scientist & humorist Steven Unwin has written a book that takes Pascal's statistical Wager as a challenge. In The Probability of God, he uses the "universal unambiguous language of science" (i.e. mathematics) to calculate the likelihood of the existence of a traditional universal God, based not on theological Faith, but on logical Math. Unfortunately, even statistical analysis is slightly subject to implicit bias, unless the answer is confirmed by other objective calculators. Unwin's computation found a 67% positive probability. Was your "conclusion" 100% wrong, or some fraction thereof? :joke:

The Probability of God : https://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/mar/08/highereducation.uk1

Critical discussion of the question "what is the purpose of metaphysics", based on texts from Carnap, Goodman, Bergson and Sellars. — StoicQueen

As a layman philosophy hobbyist, with no formal training, I'm not familiar with the works of Carnap, Goodman, and Sellars, But I do know a bit about Bergson, who viewed Reality --- not like a Reductionist, as as composed of Atoms or Discrete States --- but in a more Holistic manner, as a seamless ongoing process of teleological or creative evolution. So, you could say that he saw the purpose of Metaphysics, as a means of "entering into" Nature, via Intuition, rather than dissecting it via analysis. For the purposes of your exam though, you may find that many modern philosophy professors will find Bergson's approach to be "unscientific", hence less valuable. :smile:

Bergson on Metaphysics : "While Kant had dismissed metaphysics as groundless speculation about things beyond human knowledge, Bergson sees it as a matter of grasping things "from the inside." He calls this "intuition": the kind of understanding we have of our own inner lives."
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2014/04/11/ep92-bergson-metaphysics/

Metaphysics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

the causal relevance of the mind in relation to the matter in the brain — Francis

The Mind, in the sense of Beliefs & Emotions, definitely has causal effects (psychosomatic) on human behavior. And in order to influence behavior, those immaterial feelings & beliefs must somehow cause physical changes in the brain & body, including angry outbursts and physical illness. But exactly how that works is only understood sketchily. I assume you have a layman's theory to explain that two-way causation.

I have my own layman's theory (Enformationism) of how & why Life & Consciousness emerged from lifeless & mindless matter. But, it doesn't go into detail about how Mind influences Brain. So, I'd like to see where you are coming from with your theory. :nerd:

I am going to be assuming the position known as interactionism. — Francis

I wasn't familiar with the concept of "Interactionism", so I looked it up. In Sociology it's a hypothetical perspective (not yet an accepted theory) on how the social environment affects individuals, and vice-versa. But neither the sociological nor psychological applications seem to be mainstream theories at this moment. In Psychology, Interactionism appears to be an update of Cartesian Dualism : " He held that mind was distinct from matter, but could influence matter."

Interactionism :
Sociology -- "This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactionism
Psychology -- "Psychologically, interactionism refers to the theory that the mind is composed of two separate entities, mind and body, each of which affects the other."
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Interactionism

Behavior of matter in the brain is changed from what it would have been if governed completely by the understood rules of physics and chemistry. — Francis

So this theory postulates non-physical (metaphysical) rules? What are those rules, and how do we discover them in brain studies? Are there scientific papers in which they infer those metaphysical laws?

It is a multitude of physical objects in the brain — Francis

Is this based on the Modular Mind hypothesis of how the various specialized brain areas work together to produce coordinated thoughts & behaviors?

Modular Mind : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modularity_of_mind

Organisms who their mutations cause benefit will survive better and reproduce in greater numbers — Francis

The concept of "evolutionary benefit" sounds like either Lamarkism or NDE. Darwinian evolution doesn't assert “benefits” but only “differences” that are selected by the filter of circumstances. "Beneficial" effects assume "intentional" purposes. Again, that's not a mainstream scientific position, but I too see some signs of Intention behind Evolution.

Non-Darwinian Evolution : http://www.biologyaspoetry.com/terms/non_Darwinian_evolution.html
https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.bsmsp/1200514590
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037663571730339X

In the Property-Dualist Interactionist model which I subscribe to we call this other aspect of reality a non-physical property. — Francis

A "non-physical" Property of a physical object is what scientists call a "Quality" or a "Function" of the object. Causation does indeed result in new properties that were not apparent in the original parts of the system. But you seem to be implying a Metaphysical cause of some kind. I have also postulated a Metaphysical form of causation, which I call "Enformy".

Enformy : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

A first change in behavior of matter from what would be expected purely from the predictions of physics and chemistry. For convenience I will refer to this moment in evolution as the initial alteration. — Francis

In Physics a sudden "change in behavior of matter" is called a "Phase Transition". And the sudden emergence of new properties is assumed to be mysterious only because the intermediate steps happen so quickly that we can't discern the intermediate cause & effect stages. Do you have a more fine-grained explanation for something as common as liquid Water instantly becoming solid Ice, with completely different characteristics?

Phase Change : Mind as a causal force
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html

the possibility that the initial alteration was due to some other unknown property other than consciousness. — Francis

A Spiritual property (Soul)? Supernatural intervention?

where does the conscious awareness of a newly conceived baby come from? — Benj96

As a matter of fact, I don't know. But I have a hypothesis, based on the philosophical notion of evolutionary Emergence, and the scientific concept of physical Phase Change. Any new properties or qualities, such as awareness of the environment, "come from" a chain of prior Causes, and from the integrated state of an individualized functional System. But the Potential for those later phases of being were Latent, as encoded information, in the "DNA" of the evolutionary chain, all the way back to the original Singularity (the Cosmic Egg).

Ancient theorists imagined that the immaterial Soul (Life & Consciousness) was a gift from God, that was magically inserted into the material Body at some point between Fertilization and Quickening. But I think gradual emergence makes more sense in the light of modern Science : e.g. 1> Fertilization is the first sign of Life, 2> Quickening is the first sign of Awakening Awareness, and 3> Birth is the literal emergence of an incomplete Person, pending further development of qualities such as walking & reasoning. Of course, we can quibble over the details. But that's my theory, and I'm sticking to it . . . for now. :nerd:


Holistic Emergence : In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own. These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Phase Transition : During a phase transition of a given medium, certain properties of the medium change, often discontinuously, as a result of the change of external conditions, such as temperature, pressure, or others . . . The emergence of superconductivity in certain metals and ceramics when cooled below a critical temperature.

Systems Theory : Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning. A system may be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior.

Emergence of Mind : Mind is an emergent quality (function) of physical brain systems, yet is not a physical property of any of their atoms or subsystems. Matter is what a brain is made of, but Mind is what it does. Functions are also dynamic & emergent, not static features of matter. They require time & change to reveal their immaterial existence.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html

PS__Babies come from fat Mommies

The bottom line is simply that methodological naturalism is a perfectly sound methodological principle, but when it becomes a metaphysical stance it becomes problematical. — Wayfarer

Yes. It was their "implicit prejudice" against non-empirical Metaphysics, not Race, that I was implicitly referring to. For quantitative empirical scientists, it's a useful stance. But for qualitative theoretical scientists & philosophers, those unstated beliefs may be obstacles to their search for fair & balanced truth.

Everybody has "presumptions" that serve as shorthand values to allow for quicker judgments of true/false & good/bad questions. Only when they analyze their own sub-conscious feelings do they realize that they their belief systems have been unfairly slanted toward certain classes of Epistemology, Ontology & Humanity. That's one reason for my late-in-life hobby of philosophy : to clean-up some misunderstandings that have affected my reasoning in the past. :halo:


A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. – William James.

Your body feels their fear is what I meant. Their fear generates hormones and other chemicals which you then consume. I'm not referring to empathy, but chemistry. Not making a moral point, just a biological one. — Hippyhead

So that's why my Body is so uptight. That's OK, as long as my Mind doesn't feel the fear. :joke:

Seriously though, I'm in favor of the current move toward more humane slaughtering techniques. Not because I can taste the difference between cage-raised and free-range chickens, but simply because they are our fellow animals, even though low on the moral agency totem pole.

For those who are concerned about hormones in their food, Kosher & Hallal foods may be good choice. The ancient Jews seemed to be like Native Americans, in that food animals should be treated as respectfully as possible, in order not to offend their spirits, or God. :smile:

Humane Ritual Slaughter : https://www.grandin.com/ritual/rec.ritual.slaughter.html

As does the fear they experienced, the chemicals pumped in to them by industrial farming and so on. Not trying to lecture you about what you eat, but just a reminder, the protein comes with a price tag. — Hippyhead

No, I don't feel the fear of slaughtered animals, not because I'm immoral, but because I am not very Empathic. As an ethical philosophical position, like most humans, I don't consider food animals to be Moral Agents or Moral Subjects. Of course, in our industrialized society, I have the luxury of leaving the messy killing & cleaning to specialists.

If you feel the "other's" pain more than I do though, you may assuage your own visceral discomfort & feelings of guilt by offering a prayer of thanks to the animal who "sacrificed" its life for your benefit, as the Native Americans were wont to do. However, I'm not aware that they were so reverent when they ripped semi-sentient plants from their life-sustaining soil. In general, I suspect that those who distinctly fear their own death are more likely to feel queasy at the thought of any animal's death. Somehow, they feel that Death is unnatural and unjustified. :cool:

Empathic : showing an ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

See my reply to Gitonga on the Double Standards thread :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/440573

See the Death is Neutral thread :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/440039

Not personally! And no, it's not something that is usually spelled out - it's more of an implicit assumption. — Wayfarer

Yes. It's like Implicit Racism, subconscious biases are common among humans-in-general, not just scientists. That's the point of our various attempts at consciousness raising over the centuries since the Enlightenment revealed some of our explicit biases.

However the way it became interpreted in science in the modern period relegates much of what is otherwise philosophically significant to the role of the subjective. — Wayfarer

Many scientists are not concerned with what is "philosophically significant", because their job is to dissect the world into easily comprehensible, mathematically rigorous, and objectively factual chunks. "Alternative" scientists (pseudo-scientists) tend to accept more holistic evidence (e.g. subjective, anecdotal; common beliefs) from which to draw inferences. That may be acceptable to philosophical Theologists, but not to pragmatic Psychologists. :smile:

Implicit Racism : . . . includes unconscious biases, expectations, or tendencies that exist within an individual, regardless of ill-will or any self-aware prejudices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversive_racism

Why do people have double standards when it comes to animals? — Gitonga

It's not a "double standard", but a broader hierarchical standard, in which we assign values to the different levels based on some communally-acceptable moral standard. The most comprehensive rule in this case is "thou shalt not kill". But, even the Holy Bible goes on to make lots of exceptions. So, apart from divine revelation, how do we evaluate the various subjects & objects of our moral obligations?

Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden were merely upright animals with hands, until they learned to make a distinction between Good & Evil. Of course, most animals instinctively know what's good or bad for the them personally. It's when we extend that discernment to other animals that the necessity for objective Moral Rules arises. Unfortunately, most animals are Moral Subjects, not Moral Agents. They are simply not mentally equipped to make such decisions for others, or to accept responsibility for their own transgressions. For example, if dogs are Moral Agents, can we require them convert to vegetarians? (is dry dog-food that's mostly cereal OK?)

However, some of the "higher" animals, such as dogs and dolphins, do seem to have the ability to extend their own sphere of interest to others of their own pack or pod. And since they sometimes, but not always ("dog bites man"), include humans in their moral circle, we feel obliged to return the favor. So, it's usually the ones that don't treat us morally that we have traditionally placed in the category of Food or Fauna. Asians don't always classify dogs as non-food*1. Yet Westerners "love" dogs that roll in their own excrement, but not pigs that taste good when cleaned-up and cooked. Is there a logical reason for that distinction? (no, pigs are not the only food animals that carry parasites)

Ironically, some humans are so morally neurotic that they make egregiously arbitrary categories of "thou shalt not eat". The exclusion of pigs as food is understandable, since they seem to be almost as smart as dogs, even though they don't seem to be quite as lovable to humans. But why exclude shrimp & lobster from the menu? Along with insects, they appear to be completely alien from humanity, so why not kill & eat them? Perhaps because some queasy eaters find them so alien that they are disgusting. Not because they are moral subjects.

In his 1994 book, The Moral Animal, Robert Wright concludes that humans have been gradually expanding their Moral Circle over the millennia from including only kin, to multi-family tribes, and eventually (in theory, if not practice) to all of mankind. In his 1981 book, The Expanding Circle, Peter Singer decided that limiting our moral concern to humans is arbitrary, so he includes most animals (but not living plants) within the definition of our moral kindred. But, it's obvious that we are far from that idealistic egalitarian ethic. Yes, our food hierarchies are somewhat arbitrary, traditional, and customary. And customs change when situations change. Perhaps when scientists learn how make food from petroleum (long-dead plants), we will be able to live like angels without the necessity for killing & eating living things. :cool:


Moral Agents : A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.

Moral Circle Expansion : https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/4/18285986/robot-animal-nature-expanding-moral-circle-peter-singer

Logical Extreme Fallacy : "Thou shalt not kill", if generalized to all possible situations would mean that omnivorous humans are automatically sinners in the eyes of the Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

*1 Technically for Jews, dogs are "unclean" animals because they eat other animals. And presumably they were too valuable for herding sheep to sacrifice for food or sacrifices.

They might say that, but by holding everything to the standards of 'what can be proven by science' they're still operating under anthopocentrism, albeit a concealed form of it. Why? Because the 'scientific thinker' believes that the scientific picture is completely devoid of the subject, or subjectivity, that it is a picture of what is 'truly there' independent of any perceiver. — Wayfarer

Science is practiced by Humans, so it is naturally Anthropocentric. And it is practiced by Subjects, so it is inherently subjective. But the Scientific Method is motivated by the ideal goal of Objective Truth. Would you prefer that "scientific thinkers" adopt the perspective of Crows or Bonobos or Aliens? Is there a viable alternative to the imperfect objectivity of self-critical Science --- such as divine revelation? Perhaps meditation practices could improve on biased worldviews by offering a "view from nowhere"?

Do you know of some arrogant scientists who claim to be "devoid of subjectivity"? The detrimental effects of subjective bias on scientific theories prompted Karl Popper to turn the focus from "proof" of concept to "falsifiability". Since, unlike religious "truths", scientific "facts must be corroborated by skeptical experts before being accepted as provisional true, errant subjectivity is supposed to be cancelled-out by the critical objectivity of peers. Of course, some prejudices, such as Atheism, may be common among practicing scientists, but that merely rules-out unfalsifiable miracles. Do you know of some Alternative Science that is devoid of subjective bias, or the perspective of human perception ?

The Buddha offered his own method of gaining useful knowledge : i.e. subjective Self-Knowledge. But the post-enlightenment Scientific Method was primarily concerned with objective knowledge of the outside world. A combination of the two might allow us to construct a worldview with reliable knowledge of both inside and outside "truths". That is, in fact, the idealistic goal of the Enformationism thesis, and the BothAnd philosophy.



Scientific Objectivity : The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its value and its attainability. . . . The prospects for a science providing a non-perspectival “view from nowhere” or for proceeding in a way uninformed by human goals and values are fairly slim, . . .
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/

BothAnd : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page2.html

But as I was pointing out, not all theories in the "human" realm are - or must be - scientific. To think that all theories must be scientific in nature is what leads down the slippery slope of reductionism. — Pantagruel

Yes. The typical criteria for belief, for most folks, is not objective or empirical or logical or falsifiable evidence, but whether "it works for me". :smile:

So death, as a void of all living qualities must neither be a particularly bad or good experience. It's likely not even an experience at all. In this sense death is akin to a "dreamless sleep" which most would argue is a relatively fine and comfortable state of being. — Benj96

I agree. :up:


“I'm not afraid of death; I just don't want to be there when it happens.”

“You can live to be a hundred if you give up all the things that make you want to live to be a hundred.”

“I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don't want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment.”
― Woody Allen

What I'm struggling to understand is the means by which you're distinguishing how people want others to see them from the way they really think. Isn't how you want others to see you one of the things you really think? — Isaac

One example of that belief vs knowledge mental phenomenon is the "unconscious bias" of Implicit Racism.

Implicit Racism : https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/implicit-racism

I take that as a good refutation of the argument that's predicated on some proposal beingtoo idealistic. — TheMadFool — TheMadFool

Idealistic proposals are fine, as long as they are followed by Pragmatic implementation. The Quakers are also a non-violent people. They were involved in the anti-slavery movement and Amnesty International. Their practical theology got results in social improvements. But their inwardly-focused religion has lost ground to more heavenly-focused and openly-evangelical Protestant fundamentalists. The best refutation of idealistic proposals is popular indifference.

My understanding of Moral Progress is that it is more apparent when the social & technical environment is conducive to changing traditional ingrained attitudes toward Them : other cultures, other religions, gentiles, outsiders. Evolutionary progress is typically gradual & emergent rather than radical & obvious. Humans tend to adapt to their changing social milieu only grudgingly. I'm not just being critical of Idealism, but simply noting the necessity of putting theories into practice. I too, tend to be idealistic, yet introverted, and not socially-involved enough to inspire other people with my non-violent aspirations. Shame on me! :worry:

Is there such a thing as moral progress? : https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2019/03/is-there-such-thing-as-moral-progress.html[/quote]

PS__What we need now is a modern update on Ahimsa and Quakerism that is appropriate for our multicultural modern societies. Several years ago, I was involved in the idealistic Universist Movement, intended to unite non-religious people into a campaign for a non-faith-based rationale for a peaceful society. As an internet phenomenon, it gained members quickly, but just as quickly faded away as internal divisions arose. The idealist concept of Universalism didn't have the right-stuff to attract practical and self-involved people to make the necessary compromises and commitments. My own proposal is the BothAnd philosophy, but it's too philosophical, too idealistic, and not appealing to the realistic masses --- or to philosophical critics.

BothAnd Philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page2.html

I take that as a good refutation of the argument that's predicated on some proposal being too idealistic. — TheMadFool

Idealistic proposals are fine, as long as they are followed by Pragmatic implementation. The Quakers are also a non-violent people. They were involved in the anti-slavery movement and Amnesty International. Their practical theology got results in social improvements. But their inwardly-focused religion has lost ground to more heavenly-focused and openly-evangelical Protestant fundamentalists.

My understanding of Moral Progress is that it is more apparent when the social & technical environment is conducive to changing traditional ingrained attitudes toward Them : other cultures, other religions, gentiles, outsiders. Evolutionary progress is typically gradual & emergent rather than radical & obvious. Humans tend to adapt to their changing social milieu only grudgingly. I'm not just being critical of Idealism, but simply noting the necessity of putting theories into practice. I too, tend to be idealistic, yet introverted, and not socially-involved enough to inspire other people with my non-violent aspirations. Shame on me! :worry:

Is there such a thing as moral progress? : https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2019/03/is-there-such-thing-as-moral-progress.html

We are experiencing a very different reality and I will stand on the idea that is a New Age and we are just beginning to adjust to the ability to feed everyone, educate everyone, provide medical care for everyone. — Athena

The New Age you refer to seems to be what we now call "Market Socialism". :smile:

Market Socialism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

[2] Man is the highest of beings known to science, and his power and convenience should be promoted at all costs. [3] Spiritual and magical forces cannot influence events, and life after death may be disregarded, because it is unproven by scientific methods.

Item [2] was indeed a common belief prior to the European "enlightenment". and during the following centuries, until the advent of Darwinism. But, I suspect that most scientists in the 21st century would not subscribe to that human-centric belief. Some even entertain the notion that flesh & blood humans will be superseded by more highly-evolved mechanical & digital ubermensch. Yet, as illustrated in the movie, The Matrix, those ego-less super-intelligent machines may still view themselves as the pinnacle of evolution. Personally, I won't even try to predict the future of non-human-nature.

Item [3] is still the opinion of most scientists, since "spiritual and magical" forces are completely subjective, and not amenable to empirical verification. Like gods & ghosts, they are "true" to the extent that you believe in them. :cool:

granted that this dark chapter in human history lasted so long for the same reason you think Jain ahimsa won't work (too idealistic) but don't forget that slavery has been abolished (at least on paper). — TheMadFool

Ancient arguments in favor of slavery were mostly fatalistic : "that's just the way it is". But modern abolition movements were successful in changing traditional social systems, not so much due to philosophical arguments, but to concurrent technological substitutes for slaves (machines). Even though most tech-advanced nations today have officially abolished slavery, those with sluggish economies and low technology are still unofficially dealing with black-market slavery.

Likewise, mano a mano violence is on the decline in civilized societies, not directly due to religious or philosophical arguments, but to modern alternatives such as police and lawyers. In their recent books on the global decline in violence, both Pinker & Shermer admit that we still have a long way to go. And neither mentions the idealist philosophy of Ahimsa, or the divine commandment "thou shalt not kill", as a contributing cause of the on-going trend toward non-violence. Instead, it was technological proxies (nuclear weapons) for old-fashioned fisticuffs, and pragmatic political changes (laws & enforcement) that began to move violence from individual Macho retribution, to World Wars, to guerilla-actions (Al Qaeda) & nation-state (e.g. ISIS) retributive justice, and then to the restorative justice of local & international courts of law.

Don't get me wrong. I think philosophical moral ideals are necessary to worldwide ethical improvements, but practical on-the-ground cultural & technological changes (agriculture, cities, laws, etc) are the effective tools for implementation of those ideas. For example, in the future, when everybody has a robot for grunt-work and sex-work, human slavery may fade away. And when rational, unbiased, emotionless robots do our policing and warring, human violence may no longer seem necessary, to put our primitive feelings of anger, jealousy, envy, & such into practice. Unfortunately, post-apocalyptic sci-fi, makes even that kind of progress seem unobtainable, due to the inherent evils of un-evolved human nature. Personally, I am hoping that Pinker & Shermer are correct, that man's-inhumanity-to-man may eventually be eliminated by our progressive understanding and control over ourselves. Yet, even that notion may be too idealistic. But then, I am a stubborn philosophical optimist. :cool:

Modern Slavery : https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century

Better Angels of our Nature : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

The Moral Arc : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Arc

Despite this downside, Jainism is all about ahimsa (non-violence) and by making this their primary cause they effectively thwart any possibility of real-world violence between people - hell is for the after life and not this one. — TheMadFool

It's an idealistic idea, but hard to implement in the real world. Jains have been known to sweep the road ahead of their feet to avoid crushing the souls of ants. They also wear masks to avoid inhaling mosquitoes. But what about the souls of those innocent plants they rip from Mother Earth, boil to death, and gnash with their teeth?

Ahimsa seems to be the basic principle of Vegetarianism carried to a logical extreme. "First do no harm" was the prime feature of the Hippocratic oath. But. like most ideal principles, it has always been hard to follow in practice. For example, a surgeon has to do harm in order to do good. In real life, there are always good exceptions to good rules. To wit, I eat the flesh of innocent animals that have been harmed without their consent. But their protein eventually becomes an integral component of my own body. So now we are "one flesh". That's good for me, no? For us? Hmmmm. :chin:

Could karma be more like the religious interpretations? Something not there because of people, but something that is embedded in existence itself? — Mind Dough

Most theories of Karma & Heaven envision some sort of cause & effect Justice in this or another world, but not necessarily in your current lifetime. Since human laws and judgments are notoriously biased, throughout history ethical thinkers have seen the need for super-human Justice. Most cultures have imagined wise & infallible gods of Justice, yet accepted that such perfect equity was seldom seen in reality. So, the ultimate righting of wrongs was typically deferred to an after-life of some kind. Unfortunately, such otherworldly justice had to be taken on Faith in seers & sages with access to the occult realms.

Some modern folks have given-up on Faith to make them feel better about the unfairness of the real world. But, I think they can take some insipid solace in the mathematical fact that impartial unbiased Randomness rules the laws of our physical world. Those evolutionary algorithms seem to be "embedded in existence itself". But they are truly fair & impartial in that they don't make exceptions to the implacable rule of Natural Law for people of moral merit. Thus the long-running lament : "Why do bad things happen to good people?" So, if Karma is a natural law, it must be able to discern Good from Evil like a moral agent. And its positive effect should be evident in the here & now, like all cause & effect events. :cool:

Karma : "destiny or fate, following as effect from cause". __Wiki
Sanskrit = action & reaction.
"Karma, as taught in the Buddhist tradition and other spiritual traditions of India, is a cosmic law that operates automatically, like the law of gravity."

Natural Law : . . . independent of, and pre-existent to, the positive law of any given political order, society or nation-state. Such genesis is seen as determined by nature (whether that reflects creation, evolution, or random chance), and a notional law of nature treated as objective fact that is universally applicable;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Natural Justice : traditionally, assumed an intelligent agent of some kind to administer impartial rulings on the merits of each case of interpersonal contention. But in practice, Natural Justice is the result of randomized statistical algorithms inherent in the "laws" of Evolution.

Why do bad things happen to good people? :
Science --- https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-purpose/201910/why-do-bad-things-happen-good-people
Christianity --- https://www.christianitytoday.com/biblestudies/articles/theology/why-do-bad-things-happen-to-good-people.html
Judaism --- https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/622117/jewish/Why-Do-Bad-Things-Happen-to-Good-People.htm
Hinduism --- https://krishna.org/why-do-bad-things-happen-to-us/
Buddhism --- https://brightwayzen.org/why-does-god-let-bad-things-happen/

But ‘enlightenment’ in the Buddhist sense - bodhi - has nothing to do with European ‘enlightenment values’ which are very much the product of the unique historical circumstances which prevailed in the Europe of the day. — Wayfarer

Yes. I'm currently reading Robert Wright's latest book, Why Buddhism Is True, in which he gives a secular psychological analysis of the Eastern version of Awakening from our illusions. The primary difference seems to be that Buddhist "enlightenment" was directed inwardly, toward understanding & control of the subjective self (e.g. Psychology), while the European "enlightenment" was focused outwardly, toward knowledge & control of the objective natural world (e.g. Physics). Eventually though, the West began to apply its objective methods to the subjective Mind in the so-called "soft-sciences". Wright's book suggests a blend of eastern & western approaches to shining light in the darkness (e.g. Neuroscience & Meditation).

Apparently, the OP was referring to the European secular revolution, as was Steven Pinker in his book, Enlightenment Now! Pinker's book was provoked primarily by the religious & political Right, which tend to denigrate the authority of secular Science. Such concerns are in the air these days. There is another Enlightened Worldview Project, asking "Can science bring peace to our world and to our lives?" Humanity-in-general seems to be dependent upon, and loathe to live without, our comforting illusions of attainable absolute Truth. But, is Scientism also based on an illusion of omniscience? Are our current "historical circumstances" begging for a Revival of Inner & Outer Enlightenment?? :cool:


Enlightened Worldview Project : "This leads us to the realization that inner peace (that we seek within our own consciousness) and outer peace (that we seek with the outside world) are deeply interdependent".
https://medium.com/@brandon_29259

Scientism : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques. --Wiki

↪Gnomon
Community standards aren’t objective. Otherwise they would be universally applied. — Pinprick

True. But only God's universal laws would be completely Objective & unbiased. So "community standards", such as those of empirical Science, are as close to objectively ethical as we can get. In effect, via the statistical effect of "The Wisdom of Crowds", impersonal collective standards tend to average out the various subjective biases of each citizen of a given culture. :smile:

Objective : not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.; impartial, non-partisan.

Wisdom of Crowds : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

In short therefore I am making the claim that whether ethics is subjective or objective depends on circumstance. — Bert Newton

Yes. There are two "Oughts", the subjective conscience of each person, and the objective "Shoulds" of their community standards. Ancient divine Moral Law was essentially a formalization of traditional communal Ethics. :smile:

In any case, if academia for philosophy is that bad I might switch to psychology. It's not a bad choice and fits in pretty well with my line of interest. — Shawn

Disclaimer : I have no formal training in Philosophy or Psychology. I'm mostly self-taught and non-academic. So, caveat emptor. Philosophy is a good hobby for my old age, but may be a "bad choice" for a young professional.

If Philosophy-in-general is your thing though, then go for it. But academic philosophers are typically not as highly regarded now as in the past, especially by "hard" scientists. However, on the bright side, I view the field of Psychology to be a philosophical endeavor that is narrowly focused on the human mind & behavior. Socrates & Plato were mostly concerned with the mysterious workings of the mind, and even Aristotle divided his encyclopedia of current knowledge into Physics (physical science) and Metaphysics (mental science).

However, Psychology doesn't usually qualify as an empirical science, except insofar as it gets proven positive results in treating human mental suffering. That's why B. F. Skinner's Behaviorism was an attempt to turn away from unprovable Freudian & Jungian philosophical & mythical approaches, and toward more empirical laboratory methods. It did gain some novel insights into the motives of lab rats, but the more recent Cognitive Behavioral Therapy seems to be closer to an effective "hard" science for human traumas. Even so, there are lots of Self-Help Gurus out there who mix religious & pop-psychology terminology in their "secrets of success" sermons. So, you'll have lots of competition in that arena.

Back to the "bright side" though : philosophical explorations into Consciousness Studies seem to be a new, rapidly evolving, highly interdisciplinary field that includes psychology, philosophy, physics, sociology, and religion. If that kind of application of philosophical thinking interests you, then you may get more academic (status) and employment respect (money), because it is currently a "hot topic". Many of the threads on this forum are discussions of concepts related to Consciousness. And Neuroscience is beginning to dig-up some hard data upon which to base your philosophical theories. Maybe you can discover some Wisdom in the lab, to supplement your Data. :smile:


Psychology Careers : https://www.psychologydegree411.com/careers/

PS__In case the current strained relationship between Science and Philosophy bothers you, here's an article by Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist working in the cutting edge field of Loop Quantum Gravity. Like it or not, all scientific hypotheses and theories begin as philosophical speculations, in search of evidence and falsifiability.

Physics Needs Philosophy : https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-needs-philosophy-philosophy-needs-physics/

I believe the potential reality of the New Age, a time of peace and high tech, and the end of tyranny. A future so different from our past, those in the New Age will not be able to relate to the past. It is that change in consciousness that truly makes it a New Age. — Athena

The term "Age of Enlightenment" is usually applied by historians to an era in 17th & 18th centuries, that was sparked by the re-discovery of Greek Rationalism, and spread by the new technology of the printing press. Its early stages were marked by a formalization of the empirical scientific method, and later by the emergence of Individualism & Humanism, as a philosophical reaction to the intellectual suffocation imposed by the Collectivism and Spiritualism of the dominant Christian Church of the Dark Ages.

But a "New Age of Enlightenment" emerged in the 19th & 20th centuries as a reaction to the dominance of Modern Scientism and Secularism. The New Age movement was a return to Collectivism (communes) and Spiritualism (Buddhism, Hinduism, Theosophy). It also expressed a distaste for Rationalism & Empiricism & Objectivism & Modernism. Unfortunately, like the return of Christ, the prophesied Age of Aquarius (peace & love) never occurred, and many old hippies became pot-smoking suburbanites.

These different interpretations of "Enlightenment" seem to be recurring examples of Hegel's historical Dialectic, in which a once dominant worldview is challenged, and sometimes replaced, by a new opposing paradigm. Yet eventually, some of the key ideas of the previous "enlightenment" are retained in the subsequent "synthetic" worldview. Many people now claim to be "spiritual but not religious", and even "back to nature" types have made accommodations for the technological fruits of Modern Science. So, you could say that the world of human culture is progressing by erratic (zig-zag) stages of enlightenment toward a more flourishing and moral future.

However, at this moment in time, there is a new burgeoning movement called the "Enlightenment Project", which is a counter-attack on the anti-Science and anti-Reason worldviews, not so much of old hippies, but of old Republicans. And so it goes, on & on. Enlightenment is not a specific age or sudden inspiration, but the evolving learning process of humanity. :smile:

Enlightenment : education or awareness that brings change; consciousness raising

Hegel's Dialectic : Thesis >>> Antithesis >>> Synthesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

Historical Progression : see Age of the Sage link
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/history/hegel_philosophy_history.html

Dark Side of Enlightenment : https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dark-side-of-the-enlightenment-1523050206