Clearsky

[Clearsky]

I personally worship the “Sun” because through nuclear fission, it sends energy to sustain all life on earth!

His name is RA! The sun God!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_deity

Joking!

Worship is the wrong word.

I am happy that I am actually a live, that I am conscious and not suffering.That I was born at all. Because the probability of these events in the time line of the universe is very small. Knowing this I will use my time as best I can. In the present moment.

 

I would say it that way

 

 

[Clearsky]

 

By using the word some (quantifier) to describe the (subject) values. It by definition means that there are other values

Enthymeme – a logical argument that contains a conclusion but an implied premise

In ordinary speech we use these all the time ” its raining so I am going to take an umbrella ” it would be really tedious if I were to say ” so I don’t get wet, as I will open it, put it over my head to shield me form the rain!”

the word some and not All was used as facts have different properties for example

some facts are moral value neutral. example 1+1=2

Some facts are not ” children in the poorest section of society have a higher morbidity and mortality rate”

arbitrary OR by reason?

.

Definition of arbitrary (based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system).

Just on analysing the sentence you cannot logically say if ” it is by reason ” that the values are chosen or as you say ” random or arbitrary”

But just by common sense notions of values, most people hopefully have reasons for particular values.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by Clearsky.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by Clearsky.

[Clearsky]

David Hume fact/Value divide or what IS and What OUGHT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Not sure if there is a clear argument either way, but one way I understand is that what Hume is saying

That there are facts about the world, what IS and what IS not which can be proved right or wrong. For example ice is cold.

He is saying that there’s a natural gap between the facts and What we ought do about them. That in his time the press were too quick to have reflexive ought decisions  from facts. Without coming up with clear arguments (often moral) then making a choice based on reasons. There maybe different good reasons and actions.

One thought experiment is

Suppose that there is sailor who fell into the sea and to save his life life guard needs to search for him.

Clearly if seems like this fact (IS) implies that one ought to rescue him right?

However imagine if to find him it will take 100 people 1 week with a mortality risk of 5% and your about 95% sure this is true.

Obviously every decent human wants to rescue the sailor, but at a certain level of risk to the rescue party some may not agree ( say 5 people have a 95% chance of dying)

some may say that they should rescue him whatever the risk.

from one set of facts about the world we have different sets of values

We can say if a fact about the world is true or false.

But you can’t say that about Values, that’s what I think he was implying. That you have to think really hard about ought decisions.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by Clearsky.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by Clearsky.

[Clearsky]

Yes I agree with that, but that argument is at the level of genes, which is different to the individual animal, the individual is a collection of genes. So one example of this is in social insects like ants or bees. Where there are sterile individuals who work for the good of the group ( kin selection) so even if they die if their behaviors mean more genes being passed on. Natural selection  will favour this behavior.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology

 

That’s the point, as you have pointed out and has been empirically proven by E.O Wilson

That all living things want to Thrive/survive/reproduce  maximally  that’s not TRUE for all living beings

Sometimes for different reasons ( kin selection, group selection, price equilibria) we sometimes think of others above ourselves.

 

[Clearsky]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Davis wrote:

Perhaps you mean treat those within their family unit, perhaps within their community and maybe within their culture ethically?

Yes.

Davis wrote:

it is an instinct shared by all living things, each to seek in its own way to thrive/survive/reproduce maximally.

This is as false as any statement can be.

Do you want to thrive? Yes or no?

Unfortunately it’s a logical and valid deductive argument, but the first premise is ambiguous. You need to make a logical & sound argument for it.

P1) ALL living things want to thrive/reproduce/survive

P2) You ARE a living thing

C) therefore YOU want to thrive/reproduce/survive

Is valid in the same way the following is

All footballers eat carrots

You are a footballer

Therefore you eat carrots

An argument can be logically valid but not sound, ie the premises correspond to truth in the real world.

For example if you could find examples that refute the the premise that ALL living things want to thrive,survive,reproduce maximally.

Just take the case of humans in you experience DO all humans want to thrive/survive/reproduce maximally? Are there one or more examples where this declarative statements is FALSE?

These are the kinds of tricks religious preachers use, ok their arguments are logically valid but are they empirically true?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

What you want is an argument where all the premises are empirically true, then the conclusion of your argument will be true.

 

[Clearsky]

Thanks,

Reg,

[Clearsky]

That’s the kind of argument for existence of GOD, and the problem of natural and moral evil.

Its been discussed since Aquinas, one modern explanation is called the Alvin Plantinga’s free will defense.

I don’t like it, for the reason that its not logically coherent.

Think about what your saying,

In order for God to “test us” using our free will, God allows natural and moral evil in the world. To see if we act good or bad.

Then logically that means God is not all knowing, ( as he would already know our moral character is without testing).

Putting natural evil in the world to ” test ” people is not all Good.

Anyway as other people say its very difficult to change deeply held beliefs. However logical the opposing arguments are. Here is the links to both views. And the view from the bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense

https://thebibleproject.com/explore/job/

 

[Clearsky]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Clearsky wrote:

Belief if God does not have this ability to make predictions which can be verified in our immediate experience.

What predictions would belief in God make? For one, I think that doing “what God wants” – unselfishly and bravely helping others – should be aided from “on high” or out of nowhere. Reality should bend to encourage this behaviour.

Maybe I have been unclear, “doing what God wants” is not a prediction and verification of the  existence of God. It is a consequence and behaviour of the belief in God.

Ill give you an example if I am in my house and I believe that its really cold outside I will put on a warm coat. But if I actually go out and see if its cold that’s verification.

If I see snow outside, I will predict that its cold, this is because in my previous experience of snow it’s always cold, in every instance of snow Its been cold for me and importantly other people.

I’ll give you one prediction of God belief, theology says that God is all knowing,all powerful,all present an importantly all beneficent.

Then I would predict there would be no natural evil (earth quakes, tusarnami) and no moral evil the obvious fact that there is.

That’s something that is for me anyway a major problem in that belief.

 

 

[Clearsky]

Good point,

It was explained to me in quite comprehensive way.

I still could not understand it,

It could just be me, I guess as I don’t have a good grasp of theology.

[Clearsky]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Has the Flying Spaghetti Monster caused a book with genuine wisdom in it, to be written? Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster help people in their everyday lives?

The debate is on proofs existence or non existence God that’s one thing

The results and behaviour of a belief or non belief like religious books, rites rituals social structure is something else . I personally do think that there are good ideas in scripture. Like charity, golden rule,mindfulness. There are bad stuff also wars, genocide.

What we are discussing here is really about the epistemology of GOD. True it’s impossible to disprove. Because you can’t logically prove a negative phenomena.

If I were to prove totally that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist I would have to search all of space the whole of the universe until the end of time,in theory so I can’t logically prove the non-existent monster

But I can induct and use pragmatic truth to say he does not exist for me anyways

Pierce who discovered the pragmatic theory of truth says

a belief “worked” when it allowed one to make predictions which could be and were verified — thus, the belief that a dropped ball will fall and hit someone “works

Belief if God does not have this ability to make predictions which can be verified in our immediate experience.

 

• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by Clearsky.

[Clearsky]

There is a Flying Spaghetti Monster a live

Its one trillion light years from earth so it’s practically  impossible to get there

, its so small that it’s impossible to see and

has no mass to affect gravity

its so quiet that it’s impossible to hear. It gives off no detectable electromagnetic  radiation.

I honestly and faithfully believe in this monster, but I am fair and open I will stop belief in him if  YOU prove he does not exist!

JOKE!..

Are the two positions the same?

 

 

 

[Clearsky]

Thanks,

Its not my Idea I read about it in an article.  OK people can debate about which beliefs are false or true. ( the belief dimension) that’s subjective.

if people look at the objective consequence of those (false) beliefs. The effects to individuals and society. Which are often harmful. It might be possible to argue against those beliefs.

The main point being not so much the actual belief but on its consequences.

How does Religion cause group identity and what is the relationship between identity & violence?

https://books.google.com/books/about/Identity_Violence.html?id=4OoCPwAACAAJ

What role role play in power relations? In society?

https://pulitzercenter.org/religion-and-power

There are probably beneficial personal and social outcomes as well?

Does religious belief result in the most happiness and least suffering for the most number of beings? Or does it cause the opposite?

 

 

 

 

 

[Clearsky]

3 Dimensions to look at the Phenomena of religion.

 

1)religion as beliefs and meaning,

Examples
Stuff like beliefs in God, who you are for example a soul and created by God

What’s out there, what is the universe

The beliefs in rites and rituals, miracles

What is moral what is sinful.

 

2) Religion as Identity( group)

Examples
In group / out group, Christian compared to Hindu

Atheist compared to Theist

3) religion as structured social relations. ( power relations)

Examples.

The relationship (created by religion ) between different groups of people

The relationship between men and women, between different religious groups, between Caste.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by Clearsky.

[Clearsky]

Yep,

I think its good as well.

[Clearsky]

Unseen wrote:

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

It is when theists say “I am not religious, I just have a personal relationship with Jesus” that the fun starts.

Personally, I’ve never heard that position expressed.

It’s possible because, there are ordinary people called Jesus.

If your husband is called Jesus and you were both Atheist.

Then saying I am not religious but I have a relationship with Jesus.

Might just mean she is married to her husband. ( in a relationship)

 

• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by Clearsky.

[Author]

Posts