Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Is religious fundamentalism a disease of the mind?
Topic Started: Apr 7 2007, 12:38 AM (5,015 Views)
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
IT: Meta-ethics is the philosophical discussion of the nature of morality. Normative ethics is the discussion of what is right or wrong, or good or bad. Normative ethical questions are: is abortion morally permissible, is democracy a good system of government, is it ever right to tell a lie? Meta-ethical questions are: are there any objective moral truths, or is morality just an expression of our irrational feelings or arbitrary cultural customs? if there are any moral truths, what makes a moral claim true or false (reason?, God's will?, facts of nature?, eudaimonia?, nothing?)

You seem to be suffering from several confusions: that Disagreement means there is no truth of the matter, and that if something (reason, dignity, free will) is made up of physical facts, then it can't really be that thing. In addition you seem to be caught in some hoary philosophical confusion over free will and determinism. I guess I will concede that if morality requires that human free will be able to contravene and override the laws of nature (what is traditionally called a Contra-Causal view of free will), then there is no morality. But of course morality does not require a Contra-Causal view of free will. For modern science to undermine a traditional ethical naturalist thinker, such a thinker would have to have assumed a Contra-Causal theory of free will (which I admit is not compatible with modern science, being more akin to magic). To the best of my recollection, none of the classical ethical naturalist thinkers I have mentioned, made such a silly assumption.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
I am not suffering from any confusions. I am just following the logic of what materialism holds. If as you say, there is no such thing as a soul, but rather we human beings are independent and autonomous material biomachines that are sentient and self aware, I just want to know what is at stake. I am sorry that you don't like those implications -- no doubt that "ethic" meme was pretty well burned into your chemical response unit by doing that doctorate.

For you to say that "Meta-ethics is the philosophical discussion of the nature of morality." is as meaningless (apart from the meaning that your biomachine and other compatibly programmed biomachines ascribe to it) as saying "the universe has a purpose".

"Philosophical discussion"? -- bah, just a metawaffle for what we are certain can only be electrochemical sequences in autonomous biomachines. "nature of morality"? what the juice does that mean? Since when does morality have a nature? Are you just reverting to that metaphysical gobbledygook about "essence" and "substance" and "nature"? You seem to be reifying "nature", and ontologizing "morality". Really, Jeff, they are just the blind forces of chemicals.

Actually, what you are getting at when you speak of meta-ethics is something more like:

"the operation of a self aware biomachine when stimulated to consider the electrochemical basis of its own actions or those of other self aware biomachines".

All those other antequated considerations, such as eudaemonia, justice, God's will, reason, etc. must be a priori rejected. They are too intertwined with antequated notions of anthropology, cosmology, philosophy, theology, and psychology. (after all, if there is no "psyche" how can there be a valid psychology?)

I suppose that "fact of nature" is the closest outmoded answer, but once we realize that "fact of nature" is really a series of electrochemical processes, then the question is limited to what that electrochemical basis for action is. Neurochemistry, not philosophy, Jeffrey. Therein lies the answer.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Apr 11 2007, 02:03 PM


As for it being the sole province of the neurochemist (have yet to meet any of those yet)

Hey Moonbat -- they even have their own club!!!!
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper,

You seem to feel very strongly that there ought to be some universal *oughts* beyond mere stimulus-reponse functions of "biomachines." You seem to feel strongly that the "stakes" are so high that one should accept one side of the argument versus the other. Yet your strong desire for it to be so does not mean that it is really so.

Your feeling uncomfortable about something does not make that something untrue (conversely, your feeling comfortable with something else does not make that something else true either). Similarly, how high the "stake" is also has no bearing on something is true.

ivorythumper
 
Are you comfortable with that?


You asked that question many time in response to my post.
My short answer is: YES
I really can't find anything about the whole "biomachine only" concept (even going by the way you frame it) to feel uncomfortable about. I read the "God switch" article quoted by AlbertaCrude with no discomfort in myself that I could detect.

I am quite perplexed about is this: Why do you feel uncomfortable about it?

Why do you feel uncomfortable about neurochemists teaching others about morals and ethics instead of philosophers teaching others about morals and ethics?

Why do you feel uncomfortable about humans being "soulless biomachines"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Axtremus
Apr 11 2007, 08:38 PM
ivorythumper,

You seem to feel very strongly that there ought to be some universal *oughts* beyond mere stimulus-reponse functions of "biomachines." You seem to feel strongly that the "stakes" are so high that one should accept one side of the argument versus the other. Yet your strong desire for it to be so does not mean that it is really so.

Your feeling uncomfortable about something does not make that something untrue (conversely, your feeling comfortable with something else does not make that something else true either). Similarly, how high the "stake" is also has no bearing on something is true.

ivorythumper
 
Are you comfortable with that?


You asked that question many time in response to my post.
My short answer is: YES
I really can't find anything about the whole "biomachine only" concept (even going by the way you frame it) to feel uncomfortable about. I read the "God switch" article quoted by AlbertaCrude with no discomfort in myself that I could detect.

I am quite perplexed about is this: Why do you feel uncomfortable about it?

Why do you feel uncomfortable about neuralchemists teaching others about morals and ethics instead of philosophers teaching others about morals and ethics?

Why do you feel uncomfortable about humans being "soulless biomachines"?

Human ribs look just like pork ribs. The meat is about the same color, about the same texture, similar amounts of fat.

What's to stop a biomachine from consuming needed biomass?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Why do you feel uncomfortable about humans being "soulless biomachines"?


Posted Image
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Apr 11 2007, 07:38 PM
ivorythumper,

You seem to feel very strongly that there ought to be some universal *oughts* beyond mere stimulus-reponse functions of "biomachines." You seem to feel strongly that the "stakes" are so high that one should accept one side of the argument versus the other. Yet your strong desire for it to be so does not mean that it is really so.

Your feeling uncomfortable about something does not make that something untrue (conversely, your feeling comfortable with something else does not make that something else true either). Similarly, how high the "stake" is also has no bearing on something is true.


Thanks for your concern, Ax, but I am over it now. Once Jeff pointed out to me that there is no soul, no spirit, no transcendental horizon, no purpose for existence, I realized that there is no justice or ethics either. He doesn't seem to "get it" like you do -- ;) -- probably that faulty ethic meme is too deeply ingrained in him. (BTW, I never got to know what you thought of his mocking the Buddhist traditions).

It took a bit to deprogram from all those nonsense (if pragmatic) memes that tell us things like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." So the very foundations of the USA are just rubbish. No big deal.

After all, once we realize that it is all about the domination of one biomachine over another, it frees us from those shackles of convention about civility, politeness, social order, and "ethical" behavior.

Quote:
 


ivorythumper
 
Are you comfortable with that?


You asked that question many time in response to my post.
My short answer is: YES
I really can't find anything about the whole "biomachine only" concept (even going by the way you frame it) to feel uncomfortable about. I read the "God switch" article quoted by AlbertaCrude with no discomfort in myself that I could detect.
OK, Ax. I respect that.

Nothing intrinsically wrong with Hitler's treatment of the Jews, or taking advantage of your client's trust, or tripping blind people. No reason one biomachine shouldn't force another biomachine to do its bidding -- or a stronger group of compatible biomachines to dominate and even extinguish a weaker group. It happens all the time in prisons anyway.

Let the biochemists figure out the way to get everyone to do whatever they want.

Let the biochemists turn all human beings in automata. So its the end of humanity as we've known it for thousands of years. No big deal -- your offspring will be either slaves or masters. But probably slaves unless they get into this neurochemistry gig.
THAT'S the new "plastics"!

Quote:
 

I am quite perplexed about is this: Why do you feel uncomfortable about it?

Why do you feel uncomfortable about neurochemists teaching others about morals and ethics instead of philosophers teaching others about morals and ethics?

Let's not pretty up the language here, Ax. It is not "teaching" but programming and chemical manipulation.

Quote:
 


Why do you feel uncomfortable about humans being "soulless biomachines"?


I don't. I am happier since I've stopped caring.
:thumb:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
 

Nothing intrinsically wrong with Hitler's treatment of the Jews, or taking advantage of your client's trust, or tripping blind people. No reason one biomachine shouldn't force another biomachine to do its bidding -- or a stronger group of compatible biomachines to dominate and even extinguish a weaker group. It happens all the time in prisons anyway.

What's so "intrinsically wrong" about one group of biomachines dominating/slaughtering/controlling another group of biomachines? It happens a lot more often than it doesn't. Is there anything in nature that you've observed that tells you some how it's rather the exception rather than the rule in nature that one group of biomachines actually dominates/extinguish another group of biomachines? Just think: How many biomachines from the groups known as chickens, cows, pigs, fish, etc. are slaughtered/consumed by this other group of biomachines known as humans every day?

ivorythumper
 
Axtremus
 

Why do you feel uncomfortable about neurochemists teaching others about morals and ethics instead of philosophers teaching others about morals and ethics?
Let's not pretty up the language here, Ax. It is not "teaching" but programming and chemical manipulation.
1. Let me clarify that I wasn't trying to "pretty up the language." I do really mean "teaching," e.g., publishing peer-reviewed papers detailing injecting what chemicals into which parts of the neural systems would enhance/diminish one's sense of justice, of moral, of dignity, of love, etc.; characterize in quantifiable, measurable terms how the neural system reflect on such (up 'til now) abstract concepts as "justice," "moral," and "ethics."

2. But let's go with your scenario of outright "programming and chemical manipulation" -- why do you feel uncomfortable about it?

ivorythumper
 
Axtremus
 
Why do you feel uncomfortable about humans being "soulless biomachines"?
I don't. I am happier since I've stopped caring.
:thumb:
Well I am glad that you are happier now. I do believe that it will do you good to step back and "stop caring" for a while. Stay happy, thumper. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
No arguments, Ax -- we're on the same page. I think I'll go find a blind person to trip for fun. :thumb:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Apr 11 2007, 11:42 PM
No arguments, Ax -- we're on the same page. I think I'll go find a blind person to trip for fun. :thumb:

Wow! To think that I've actually changed a light bulb! :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Apr 11 2007, 08:49 PM
ivorythumper
Apr 11 2007, 11:42 PM
No arguments, Ax -- we're on the same page.  I think I'll go find a blind person to trip for fun.  :thumb:

Wow! To think that I've actually changed a light bulb! :D

indeed, one of the brightest bulbs here,,, :wink: (not that "you" changed it, however)
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
IT: You seem deeply, almost proudly, unaware of bulk of 3000 years of human thought on this topic, nor do you seem to even know what philosophy is. My position, a fairly standard one, is that moral facts are facts of nature, as is reason, free will, and so forth. Understanding the material basis of these things, does not make them into something else (a point you seem to pretend not to get).

You don't even seem able to recognize this position, much less argue against it. What is interesting is that you seem to admit that absent your belief in God, you would trip blind people and so forth (yes, your comment is jocular, but you do seem to think this is a valid consequence). Frankly, this says something about you (that you are the sort of person to avoid), not about the connection between religion and ethics.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
My position, a fairly standard one, is that moral facts are facts of nature, as is reason, free will, and so forth.


You're a really educated guy, Jeffrey. Unfortunately you seem to be educated beyond your intelligence. "Moral facts are facts of nature" may be standard logic among atheists, but not among thinking people. You will not find *any* moral issues in nature. None. You will find nothing in nature concerned with reason, free will, nothing. You will simply find animals who hunt for food, screw, have bowel movements, and sleep. And they'll do those things with absolutely no regard whatsoever for morality, reason, free will, nothing.

Man on the other hand, is concerned with these things.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
 
"Moral facts are facts of nature" may be standard logic among atheists, but not among thinking people.


Sigh... you've just excluded all philosophical Taoists from this group you call "thinking people."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
If philosophical Taoists think that moral facts are facts of nature, then sorry, but they're wrong. Nature does not exhibit the first hint of moral concern.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Apr 11 2007, 09:59 PM
IT: You seem deeply, almost proudly, unaware of bulk of 3000 years of human thought on this topic, nor do you seem to even know what philosophy is.  My position, a fairly standard one, is that moral facts are facts of nature, as is reason, free will, and so forth. Understanding the material basis of these things, does not make them into something else (a point you seem to pretend not to get). 

You don't even seem able to recognize this position, much less argue against it.  What is interesting is that you seem to admit that absent your belief in God, you would trip blind people and so forth (yes, your comment is jocular, but you do seem to think this is a valid consequence).  Frankly, this says something about you (that you are the sort of person to avoid), not about the connection between religion and ethics.

And you seem unaware that those 3000 years of reflection are human thought are without merit since they are based on faulty anthropology and science. You might as well be talking about body humors as the basis for psychology.

You can of course hold on to these, much as "religious" people hold on to 3000 years of reflection about the cosmos and that "God" meme.

You seem unable to argue against the ramifications of living in a post-theistic existence, and predicate everything on the vestiges of a theistic worldview -- heck, even Mills discussed the ramifications of God. So you can only resort to ad hominems, in lieu of reasoned discussion. For that you got a doctorate?

I gave you a very clear line of reasoning as to why from strict materialism there was no universal ethic -- that it is all chemical processes in autonomous sentient self aware biomachines.

You come back with "Understanding the material basis of these things, does not make them into something else (a point you seem to pretend not to get)." But that is a fallacy. *I* am not making them into something else: rather you just bought into the illusion that they are something else. Just like the illusion once commonly held that the sun revolved around the earth. Go back to your man Dawkins about memes. That is all you are dealing with when you talk about "justice" or "human dignity".

I can understand why you would want to hold on to philosophy and ethics -- heck, you spent your life investing in it, and you seem to be a basically benign if at times splenetic chap. But you are gasping on the fumes of the humanist tradition that actually held that human dignity was something intrinsic to the human being. It has slowly been torn apart, thread by thread.

Moonbat prophesied that as heliocentricism was the first assault on religion, neuroscience would be the last assault. But really, neuroscience is the last assault on philosophy, and with it ethics. It's just a matter of time. Deal with it (or not).
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
IT: "I gave you a very clear line of reasoning as to why from strict materialism there was no universal ethic -- that it is all chemical processes in autonomous sentient self aware biomachines."

I have insomnia tonight. It is my only excuse here for continuing this with you.

Your comments are not a "line of reasoning" - they fail to even comprehend the opposing line of thought, much less provide an argument against it. Understanding the chemical basis for "autonomy" or "self-awareness" (if we indeed to have such understanding in 2007), does not debunk or undermine autonomy or self-awareness, it explains what they are. Nothing has changed. We simply understand more. If consciousness has a chemical and electrical basis (as it surely does) it is still consciousness.

There is nothing "post-theistic" or "vestiges" of theism about this. Your dilemmas are entirely of your own manufacture, based on some staggeringly shoddy, narrow and poorly informed history of thought. Please explain how Stoicism, Aristotle, Taoism, Mohism and Plato are "post-theistic" (I assume you mean specifically post "J-C" theistic.) Hardly any of our moral notions, or philosophical discussions about them, originate in J-C thought, and in standard histories of philosophy the middle ages are usually skipped over as an obscure diversion in the intellectual lineage from Greek to Enlightenment thought. The notion that Western moral philosophy must grapple with the staggering problem of creating a "post-theistic" moral discourse, is simply self-important religious propaganda (at best). Since Plato's Euthyphro, about 2400 years ago, Western moral philosophy has recognized that moral reasons, if they exist, exist independently of any god or gods, or any features or commands they might give or have, and has proceeded independently of such background. In fact, what intellectual firepower Christian thought has, is basically crib notes from the pre-Christian Greeks, whose complicated moral discourse was, again, overwhelmingly non-theistic.

There is no post-theistic dilemma, except perhaps for theistic thinkers who realize their views are wrong. Your "arguments" may perhaps indicate the difficulties you yourself have reconciling your religious and moral views with the proven facts of modern science, but do not lay your personal confusions and disorientations (without a god you yourself can't seem to think of good reasons to be moral) on the Western intellectual tradition of moral thought going back to the Greeks (or on the moral thought of other cultures such as China).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Larry: "facts of nature"

Umm ... human beings are part of nature as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
No, Jeffrey, I don't mean the specifically "post J-C" view. All of your ethical memes developed before the Enlightenment, and were predicated on worldviews, anthropologies, and scientific understandings that are now outmoded and universally discarded.

Do you deny this?

And you still haven't redressed the point that your statement "Understanding the material basis of these things, does not make them into something else (a point you seem to pretend not to get)." is a fallacy for the reason I stated. Do you prefer to avoid the issue?

For the sake of any casual interested readers here, let me cut through some of Jeffrey's dissembling. The problem Plato considers in Euthyphro is not germane. The question that Socrates asks is very specific -- whether the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods. This has been extrapolated to ask ""Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" However, that is not the very precise question asked by Socrates/Plato, and the conversion of terms raises all sorts of tangential issues. Jeffrey's "authoratative" reading of the meaning, implications, and resolution of the Euthyphro dilemma is not the only one, as much as he would like to use it as a bully stick.

Read for yourselves the summaries and the discussion pages at wiki on Euthyphro and esp the Euthyphro Dilemma if you want to judge for yourself Jeffrey's understanding of this topic.

But despite our disagreements about this, I do hope you rest in peace (temporally for the time being).
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Wow. So if Hitler took over the world it would be a "positive" thing for Hitler--and therefore a "good" in it's own way.

Pretty cute.


Good for Hitler maybe, but bad overall (by a vast margin).
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Moonbat prophesied that as heliocentricism was the first assault on religion, neuroscience would be the last assault. But really, neuroscience is the last assault on philosophy, and with it ethics. It's just a matter of time. Deal with it (or not).


And yet neuroscientists who are well aware that our minds are not magic are still ethical people, i'm well aware that our minds are not magic yet i'm still an ethical person - we are no more likely to cheat or steal, plunder or rape, we care for others as much as your God fearing man on the street.

Your supposedly lost philosophy. Why does it matter?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Apr 12 2007, 04:25 AM
Quote:
 

Moonbat prophesied that as heliocentricism was the first assault on religion, neuroscience would be the last assault. But really, neuroscience is the last assault on philosophy, and with it ethics. It's just a matter of time. Deal with it (or not).


And yet neuroscientists who are well aware that our minds are not magic are still ethical people, i'm well aware that our minds are not magic yet i'm still an ethical person - we are no more likely to cheat or steal, plunder or rape, we care for others as much as your God fearing man on the street.

Your supposedly lost philosophy. Why does it matter?

I never said atheists weren't ethical people, did I? I never said you have to be a theist to love your wife and kids and do nice things, did I?

And it doesn't matter to me -- you should be asking Jeff since it really seems to matter to him. :wink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Apr 12 2007, 03:04 AM
Quote:
 

Wow. So if Hitler took over the world it would be a "positive" thing for Hitler--and therefore a "good" in it's own way.

Pretty cute.


Good for Hitler maybe, but bad overall (by a vast margin).

Probably not. Had Hitler taken over the world, after a generation or two the kids would be playing X boxes, listening to rock 'n roll and rap, the stock market would still be fluctuating but overall doing well, and society would go on.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Apr 12 2007, 06:04 AM
Quote:
 

Wow. So if Hitler took over the world it would be a "positive" thing for Hitler--and therefore a "good" in it's own way.

Pretty cute.


Good for Hitler maybe, but bad overall (by a vast margin).

Are we playing it by the numbers?

So, if Hitler got Germany working and out of the Depression and killed all of the Jews, (a minority sacrificing themselves for the greater good, :() but never attacked the rest of Europe--well, he would have been OK? :biggrin:

Without God--there is no difference between bad and evil. Bad is just a decision on the outcome of events--evil is a judgment of morality based on the Word of God.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Probably not. Had Hitler taken over the world, after a generation or two the kids would be playing X boxes, listening to rock 'n roll and rap, the stock market would still be fluctuating but overall doing well, and society would go on.


That would still be worse than the version without the attrocities.

Quote:
 

Are we playing it by the numbers?

So, if Hitler got Germany working and out of the Depression and killed all of the Jews, (a minority sacrificing themselves for the greater good, ) but never attacked the rest of Europe--well, he would have been OK?

Without God--there is no difference between bad and evil. Bad is just a decision on the outcome of events--evil is a judgment of morality based on the Word of God.


As far as i'm concerned it's not a question of whether Hitler was "OK" its a question of whether a given action is beneficial or detrimental.

The massacre of the Jews was a hugely negative act, a hugely evil act.

I agree with you assesment that without theology there is no difference between bad and evil. But i find it of no consequence.

As far as i'm concerned ethics is about attempting to build a better world for all entities to which the term "better" can apply. So it's about improviing the experience of all conscious minds that exist.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply