The gulf between us

[Corvus]

Meaning that if elephants could build bridges, their ideas of what made the structure stand up to gravity and applied weight, etc. COULD NOT differ too widely at all from our own. However, if an elephant could tell you what was important for them in the realm of "morality", I doubt very much that the line item "keeping humans alive and happy" would appear anywhere on their lists.

Completely true. Could not be more true.

 

[Quintessence]

@Corvus -

I can't help but notice you didn't answer both of my questions when you were responding to me. I asked because it is important, and because it's difficult to know where you are coming from without knowing what you are looking for.

Again - when you say you can't communicate, what do you mean? Do you mean you can't hold the conversation and learn from each other, they refuse to buy whatever it is you are selling, or something else entirely?

Yes, and therein lies the nature of their thought process, in general terms. I infer from their belief in deities that they believe in articles of faith that are non verifiable.

I think you are making far too many assumptions here. "Articles of faith" are part of particular religions, which may or may not be theistic, and not all theistic religions have them. I understand that you are probably hailing from some Western nation where the Protestant model of religion dominates - and they emphasize this thing called "faith" - but this is not the model used by all theists or by all religions.

If you specifically want to criticize faith-based ideas (which extend well beyond what is called theism), that's fine, but please do be more precise in what your aim of discussion is.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you are a Gnostic Atheist?

How would that follow from what he said? Atheism is atheism, and that answer at least did not hint at anything beyond that.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, physicality is testable, observable, and verifiable. Thus, you have foolishly come to believe (as nearly all atheists do) that physicality equates to truth. And therefor you presume that your "truth" is superior to (closer to) "The Truth" than the theists.

And you are not only wrong in this, but your mind has become trapped by your own false presumption.

I don't know that such is a very popular position at all. It may be, I don't know. But you should probably consider that theism, specifically, is a very problematic proposition which not even all supernaturalists should be expected to embrace.

 

[LuisDantas]

Gnostic meaning having knowledge, Atheist meaning one who disbelieves in God's existence. Basically you know that God doesn't exist is what you're saying.

That is the opposite of what he said, you know...

 

[LuisDantas]

I was thinking Frisbeetarianism. Am I close, @RedDragon94 ???

Honestly, I have no idea of what the secrecy is all about.

 

[sayak83]

Hmmm... I like analogy, but it is really sort of surfacy. Plus you cheated a bit because the foundations of things like structural integrity have their hands forced by the immutable laws of phyisics. Meaning that if elephants could build bridges, their ideas of what made the structure stand up to gravity and applied weight, etc. COULD NOT differ too widely at all from our own. However, if an elephant could tell you what was important for them in the realm of "morality", I doubt very much that the line item "keeping humans alive and happy" would appear anywhere on their lists.

As an added side note, the variables used in the formulas change a bit if building a bridge on another planet. Granted, the formulas themselves don't change. However think on the utility and function that would be designed for a bridge to be used in zero gravity - very different indeed. So perhaps bridge-building can be a bit more subjective than may be expected at first glance.

We also have the immutable laws of survival of the fittest etc. as well as basic biological constraints of belonging to a certain species with a certain repertoire of traits (phenotype) that have to be satisfied for any successful moral structure.

How would a bridge look like for a dolphin (theirs would be water bridge over land of course)? So even in this planet, bridge building may change drastically between species.

What I am saying is that, in all other fields, such things are not considered at all in labeling things as subjective and objective. Somehow the rules change when morality is being discussed. Why?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

We also have the immutable laws of survival of the fittest etc. as well as basic biological constraints of belonging to a certain species with a certain repertoire of traits (phenotype) that have to be satisfied for any successful moral structure.

How would a bridge look like for a dolphin (theirs would be water bridge over land of course)? So even in this planet, bridge building may change drastically between species.

What I am saying is that, in all other fields, such things are not considered at all in labeling things as subjective and objective. Somehow the rules change when morality is being discussed. Why?

Because, within the realm of morality, we DO have option to make decisions as we wish, culturally, without having to try and go against the grain of something that simply will not have it. In the area of bridge building, or even Civil Engineering as a whole, the moment you decide to go against the grain and try to build something that flies in the face of the physical laws to which load bearing members adhere, you've made the decision to see your bridge collapse. There is a definitive point, and definitive criteria of judgment by which someone can state "you are doing this wrong." e.g. the bridge you built collapses, or reacts to vibrations by turning itself into a violent sine wave.

But, culturally there are all sorts of differences in supposed "right and wrong" that are "working" to greater or lesser extent between every two cultures you might hold up for scrutiny. To say there is an end-all-beat-all "right" way to go about establishing moral rectitude is just... well... it's strange, to tell you the truth. With morality we aren't reacting to immovable forces like gravity and finding the best-case scenarios that get us where we want to be. As a race, humans have variously decided what to react to and what not to when it comes to morality, and you need only ask two people with differences if they think their principles are "the right" principles, and receive two answers of "yes", to realize that calling either one "wrong" isn't going to get you very far. They'll just say "prove it.", and you're left with absolutely nothing.

 

[sayak83]

Because, within the realm of morality, we DO have option to make decisions as we wish, culturally, without having to try and go against the grain of something that simply will not have it. In the area of bridge building, or even Civil Engineering as a whole, the moment you decide to go against the grain and try to build something that flies in the face of the physical laws to which load bearing members adhere, you've made the decision to see your bridge collapse. There is a definitive point, and definitive criteria of judgment by which someone can state "you are doing this wrong." e.g. the bridge you built collapses, or reacts to vibrations by turning itself into a violent sine wave.

But, culturally there are all sorts of differences in supposed "right and wrong" that are "working" to greater or lesser extent between every two cultures you might hold up for scrutiny. To say there is an end-all-beat-all "right" way to go about establishing moral rectitude is just... well... it's strange, to tell you the truth. With morality we aren't reacting to immovable forces like gravity and finding the best-case scenarios that get us where we want to be. As a race, humans have variously decided what to react to and what not to when it comes to morality, and you need only ask two people with differences if they think their principles are "the right" principles, and receive two answers of "yes", to realize that calling either one "wrong" isn't going to get you very far. They'll just say "prove it.", and you're left with absolutely nothing.

There have been many trial and error efforts at large civil engineering projects (bridges to towers to pyramids) before the advent of the science of civil engineering. Some of these have lasted for thousands of years, some have toppled in 10 days and many things in between. Same fact exist for moral systems that have been tried to shore up societies of various complexities. It is abundantly clear that some work and some don't and some in between and finding out the principles that make this the case provides the avenue to develop objective investigations of morality.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There have been many trial and error efforts at large civil engineering projects (bridges to towers to pyramids) before the advent of the science of civil engineering. Some of these have lasted for thousands of years, some have toppled in 10 days and many things in between. Same fact exist for moral systems that have been tried to shore up societies of various complexities. It is abundantly clear that some work and some don't and some in between and finding out the principles that make this the case provides the avenue to develop objective investigations of morality.

I understand all that, I do. However, the trial and error process within the civil engineering space sees objective failure on the "error" side. Your mission is clear - the bridge must stand and withstand. Is the mission so "clear" with respect to the arena of "morality?" What is the mission statement, if so? Treat all with respect in all situations? Be kind to one another? The golden rule? And by what criteria can we establish that we've achieved the goals? No crime? Everyone says hello to one another in the street? Everyone's needs are taken care of by anyone and everyone who can do so? Do we see the sort of model that might be the end result of these goals mirrored in ANY other successful species on earth? Why is any species successful if it is not working to achieve these goals as we are (apparently) supposed to be?

 

[sayak83]

I understand all that, I do. However, the trial and error process within the civil engineering space sees objective failure on the "error" side. Your mission is clear - the bridge must stand and withstand. Is the mission so "clear" with respect to the arena of "morality?" What is the mission statement, if so? Treat all with respect in all situations? Be kind to one another? The golden rule? And by what criteria can we establish that we've achieved the goals? No crime? Everyone says hello to one another in the street? Everyone's needs are taken care of by anyone and everyone who can do so? Do we see the sort of model that might be the end result of these goals mirrored in ANY other successful species on earth?

The society flourishes more than other variants.
A good test is which direction people are immigrating.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The society flourishes more than other variants.
A good test is which direction people are immigrating.

That makes some sense, obviously. Although there tend to be various reasons people immigrate - an interesting one I have heard on occasion is that it is the best way for a culture who truly believes itself "right" to take over other parts of the world without lifting a finger toward force. Where does an action like that sit on the scale of "right" to "wrong" I wonder?

 

[sayak83]

That makes some sense, obviously. Although there tend to be various reasons people immigrate - an interesting one I have heard on occasion is that it is the best way for a culture who truly believes itself "right" to take over other parts of the world without lifting a finger toward force. Where does an action like that sit on the scale of "right" to "wrong" I wonder?

That is completely wrong. There is a difference between colonization and immigration that is historically very well attested. A colonization displaces the older human settlements and recreates the ecosystem and culture of the homeland (Greek, Carthage, Polynesian, western) while an immigration, people enters into the existing society and adopts its systems. Rome and Han and Tang China saw large scale immigration to its great cities of this kind, and more recently USA.

An interesting example where conquerors became immigrants would be Mongols who became Sinicized in two generations and Vikings who became Christianized in about the same time. A sufficiently dominant and attractive system gets widely adopted, regardless of military fortunes.

 

[Akivah]

It's not my beliefs that are the problem. I am not discussing any uncertainty on my part. I am simply trying to work out what makes people believe in God, what makes them choose faith over fact.

People act with a multiplicity of reasons which can't be put into a single conclusion. Speaking for myself, I originally didn't believe in G-d. Later in life, I came to realize the logical-ness of G-d's existence. I came to believe in G-d as a fact, albeit scientifically, an unproveable fact.

How else does one learn about things that one doesn't understand? For you it might be obvious. For me it is not.

Much the same as any subject. You find an expert and learn from them.

Some people have helped, such as LUIS who explained that for many people it is a sense of belonging to something greater and belonging to a like minded circle of people. Inclusion, acceptance. That attracts people. This is not obvious to someone like myself, who has no need of belonging, my natural number is 1.

I think that is one reason, but not every reason.

Well my position is crystal clear, I dislike theism intensely, I think it is harmful overall.

Hey, I'm Jewish...I'm well aware of the harm caused by people of religious beliefs. However, religion does not hold a monopoly on causing harm. Plenty of other nationalisms, science, and philosophies have caused harm as well. As to whether a particular concept is net harmful vs. net beneficial is a matter of debate and perspective.

However I am not going to preach and have no intention of doing so, but if this forum permits the challenging of claims I will surely do so. If that is unacceptable to you then that is your problem. This forum is still a lot better than FB, in which I am usually told to burn in hell.

Of course this site permit challenges, it is Religious FORUM. All theisms and anti-theisms are here. And since I don't believe in hell, I promise you that I will never say you are going there. And in any case, it is not for me to say where anyone goes in the afterlife.

 

[osgart]

theists accept a non physical spiritual reality. Science minded people accept only the physical reality, and both have their own language and terminology.

You would probably have to study both sides to carry on a conversation with each. A casual text doesn't quite bode well for understanding theists and science minded folks.

 

[Corvus]

Again - when you say you can't communicate, what do you mean? Do you mean you can't hold the conversation and learn from each other, they refuse to buy whatever it is you are selling, or something else entirely?

I cannot communicate to those concerned and explain effectively why their perspective is problematic since it is based on irrational premises that do not rely on logical construction of theory derived from empirical data. In other words, and generalization is unavoidable but I appreciate the level of faith in people varies and applied on different levels, in other words there is a fundamental obstruction based on incompatible paradigms. I cannot breach it with reason and application of logic nor with patient explanation, since the method in which the explanation is derived is rejected on specific subjects which contradict in some way established dogma.Therefore there is no exchange of information on any level but re assertion of individual beliefs and articles of faith, in order to refute scientific claims, on certain matters. It is difficult to explain in fact what I hope to achieve, I guess it is the acknowledgement that they are rejecting logical interpretation of scientific fact for a tower of cards. I guess I want to know why.

What is this thing you call spirituality/connection with God? Where does your unwarranted certainty arise? How can it override empirical evidence and logically extrapolated theory? How do you demonstrate or prove it?

 

[Corvus]

Much the same as any subject. You find an expert and learn from them.

An expert in unfounded premises? That should be easy.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The issue is not my belief. If questioning the reasoning behind beliefs of any kind, not just theism, is an issue on this forum, then I not aware of that.

Consider things such as Love, Energy, light. If you belive these transcend the Human Condition, then you also beleive in what we call God.

It does not need to be complicated and divisive. True Religion and True Science will look for the Truth in all things. When they work in Harmony, great things will be possible.

It is written that it is not until man finds unity, that the full potential of mind will be found.

Much written on all this by Baha'u'llah.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have experienced attachment to people and other animals. I think that is the closest, I am not entirely sure what love actually is to be honest. Definitions vary considerably.

Yes Love has many facets and what is True Love is not easy to find.

Even those that Love, have a long way to go.

From a Religious Perspective it would be the total giving up of self to be of service to all humanity. The best example of a life of Love of a man in this world, that has many records to read of, is of a man named Abdul'baha.

I hope you get to explore the Love that shone from Him.

Regards Tony

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am finding that I cannot communicate with theists here, the same pattern I have experienced elsewhere. We are simply so different that discussion is all but impossible. What am i doing wrong? Logic does not move these people, I have no other way of thinking. So we are at an impasse. How can I talk to these people in terms they will understand? It is frustrating because I wish to understand religious belief and religious people, if I am to judge religion and religious belief fairly and to treat religious believers less contemptuously and dismissively. As I have been tasked to do by RL persons.

I found myself in the same position for many years as an atheist. For me progress came from scrutinizing my own beliefs, rather than everyone's else's. Which meant first acknowledging them as such. Once you realize there is no 'default' truth, that you can't shift the burden of proof away from your own beliefs.... the logic that leads most of free thinking humanity to conclude God, is much easier to understand.