Maybe, but imo not as much as being either an Epicurean philosopher or a Stoic philosopher ... or even being an absurdist (Zapffe/Camus-like) philosopher ... might help.It is the current state of political affairs that most concerns me. Does being a 'Socratic philosopher' help? — Amity
:roll: These are not the droids you are looking for.If we observed midichlorions, it would indicate Jediism is true. — Hallucinogen
Thanks.↪180 Proof That seems to be a very good account of morality — Tom Storm
Like e.g. absolute ends justify/excuses all relative means (Biblical / Quranic theodicy); "teleological suspension of the ethical" (Kierkegaard); etc ... but (iirc) it was Camus (or Voltaire) who said something like even godlessness does not imply that nothing is prohibited as a riposte to traditions of theologically rationalizing atrocities committed "in the name of God".I recall Slavoj Žižek making the entirely reasonable riposte that, 'If there is a God, then anything is permitted'.
Yes, I think morality as such, like language, gives our species some adaptive advantages.Do you think that the development of morality is a significant aspect of our evolutionary trajectory?
Nature might not be "absolute" but for all natural beings, including we humans, Nature is sovereign and inescapable.a world where there are no absolutes — Fire Ologist
No, of course not. One does not entail the other. Besides, it's more adaptive (or pragmatic) than not, to have a morality (from the Latin word mores meaning 'customs') like developing and using a common language or practicing good diet & hygiene.Do you agree with me then, that anyone who does not believe in natural, objective truths, really has no ground to stand on to build up a morality? — Fire Ologist
It's a form of negative consequentialism¹ (i.e. my term for it is aretaic disutilitarianism meaning 'virtue-based harm-prevention/reduction').Would you call your morality utilitarian?
The ancient Hebrews like all other tribal peoples survived, in part, because they had adopted customary prohibitions "not to murder, steal and lie" long before any elder heard a voice telling him/them to do so. 'Core morality' long precedes religion and, in fact (re: anthropology), makes cults & reiigions, as well as trade & politics, possible, and therefore is based on human eusociality (& empathy) constitutive of being a natural species.Just because God said to Moses “thou shalt not murder, steal, and lie” [ ... ]
'Killing is wrong' (all things being equal) because everyone fears being killed. This core moral idea is, afaik, an objective requirement of every eusocial grouping especially but not limited to humans.It’s still an objectively good idea to say murder is wrong,no matter how you derive that idea.
Not exclusively. We are harmed by and suffer from whatever makes our kind (species) of natural being dysfunctional. This harm and suffering, while experienced subjectively, is also objective, which is why the old maxim "A physician who treats himself has a fool for a patient" is more often than not a true statement.Aren’t suffering, pain and pleasure subjective ...?
Using a more precise and specific term – "anti-supernatural" in this case – is no more limiting (imo) than using a better, perhaps the best, tool for the job.Don't limit yourself. — Harry Hindu
I didn't say or imply "delusional" is not "relevant" in this context but that it's too broad and psychologistic rather than a precise and metaphysical term like supernaturalistic.Is it not relevant in a thread discussing religion and metaphysics to assert that religion is a type of delusion?
No. Atheism, as I've pointed out up-thread (p. 2), implies nonduality by rejecting theism which consists of (e.g. creator-creation, spirit-flesh, supernatural-nature) duality.And does this assertion provide a non-dual "bridging" between theism and atheism ...?
I suppose that depends on how one answers ... which thread question? :chin:Would the answer to the thread's question ...?
No, but I understand that "The Good" is nonbeing.Do you know what is the Good? — Janus
I know that if she's a mortal, then she cannot "know" ...If someone claims to know what is the Good, do you know, can you know, that she knows what is the Good?
Non sequitur. It was you, Panta, who asserted without argument that my sine qua non claims of theism, which are easily falsified (i.e. atheism), is "ad hoc" or that I "made it up" and so I'm requesting of you to put up – respond with a citation that counters my concept of theism (yeah, we both know you cannot :sweat:) – or shut up.Show me where this thread is about the defining attributes of "theism". — Pantagruel
I definitely do not agree with your "some people" as my previous posts point out. Maybe below (A, B, C1, C2) my reasoning will be clearer to you.Some people who don’t believe in God, also say things like “there is no truth” or “there are no absolutes.” — Fire Ologist
Yes, see (B) below.So something is there for you to work out a morality.
which can be demonstrated using sound arguments. No doubt, open to discussion and debate. "Why bother?" you ask. To expose the flaws in the argument and explore via thought-experiments / scenarios moral naturalism's (as conceived here) pragmatic plausibility because we are thinking adults instead of dogmatic or supertitious children.• humans are natural beings which are imbedded in and inseparable from nature and its regular processes (re: objective facticity);
• natural beings suffer from what they do to and what they fail to do for themselves or others;
• humans know what makes humans (and other natural beings like humans) suffer and therefore how to prevent or reduce human (natural beings') suffering (re: disvalue);
• virtues are habits reinforced by preventing and reducing suffering (re: disvalue) whereas vices are habits reinforced by neglecting or increasing suffering (re: disvalue);
• human flourishing means maximizing virtues and minimizing vices)
No. Again, morals =/= laws. :roll:... moral laws ...
Does the above make sense to you now? — Fire Ologist
I don't believe in "God" ... and, because there are objective truths, I'm a moral naturalist.if I didn’t believe in God and objective truth
You don't have a left in the US. You have a slightly left of centre Sanders who is silenced by the Democratic Party which is itself right but not as authoritarian as the Republicans (unitary theory of government Bullshit). — Benkei
:100: :up:I recall qualifying the 2020 election as a choice between two evils. One of those evils got a lot worse. It clarifies once again that the USA doesn't qualify as a democracy. If the political system cannot produce choices beyond a vegetable and a criminal then quite obviously other people are in control what you get to vote on. We call that banana republics. — Benkei
Based on Abrahamic, Hindi, pantheonic Greco-Roman-Egyptian-Babylonian-Persian-Mesoamerican-Aboriginal traditions, I understand theism as consisting of [at least] the following claims:
(1) at least one ultimate mystery
(2) created existence,
(3) intervenes in – causes changes (which cannot be accounted for otherwise) to – the universe
(4) and is morally worthy of worship.
Cite any deity-tradition, sir, that you consider 'theistic' and that does not conceptualize its (highest) deity with these attributes, or claims. :chin: — 180 Proof
Morals =/= laws; your question doesn't make sense.[W]hy make moral laws we all should follow if there is no such thing as laws we all should follow? — Fire Ologist
Given the context (our two posts at the top of this page), ask a question that makes sense.Please answer my question. — L'éléphant
:halo: :up:By destroying people's freedom and ability to think, theism can cause untold damage. The step from believer to satanically evil is very small. All one needs to do is project one's own nihilism and religious absolutism onto others. It even works because fanaticism craves converts. — Tom Storm
From a human perspective, non-human nature can seem "unfair and unjust" ... to some less fortuitous "human populations".Nature is not created equal or fair, and as a result, some human population had fared better than others. — L'éléphant
:up: :up:All the religious person can do is interpret scripture or respond from personal perspectives regarding how they 'imagine' god wants them to behave. — Tom Storm
... then (a) "God" is not an objective fact that is either directly or indirectly observed.If we grantthat there isobjectivity ... — Fire Ologist
As per Plato's Euthyphro, 'morality is objective' because (a) "God" says so and not that (a) "God" says so because –independent of all subjects including (any) "God" – it is objective? :eyes:God serving as judge of moral objectivity
Your confusion, in part, comes from equivocating, or conflating, "object" (ontology) and "objective" (epistemology), Fire Ologist, which is typical of p0m0s / idealists / platonists. :sparkle:I believe those of us who think every “object” we take up is ONLY constructed by ourselves, are just wrong, because there is an objective reality with mind-independent distinctions in it.
I.e. assert without argument or non-arbitrary grounds. :roll:This is because I believe ..
Ad hominem, not an argument. Quite telling. — 180 Proof
:sweat:↪180 Proof It isn't against you. It is a generalized fact about the epistemological makeup of individual entities, of which you happen to be one. — Pantagruel
:roll: Ad hominem, not an argument. Quite telling.Or you have failed to observe the evidence in the events comprising your own life due to your own attitude, or simply some inherent limitation of your cognitive makeup. — Pantagruel
To the degree you (we) are not coerced by other agents or constrained by either internal and/or external conditions, you (we) "have" free actions.Do I have free will? — kindred
We do not "deny" anyone's "experience" only observe that such "experience" does not correspond to anything outside of your head. The experiential difference between us, sir, is not that we 'have failed" but that you seem to emotionally need to take fantasies (of "possibility") literally and we do not.To deny the possibility of something that someone else has experienced because you have failed to experience — Pantagruel
Yes indeed, consider (e.g.) cults, asylums, prisons, casinos, p0m0 seminars, MAGA/Klan rallies ... ye shall know "beliefs" by their fruits. :mask:The substance of any belief is the effect] that belief has upon the actions of the believer.
:rofl:... punching bags to us post modern sages. — Fire Ologist
:100: Amen!All you’re doing here is saying god equals objectivity. But you can’t demonstrate a single belief any god holds regarding morality. Pretty sure you can’t point to a single objective truth about that god. And you certainly can’t demonstrate a god. — Tom Storm
"An illusion" is that which is not what it seems to be. "An array of choices" is, in fact, only some predictions based on inertia, biases, assumptions, incomplete / incorrect information and do not determine (cause) actions or outcomes (effects).How could it be an illusion though, seems to me I have an array of choices. — kindred
:100: :fire:... traditional tropes, such as the Biblical vision of God creating the world for the use of humanity have contributed to this looming crisis.
Our economic system is unsustainable, being predicated on endless growth, with collapse being the only alternative. Nothing to do with tradition, unless you count the tradition amongst economists of discounting ecological costs as a part of the economy. That greater disrupter of tradition, science, has been telling us how wrongheaded this economic thinking in terms of "externalities" is for more than half a century. — Janus
the degree to which the coalitions which make up the Dems coalesce again like they did in 2020 to make the election about opposition to The Neofascist Criminal Clown in Roevember. — 180 Proof
Of course it is, just like your question.That isn't nonsensical though, is it 180? — AmadeusD
I hope philosophy helps me to live less foolishly ...What do you want and expect from philosophy? — Fooloso4
[The] purpose of philosophy, especially for those who recognize that they (we) are congenitally unwise, may be (YMMV) to strive to mitigate, to minimize, the frequency & scope of (our) unwise judgments, conduct, etc via patiently habitualizing various reflective exercises (e.g. dialectics, etc.) And in so far as 'wisdom' denotes mastery over folly & stupidity (i.e. misuses & abuses, respectively, of intelligence, knowledge, judgment, etc), I translate φίλος σοφία as striving against folly & stupidity.
:up: Exactly. For example, theists cannot demonstrate that their "god exists" is (except only in their minds) an objective truth.No theist can identify objective truth either. — Tom Storm
I agree, that's why I said nothing about it.Lots of evidence there is no such thing as free will. — Fire Ologist
This statement doesn't make any senseIf there are no rules, we can’t languish in the anxiety of breaking the rules.
Well, that seems to me a "fairly adolescent" – unwarranted – "premise".The premise here is there is no god, no objective truth.
Free thinking, free living.No God, no hope for anything more than nature drawing its breath. — Fire Ologist
For starters, in order to flourish more than languish...Why be ethical at all?
Perhaps they "seem" so to a child.Seems philosophy and ethics would be annoying and tiresome.
No more "irrational" than an atheist reducing harm and correcting falsehoods.So maybe atheism is not only rational, but accurate, but if it is so, aren’t ethics and truth irrational?
Yeah, that's how lazy cynics "bullshit" themselves.It’s all bullshit we tell ourselves. — Fire Ologist
