A Fine Example of Theocracy Indeed

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

the general point being that in terms of ethics you need an external source and I am inclined towards that view.

Because you want it to be true and you have nothing to suggest that it actually is true.

CDfm wrote: »

and then i demonstrated it

Well done, you demonstrated something that we both already knew and was never in dispute

CDfm wrote: »

Ah Sam - dont be like that.

You're being like that. I give long, carefully thought out responses and you dismiss them by dogmatically telling me I'm wrong without actually dealing with my points. The use of Occam's razor does not require belief in God because Occam was incorrect in his assertion that the scriptures have been proven, something which you also accept. Occam's razor is a logical concept and we don't have to take everything this particular guy believed to use one of his ideas. End of story.

You might as well be saying that you can't use algebra unless you believe in the babylonian gods (the guys who invented it)

Húrin wrote: »

As an atheist you surely should think that evolution has no purpose, and that it is not predetermined, and thus successful mutations are accidental.

Morality being descriptive and not also prescriptive is a problem if you expect anyone to follow it. How do we know that our moral conscience ought to be obeyed if it is just another instinct?

oh no no no no. Evolution is very much not accidental. We have a sense of morality because that sense gave us an evolutionary edge. There is a very definite reason for morality just like there's a reason we have eyes. It helps us survive.

Húrin wrote: »

I'm not saying that nobody ever does anything good ever. I'm just saying that it's not as predominant as you think. People aren't just "not perfect" - we're so far short of perfect that it would be funny if the consequences weren't so tragic. If pure goodness was as predominant as you claim, then the world would not be a place where half the people are starving, and in constant warfare. The fact that you haven't addressed the evidence that I presented weakens your argument.

All of this is happening in a world where the majority believe in religious morality so what's your point?

Húrin wrote: »

Correct. And this is the basis of capitalism, and most of the good deeds that happen. I think it's silly to go as far as saying that what appears to externally be a good deed is in fact an evil deed if the motivation is not perfect.

How is that the basis of most good deeds? If someone's only doing something to get something out of it, I wouldn't even call it a good deed, I'd call it a business transaction.

Húrin wrote: »

To be clear: by "get something out of it" I'm not just thinking of material gain. I also include the happiness that one gets from doing good (this is the main carrot at play in religion; fear is not very relevant to this discussion), any gratitude recieved from the beneficiaries of goodness. Dispassionately obeying the moral law because it is the moral law is very good, but very rare in humans.

You get the happiness whether you use religious morality or not. If obeying moral law because it is good is very rare, please explain Sweden. If it is rare, their circumstances should make no difference because they shouldn't have to be forced into it. If they're forced into it then they're being forced to overrule their morality but you're arguing they don't have it to begin with.

Sam Vimes

H&#250 wrote: »

@CDfm: using Occam's Razor is not an appeal to his authority. The philosophical guideline could have easily be called something else. It is in continued use because it has been found to be useful.

The part in bold is a very important point CDfm. It is a generic philosophical concept. The religious beliefs of a particular franciscan monk have no bearing on it

CDfm

You're being like that. I give long, carefully thought out responses and you dismiss them by dogmatically telling me I'm wrong without actually dealing with my points. The use of Occam's razor does not require belief in God because Occam was incorrect in his assertion that the scriptures have been proven, something which you also accept. Occam's razor is a logical concept and we don't have to take everything this particular guy believed to use one of his ideas. End of story.

I agree with you thats its used in the natural sciences that way but using it in moral philosophy the way you do makes it appear like you are arranging the data to fit your objective.

So in order to get as complete a picture as possible I suggest to you that its incorrect to eliminate religion from the model you leave me with the impression that the only reason basis for eliminating religion as a criteria as unnesscessary is because you dont want it there.

I am not using it Occams to prove the existence of God and when Hurin mentions prescriptive morality you dismiss it and I mention Sartre you also dismiss it even though he was a major thinker.You dont even explain why this should be so other than point to Wikipedia as a source so I am not getting anything out of you.So no I dont understand your logic.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Was it Sartre who said "If God is dead, everything is permited" and he was an existentialist and atheist.

I believe that came from one or other of Dostoevsky's outings, probably the long, preachy, furiously introspective and excruciatingly dull Crime and Punishment.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

I agree with you thats its used in the natural sciences that way but using it in moral philosophy the way you do makes it appear like you are arranging the data to fit your objective.

No, it doesn't. In fact you appear to be doing that by incorrectly suggesting that I have to believe in God to use a generic philosophical concept.

CDfm wrote: »

So in order to get as complete a picture as possible I suggest to you that its incorrect to eliminate religion from the model you leave me with the impression that the only reason basis for eliminating religion as a criteria as unnesscessary is because you dont want it there.

No, not because I don't want it to be there. This is an example of dismissing my point without dealing with it. Occam's reasoning for why it cannot be applied to religion was dependent on the completely incorrect assertion that his God has been proven, an assertion which we both know is wrong. If god definitely exists then of course Occam's razor can't be used. It's a concept used to indicate which is the most likely solution to a problem but if we know God exists, we already have the solution so Occam's razor is irrelevant. However, we don't know for sure that God exists and until we do it's perfectly acceptable to use this particular philosophical concept in that area because we cannot use terms like "prove by sacred scripture". I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for why he was wrong but you have just dismissed it as "I don't want it to be there".

As Hurin pointed out, it is a generic philosophical concept and it could easily have been called something else. Occam is no more an authority on it than anyone else and just because he says it can't be applied to religion doesn't mean he's right. You are not explaining why it can't be used for religion, you just keep saying "occam said it can't so it can't". You are using the argument from authority fallacy.

CDfm wrote: »

I am not using it Occams to prove the existence of God and when Hurin mentions prescriptive morality you dismiss it and I mention Sartre you also dismiss it even though he was a major thinker.You dont even explain why this should be so other than point to Wikipedia as a source so I am not getting anything out of you.So no I dont understand your logic.

I didn't dismiss prescriptive morality and you really need to stop using arguments from authority. I don't have to accept something just because Sartre said it

I pointed to Wikipedia as a source which itself pointed to two other soures. Read those and I'm sure you'll find the argument that wikipedia claims it has

CDfm

Dostoevsky once wrote "if God did not exist, everything would be permitted"; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself. He discovers forthwith, that he is without excuse.

Jean-Paul Sartre in Existenialism is a Humanism 1946

As usual Robin you are right. Great man for the women was Sartre. He refused the money when he won the Nobel prize but a few years later changed his mind and tried to get the dosh. No chance they had reinvested the cash so he never got the cash. Something similar happened Einstein - in his divorce settlement it was included that if he ever won the Nobel Prize the prizemoney would go to his first wife, and it did.

CDfm

Sam its an anti-razor as in

Walter of Chatton was a contemporary of William of Ockham (1287–1347) who took exception to Occam's razor and Ockham's use of it. In response he devised his own anti-razor: "If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on".

Just found out its called that by the way.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Sam its an anti-razor as in


Just found out its called that by the way.

I don't understand your point

Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes wrote:

As Hurin pointed out, it is a generic philosophical concept and it could easily have been called something else. Occam is no more an authority on it than anyone else and just because he says it can't be applied to religion doesn't mean he's right. You are not explaining why it can't be used for religion, you just keep saying "occam said it can't so it can't". You are using the argument from authority fallacy.

Actually, to correct myself slightly, what you keep saying is "occam said it requires an assumption that God exists so that means it has to" so not only are you using an argument from authority, you are using an argument that the authority himself never made

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote:

I mention Sartre you also dismiss it even though he was a major thinker.You dont even explain why this should be so other than point to Wikipedia as a source so I am not getting anything out of you.So no I dont understand your logic.

If you insist that I give reasons why Sarte was wrong, there are plenty of reasons to behave morally if there is no god:

1. Because I care about people
2. Because I wouldn't like immoral acts done to me so I don't do them to others
3. In case I cause people treat me immorally in retaliation
4. In the hopes that people will treat me morally in return or maybe even reward me
5. Because I don't want to upset my parents and peers.
6. Because I don't want to get a reputation as an immoral person.
7. Because I don't want to go to jail or be punished in some non-supernatural way. God isn't the only person who can reward and punish you know
8. The good feeling you get from helping people
9. To help society and so make the species as a whole stronger. Good for everyone including myself

ie, mostly social motivations along with making you feel good about yourself. You see, I have no trouble listing the reasons for morality without God because I believe very strongly in morality because it has been demonstrated throughout history but I don't believe in God. I don't think one has anything to do with the other.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't understand your point

The point of Occam is not to eliminate indiscrimately.

Whether you accept it or not Occam used scripture as a proof. What Im saying is that its an external source and morality is not genetic.

I suppose Walter of Chatton was his nemesis and as Ockam eliminated Chatton added back in.

In this discussion on morals it appears to me and others that its a necessary assumption whether or not you believe.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

The point of Occam is not to eliminate indiscrimately.

I know that. What's your point?

CDfm wrote: »

Whether you accept it or not Occam used scripture as a proof.

I accept that. As I keep saying, you and I both know he was wrong to do so and that makes his entire reason for why it can't be applied to religion fall apart. Occam's razor cannot be applied to God only if the scriptures can be taken as proof and they can't. Repeatedly ignoring this argument will not make it any less valid.

And repeatedly ignoring the argument that what a particular fransican monk thought is irrelevant because it's a generic philosophical concept that could easily have been called something else will not make that any less valid either. The authority of William of Ockam is irrelevant, what he thought is irrelevant. I can use the concept that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily even if I've never heard of the guy because it's a generic philosophical concept that he is not the highest authority on.

CDfm wrote: »

In this discussion on morals it appears to me and others that its a necessary assumption whether or not you believe.

No, it appears to you because you are under the mistaken impression that he said that use of the concept requires belief in God when he actually said that it couldn't be applied to God because God has been proven, something which he was 100% wrong to say

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

The point of Occam is not to eliminate indiscrimately.

Whether you accept it or not Occam used scripture as a proof. What Im saying is that its an external source and morality is not genetic.

I suppose Walter of Chatton was his nemesis and as Ockam eliminated Chatton added back in.

In this discussion on morals it appears to me and others that its a necessary assumption whether or not you believe.

What is a necessary assumption?

Sam Vimes

CDfm, you seem to be saying that Occam's razor should be thrown in the bin because it is based on assumptions that we both know are wrong. If we must take these faulty assumptions to use it, it will certainly lead us in the wrong direction, as you pointed out when you said it supports the creationist theory if you include this assumption. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from your point

In reality that's not what happens. If someone has a theory that's 99% good but has one faulty assumption we don't throw out the whole idea and we don't use it with that faulty assumption included either, we simply remove the 1% that we know is in error and make the idea all the better. Just like we didn't throw out the theory of evolution when we discovered genetics, we just updated it. We didn't say "that's not what Darwin said, you can't change it!!"

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I know that. What's your point?

No, it appears to you because you are under the mistaken impression that he said that use of the concept requires belief in God when he actually said that it couldn't be applied to God because God has been proven, something which he was 100% wrong to say

Its academic as Occam created his own anti-razor and built it in to his version.

It doesnt bother me because I am not into it that deeply. It appears to me that as you are applying it it doesnt work and Ive been trying to work out why.

When you look at writers in the area and there are many they all seem to encounter the same problem and the concepts are abstract and not in the natural sciences.

So genes dont account for morals on their own. Whether its God or memes or whatever you need to add in an extra assumption. Agree with me or not I am not an expert - my intuition is that your argument is not quite right.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Its academic as Occam created his own anti-razor and built it in to his version.

It doesnt bother me because I am not into it that deeply. It appears to me that as you are applying it it doesnt work and Ive been trying to work out why.

The way I'm applying it it works fine. The way you're applying it doesn't work because of your insistence that in order to use it I must include an assumption that we both know is wrong, ensuring that it leads us in the wrong direction.

CDfm wrote: »

When you look at writers in the area and there are many they all seem to encounter the same problem and the concepts are abstract and not in the natural sciences.

Yeah, and I'd hazard a guess that they have this problem because they're beginning with the assumption that God exists or some other personal bias, just like the Euthyphro dilemma is only a dilemma if you begin with that assumption.

CDfm wrote: »

So genes dont account for morals on their own. Whether its God or memes or whatever you need to add in an extra assumption. Agree with me or not I am not an expert

I never said genes account for morals on their own. None of the 8 reasons I gave for morality on the previous page include genes or memes.

CDfm wrote: »

- my intuition is that your argument is not quite right.

Yes, because your intuition is that God exists so of course you would think it's not quite right. When you have some evidence for that assertion, when it's something more than a gut feeling, maybe you'll have a point

Sam Vimes

You say you're trying to work out why my application of Occam's razor appears to be wrong but the answer is obvious:

1. You really really want to believe in God and want to believe he had a hand in morality. Your 'intuition' is that he was involved.
2. The application of Occam's razor makes this appear unlikely because God is an unnecessary entity in morality (as long as you don't include an assumption that is known to be wrong)
3. you are trying to find reasons to get around this because you still really want to believe that God had a hand in it probably because, like Hurin, you don't think will behave morally without God as an authority behind it

So your reason for thinking it's not quite right is quite obvious: you don't want it to be right because it makes your belief quite unlikely to be correct and you're left in the terrifying position of having to rely on people's own goodness and social motivators for them to do good

CDfm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What is a necessary assumption?

I think Sams argument is that morals are genetic.

So maybe Sam needs to restate his Theory.

Not to punch holes in it but so we can see the logic.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

I think Sams argument is that morals are genetic.

So maybe Sam needs to restate his Theory.

Not to punch holes in it but so we can see the logic.

To quote myself:
I never said genes account for morals on their own. None of the 8 reasons I gave for morality on the previous page include genes or memes.

It's partially genetic but society and self preservation are also motivators, as I said in my 8 non-god related reasons

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You say you're trying to work out why my application of Occam's razor appears to be wrong but the answer is obvious:

1. You really really want to believe in God and want to believe he had a hand in morality. Your 'intuition' is that he was involved.
2. The application of Occam's razor makes this appear unlikely because God is an unnecessary entity in morality (as long as you don't include an assumption that is known to be wrong)
3. you are trying to find reasons to get around this because you still really want to believe that God had a hand in it probably because, like Hurin, you don't think will behave morally without God as an authority behind it

So your reason for thinking it's not quite right is quite obvious: you don't want it to be right because it makes your belief quite unlikely to be correct and you're left in the terrifying position of having to rely on people's own goodness and social motivators for them to do good

Not exactly Sam - I dont think genes are the only variable and I dont want you to say God just for the sake of it. Call it memes if you like.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Not exactly Sam - I dont think genes are the only variable and I dont want you to say God just for the sake of it. Call it memes if you like.

I refer you to the above post where I said for probably the tenth time that genes are not the only motivator. Could you actually read my 8 reasons please rather than repeatedly saying I said it was all genetic?

edit: now 9 reasons

CerebralCortex

An interesting talk on genes, memes, and temes here since the terms being thrown around so recklessly here. I for one would agree that morals are the result of memes influencing genes and genes influencing memes further denigrating the necessity of an authority in their formulation.

Sam Vimes

CerebralCortex wrote: »

An interesting talk on genes, memes, and temes here since the terms being thrown around so recklessly here. I for one would agree that morals are the result of memes influencing genes and genes influencing memes further denigrating the necessity of an authority in their formulation.

I don't like to use the word memes for two reasons, one being that it boxes it into one area and if one person writes a bad book with memes in the title people could jump on the whole concept and the other being that I don't know a whole lot about them

Until I've read up on them I'd prefer to use the term "social motivators" which is most likely the same thing. But then that doesn't cover "do it because it makes you feel good".

But anyway, the fact remains that there are plenty of motives to do good without God. Some are genetic (help myself by helping society survive and increasing the chances that others will treat me well), some are selfish (do good so I don't get punished or get rewarded), and some are altruistic, where the only benefit to yourself is a good feeling. In short, God is completely unnecessary in morality, he's just tacked on to try to scare people straight

CDfm

Thats me metaphysiced out for now.

I will need to think a bit on that.

Sam Vimes

CerebralCortex wrote: »

An interesting talk on genes, memes, and temes here since the terms being thrown around so recklessly here. I for one would agree that morals are the result of memes influencing genes and genes influencing memes further denigrating the necessity of an authority in their formulation.

Very good video. Memes survive because they are useful, just like genes but not dependent on genes. We copy things from others and the things that work tend to hang around. Makes perfect sense. So we treat each other well because treating each other well tended to work out for those involved.

You can see it happening every day, such as in retail jobs where the most common approach is that if someone treats you with respect you'll go out of your way to help them but someone who screams and shouts gets the minimum possible, no matter how valid their complaint.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But anyway, the fact remains that there are plenty of motives to do good without God. Some are genetic (help myself by helping society survive and increasing the chances that others will treat me well), some are selfish (do good so I don't get punished or get rewarded), and some are altruistic, where the only benefit to yourself is a good feeling. In short, God is completely unnecessary in morality, he's just tacked on to try to scare people straight

Its an abstraction so what can you call it then - fear?

EDIT - it would be nice to see a definition that is a bit neutral even if you dont have a word for it.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Its an abstraction so what can you call it then - fear?

It's a combination of:

1. An instinctual desire to help those around you because that instinct allowed our species to survive. That could be argued to be the origin of the good feeling you get when you help someone because its involuntary.
2. A desire to get something in return, similar to the instinctual desire but on a conscious level. Selfishness
3. Our copying of those around us, the spreading of memes.
4. Fear of punishment, being treated immorally in return or being shunned by society

Where god comes in is he covers the eventuality "What if you don't get caught doing wrong?". Then you don't get shunned by society and there is no retaliation but, equally, you don't get the instinctual good feeling that comes from helping your overall society and you might damage your society, thereby affecting yourself. Thinking there is a gap in morality without God does not indicate that God exists but could easily explain why the God meme was invented and spread. Karma is another meme that fills the same gap.

Since there is the "what if you don't get caught?" gap, the only thing we can currently rationally rely on is the idea our species has an overall instinct to do good to help themselves by helping society, and that makes them feel good. You can rely on the God or karma memes to fill the gap if you want but that doesn't mean they actually exist

CDfm

But "fear" is real whether the cause is real or imaginary. So your memes might fill the Gap.

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

But "fear" is real whether the cause is real or imaginary.

..and the Oscar - "for stating the obvious in a thread" goes to CDfm :pac:

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

But "fear" is real whether the cause is real or imaginary. So your memes might fill the Gap.

Of course it is, what's your point? It's a combination of instinct, self preservation, a desire for social inclusion and fear. Are you arguing that we should believe in God whether he exists or not because he fills the "what if you don't get caught" gap?

edit: or that we should recognise God as a meme and not assert that he exists? Or does this particular meme require belief in it, whether it's true or not? I suppose it would because the gap in morality filled by god is only filled if you believe in him