To him there obviously is something spiritual, something that makes us qualitatively different from other entities, and this something, this value, is ascribed to us by some external source (i.e. God). He has further claimed that one of the consequences of my view is that there isn’t really any difference between people and objects, that we’re nothing but really advanced computers, that metaphysically speaking, there’s no difference between throwing a computer out off a thirty-story building and doing the same to a child.
Until tonight, I’ve been trying to argue against this, mostly through rather desperate and improvised (and, frankly, spurious) arguments. But during a walk we took tonight, we had one of the most fertile conversations I’ve ever had the honour in participating in, and I was able to work out a kind of solution to this part of my world-view’s issues. A solution, I might add, that even Håvard, one of the most brilliantly pedantic people I’ve ever met, was kinda content with, no matter how much he disagreed with it. (And no matter how much he tried to invoke Gödel’s theorem on me.)
Tonight, then, this changed. I started out by accepting that yeah, if you just look at humans and other objects as from an external point of view, there’s little difference between, say, a man and a tree. Men consist primarily of carbon, some oxygen and hydrogen, and some other basic elements in various combinations, and they have certain functions. Likewise, trees consist of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, and some other basic elements in various combinations, and they have certain functions. Pretty much the same thing, right?
However, one of the functions of humans is one whose causes are currently mostly unknown (at least as far as I know, which, granted, isn’t really far at all), and we call it self-awareness. This function allows us to recognise ourselves, our existence, and that there are things that separate us from e.g. trees, dogs, rocks, suns, books, and what have you. (I won’t even try to say anything about what the criteria for this distinction is, but I’m relatively certain the process of distinguishing between these things isn’t necessarily a conscious one.) In other words, we are able to divide the Universe (“universe” means “everything” or something along those lines, remember?) into categories based on properties, and even though these categories aren’t necessarily accurate, it’s one of our most basic modus operandi.
So far so good. This, however, is where tonight’s second big step came. The first one was to stop arguing against one of the consequences of this view of mine. The second one, which can be said to have been pretty much a result of the first one, was to learn a lesson from phenomenology, and heavily emphasise the importance of human perception. This is pretty much a rather banal step in the general process of anthropocentrism, though, and it is simply to say that people have value because people ascribe value to other people.
Now, here is something of a moral crux, at least for those who want the world to make sense, in a nice, ordered and preferably good way. Because obviously, in a world where an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent entity has ascribed this value to the life of Man, there’s some authority behind the decision, and probably also repercussions for those who choose to disregard “God”’s imperative. In the (let’s face it, this is what I’m talking about) atheist view, however, there’s no authority that forces us to recognise the value of human life, only utilitarianism. But utilitarianism is flexible, and at times, it won’t be optimal for humans to ascribe value to other humans. Other times, they might just choose not to.
This, then, is where evil comes into play. At the point when you no longer believe that someone or something has any value, you stop caring what happens to him, her or it. Case in point, the Jews in e.g. Nazi Germany, and the dehumanisation process which initiated the genocide against them. Or, from the perspective of Peter Singer and his acolytes, animals in the food industry. Worthless commodities can be disposed of without second thought, and so can humans, if they’re not perceived as having value.
Which is pretty much what Nietzsche said: a world without God is a world where the will to power and the will of the powerful are the only laws. Which really sucks (luckily, though, there are multiple mitigating effects; after all, we do not live in a Hobbesian natural state), and is one of the most significant sources of the Weltschmertz that at times strikes me like a kick in the gut. But there it is.
And that’s about as far I got tonight. I see here that I’ve brought myself to a whole set of new problems, where I believe counter-power would be just about the only solution to the injustices committed by the powerful, but for now, I think I’ll be contented with solving the main hole in my materialistic world-view, and that I kinda managed to explain “the problem of evil” in the same go. Yay me, eh?
So good that you’re ordering your thoughts by talking them out. That’s always positive and usually constructive as well.
I think there must be something in your basic premise I’m missing out on, though - what is the “problem of evil” for an atheist that you needed to explain, for instance? (I also have the problem of not quite seeing what in this post that’s New Insights, but I usually have that problem with most philosophical points, they tend to seem a little duh-like to me, as if philosophy is to ideas what sociology is to common sense, you know?
So I think that’s probably mostly just a short-coming on my part. I’d be happy if you could elaborate on the point(s), though.)
22. April 2008 @ 01:52 ( Permalink )
Hey, what’s that? That thing in the sky?
Is it a bird? Is it a plane?
No, it’s this text flying above my head.
Actually though, I thought I grabbed the gist of what you’re saying here, but I’m no where near that point in my life where things like these interest me beyond the occasional mind-stretching exercise. I find it sad, but I always presumed it work itself out when I came into a more… intellectual environment.
22. April 2008 @ 13:10 ( Permalink )
Really? I’ve gone the complete opposite way. I thought a lot about this stuff when I was twelve-thirteen, and since then I’ve been gradually losing interest, majorly because every time since I’ve been taught anything about some old philosopher’s thoughts on a subject, my main reaction’s been to feel like it’s old news.
22. April 2008 @ 15:57 ( Permalink )
Let me quote Nietzsche again, and see if it helps you see why even your rather logical thoughts about existance have one little fault: “Le effet c’est moi” (Beyond Good And Evil, Chapter 1, 19).
Heh heh heh. How can we prove that the self has existed at any point of time not exactly “now”? I say we can’t, and as such, there is no such thing as a “self”, only the state of conflicting emotions and “memories” (which may or may not be based on actual events, depending on your level of wanting to annoy yourself) at any given point in time. Or, to speak materialistically (and we must do that, meta-physics go nowhere), a changing mix of chemicals and electronic signals.
22. April 2008 @ 20:35 ( Permalink )
And “materialistically” MUST be the wrong word, I can only apologize.
22. April 2008 @ 20:41 ( Permalink )
I suspect that this might is what I believe as well, even though I say as Amras, something clearly went over my head.
But as I read it, it says here that a materialist don’t care about others, and that’s where I’d like to object. Sure, people mean different things to each other, like that you care more for some friends than others. And I also believe that I see people like objects, some for the conversation, some for the food, some for the sheer beauty, and so on.
But to draw the comparison to the Nazis is still too far out for me. Because if the Jews don’t do anything bad to me, I would let them go. Just because you don’t see the use of them, that does not mean you have to kill them. I would simply let them go, and in any case they could be useful later.
Simply, I mean that if people is not valuable, they are still potentially valuable, and untill I find out whether the next person I meet is useful or not, I suspect that he is, in some way.
22. April 2008 @ 20:42 ( Permalink )
What you fail to see, Sauegjeter, is that if you see no value in someone right now, and all their potential value seems not to be exclusive to them (i.e. you can picture other people doing whatever they could do for you instead of them), then they are, in effect, leeches in the here and now, and removing them (that is, killing them) is thus the sane response. If there is a mad dog in your back-yard you don’t keep it because it happens to fertilize your garden and kill your mice -a tame dog, or a much cheaper cat, would do the same, and you are able to aqcuire one. A tame dog does not entail any of the problems a mad dog would give you, but would give you the same advantages were you to need a dog in the long run. If, in this view, someone is A. not of any form of use to you and B. not extraordinarily capable in some fashion that could potentially be useful to you in the future and will not let itself be replaced by someone else, then C. the only reason for you to not eradicate them if this is within your power and devoid of any cost or risk to your own person is if the somehow will never infringe on your total of resources.
(And if anyone thinks I at any point in this post suggested the Jews were like mad dogs and needed to be shot, I’ll be genuinely offended.)
22. April 2008 @ 21:05 ( Permalink )
Hm, I’m not sure I can claim to have understood everything in your post. In fact, I may only have understood a portion of it, but bear with me.
I can relate to the statements of humans being computers. Advanced computers, with similarily advanced Atificial Intelligence. In a sense that all our actions, thoughts and reactions are calculated and determined by numbers, and that we have only X number of ways to react to this, and X number of ways to react to that.
When you take a deep look at our minds and how it works, it all boils down to mathematics.
Therefore, if we were to enounter a machine with similar and equal AI to ours, the only major difference between us would probably be physical composition.
I think you are right, that from an external point of view, there is no difference between people and objects. In the end, all we have is our own definitions and values, and we have to accept tht there is no universial definitons, values, morals etc.
Regarding evil, I think it is a difficult subject, as it is a concept created by man, and thus difficult to define. And of course, one cannot define “evil without defining “good”
Loki said:
“The only reason for you to not eradicate them if this is within your power and devoid of any cost or risk to your own person is if the somehow will never infringe on your total of resources.”
I don’t think there is a way of eradicating an entire populace free of cost. One way or another, you have to pay a price, whether it’s bullets, manpower, bombs etc.
Granted, I do not know too much about this issue, but there is something about the holocaust that puzzles me. It’s probably due to it being described as “Nazi Germany’s attempted extermination of the Jewish race”. It seems rather odd to me that someone who wishes, and indeed, strives for the complete and utter destruction of a race, would place them in concentration camps, in stead of placing them in death camps, to dispose of through the most efficient methods possible.
Why would a culture that values strength and the “will to power” ideology spend valuable time and resources on keeping their hated enemy captive, and killing them in a slow and seemingly unpractical way? Surely there are more effective means of comitting genocide?
Anyway, I’m probably ignorant in regards to these matters, but it’s interesting nonetheless.
24. April 2008 @ 01:15 ( Permalink )
Your arguments towards my comment are as far as I can see against the nazis competence in genocide and their logic in wishing it in the first place, not against the concept of eradicating someone useless to you to free up resources they’d leech onto.
24. April 2008 @ 15:06 ( Permalink )
Loki:
“I think there must be something in your basic premise I’m missing out on, though - what is the “problem of evil” for an atheist that you needed to explain, for instance?”
Imprecise phrasing from my side, there, sorry. I guess it would be more accurate to speak of “a foundation to morality” rather than “the problem of evil”, seeing as the latter is a rather specific religious thing. The thing is, you see, that I’ve been kinda lured into accepting the religious point of view, that there can be no morality or ethics without a supreme authority setting down the principles of good and evil (I’ve probably spent too much time discussing this with Håvard, and too little time with Kalle, our resident hardcore atheist). Which is kinda a problem for me, as I don’t believe in any supreme authority in the religious sense, while I at the same time don’t exactly hate morality.
Obviously, this is a relatively easy problem to rationalise away, but I guess I’ve been kinda in a rut lately.
As for New Insights, I don’t suppose there are any. I was just relieved to finally have worked this out, kinda.
Ole:
“How can we prove that the self has existed at any point of time not exactly “now”? I say we can’t, and as such, there is no such thing as a “self”, only the state of conflicting emotions and “memories” [...] at any given point in time. Or, to speak materialistically (and we must do that, meta-physics go nowhere), a changing mix of chemicals and electronic signals.”
I’m not sure what I’m supposed not to agree with here. What we experience as “self” or “consciousness” is in the naturalistic world view I subscribe to just what you say it is: “a changing mix of chemicals and electronic signals”. That doesn’t render any of the insights of phenomenology untrue, though.
Also, the way I see it, your conclusion from “we can’t prove that the self exists beyond exactly now” to “there is no such thing as a self” is something of a fallacy. I suspect I might be misunderstanding you, though, so if you would care to elaborate…?
Shirgaal:
“I can relate to the statements of humans being computers. Advanced computers, with similarily advanced Atificial Intelligence. In a sense that all our actions, thoughts and reactions are calculated and determined by numbers, and that we have only X number of ways to react to this, and X number of ways to react to that.
When you take a deep look at our minds and how it works, it all boils down to mathematics.”
Yep. And not to forget chaos theory — the one thing that allows us the illusion and also relative existence of free will.
“Regarding evil, I think it is a difficult subject, as it is a concept created by man, and thus difficult to define. And of course, one cannot define “evil without defining “good””
Nah, not really. Sure, it’s difficult to find a universal definition of “good” or “evil” (for me, that might be pretty much because I’m not sure I believe in universally applicable rules of morality — there’s always at least a hypothetical situation where the moral thing to do would be to scrap the principle of morality and go the other way), but it shouldn’t really be difficult to say whether an individual act is good or evil or a little bit of both.
“Why would a culture that values strength and the “will to power” ideology spend valuable time and resources on keeping their hated enemy captive, and killing them in a slow and seemingly unpractical way? Surely there are more effective means of comitting genocide?”
I spent some time contemplating the same thing, once.
Primarily, the extermination of the Jews (and other undesired elements) was a very time-consuming process because human bodies are a nightmare to dispose of. Burning is just about the only realistic option, and human flesh burns painfully slow.
Then, of course, there is the whole “if they gotta wait, why not give them something sensible to do in the meantime?” thing. When the Jews, Gypsies etc. had to wait for their comrades and families to be burned before they themselves could be killed, it would be horribly wasteful not to utilise their labour, especially when the genociders were fighting a two-front war and were a bit short of manpower.
As for why they did it — have you ever read or heard any of the characterisations made of e.g. Jews e.g. in Mein Kampf? The Nazis believed that the Jewish, Gipsy, Communist and other elements of their societies were genuinely hurtful — and that by killing off these hurtful elements kept their society healthy. It’s not for nothing that the Third Reich, the Soviet Union at its worst and societies like those have been referred to as Gardening States.
24. April 2008 @ 20:05 ( Permalink )
Oh, and thanks for all the feedback, people.
If there’s one thing I learned from last year’s discussion (if it could be called that, as it was more of a case of Loki and Ole ripping my arguments to shreds
) about the source of morality (beyond the insights I got from the points you guys raised), it’s that presenting my attempts at logic here is one of the sure ways to get its holes and fallacies high-lighted. 
24. April 2008 @ 20:09 ( Permalink )
“Kalle, our resident hardcore atheist”
I know it’s bigotry, but man, is that a group I thoroughly loathe.
“I was just relieved to finally have worked this out, kinda.”
Then would you please do me the favour of summing up what exactly it was you worked out? I think it might have flown by me - unless you speak of the pretty obvious power is right-thing.
“Also, the way I see it, your conclusion from “we can’t prove that the self exists beyond exactly now” to “there is no such thing as a self” is something of a fallacy. I suspect I might be misunderstanding you, though, so if you would care to elaborate…?”
I think he means that as the continuity of a self throughout experience and growth is likely to be an illusion, in effect there is no self at all. Which is very logical and all, but I fail to see the point in adhering to such a philosophy, at least as long as one doesn’t subscribe to some form of buddhist school of thought in addition. I mean, it might very well be TRUE, but if it is, it’s completely pointless to live by the belief in it being true anyway, so why do so? (I have the same issue with determinism - yes, everything might be predetermined, but if they are, there is no point in believing so anyway. A determinist can’t even be right for the sake of being right as it’s pure chance that he is right to begin with, and someone adhering to Ole’s definition of self might as well not as there is no “someone” doing so in the first place.)
But of course, that’s what *I* think he meant, he might have meant something different entirely.
24. April 2008 @ 20:30 ( Permalink )
“I know it’s bigotry, but man, is that a group I thoroughly loathe.”
Not too fond of them myself, either. Luckily, Kalle’s relatively level-headed; he just seems like a dogmatic atheist (who’re hardly better than dogmatic theists, of course) because he was a rather devout Christian until he was 18, and is kinda bitter.
“Then would you please do me the favour of summing up what exactly it was you worked out? I think it might have flown by me - unless you speak of the pretty obvious power is right-thing.”
it’s that, too, to a certain extent, but I think the main thing I did was to combine materialism/naturalism with phenomenology — thus explaining away the “value of human life issue”. Håvard argued that if everything’s matter (and energy, to be more precise), then there’s nothing that gives humans value — that value has to have an external source (what, exactly, his reason for this was, I’m not entirely sure of, because it sounded like religious gibberish to me, but I seem to think it entailed . What I did now, then, was to accept the former claim, which I’ve never done before, but work around it through the application of phenomenology. That is, by saying that people have value because people believe they have value. Circle logic, perhaps, but no one ever claimed the human mind to be particularly reasonable.
““Also, the way I see it, your conclusion from “we can’t prove that the self exists beyond exactly now” to “there is no such thing as a self” is something of a fallacy. I suspect I might be misunderstanding you, though, so if you would care to elaborate…?”
I think he means that as the continuity of a self throughout experience and growth is likely to be an illusion, in effect there is no self at all. Which is very logical and all, but I fail to see the point in adhering to such a philosophy, at least as long as one doesn’t subscribe to some form of buddhist school of thought in addition. I mean, it might very well be TRUE, but if it is, it’s completely pointless to live by the belief in it being true anyway, so why do so? (I have the same issue with determinism - yes, everything might be predetermined, but if they are, there is no point in believing so anyway. A determinist can’t even be right for the sake of being right as it’s pure chance that he is right to begin with, and someone adhering to Ole’s definition of self might as well not as there is no “someone” doing so in the first place.)”
Ah, kinda like the Thomas-theorem, then: If humans define situations as real, they become real in their consequences.
Like, there might very well be that what we perceive as “the mind” or “self” is only an illusion, but because we can’t really see the difference between the illusion and the real thing, the difference makes no difference?
24. April 2008 @ 21:52 ( Permalink )
“(who’re hardly better than dogmatic theists, of course)”
In my own arse-headed way, I find them somewhat worse - at least, if you’re a theist, you have valid reason to bug everybody about it; if there IS a God, and you want people to be well, you need to let them know. It’s a kindness. But if you’re an atheist, all you’re doing is pestering other people and infringing on their peace of mind with your personal (to me, very subjectively) empty beliefs.
“. That is, by saying that people have value because people believe they have value. Circle logic, perhaps, but no one ever claimed the human mind to be particularly reasonable.”
Very reasonable. I just wasn’t aware that this was New Insight for you. I mean - you DID watch “Not Fade Away” some time back, I have that on good authority… But yeah. If nothing matters, all that matters is what you do. If nothing has value, then all that has value is what someone chooses to value. Projected meaning. It’s hardly ground-shatteringly original, though, and I have to admit some measure of surprise this hadn’t occured to you before. (And I’m trying pretty hard to find some way to do that which doesn’t make me seem obnoxious…)
I’m not sure I’m completely following your last two paragraphs, but yes, I thikn you got me. If there is no self, then it’s completely irrelevant whether or not I believe there is one. And since it’s by far most attractive to me to think there is one (as I otherwise would become apathetic and thus not believe myself to feel pleasure, joy, excitement or happyness ever again, something I, while I myself might be as much of an illusion as the emotions I speak of, find enjoyable to believe in), that is what I choose to do. Even if it’s faulty by 99,99% probabily. Heck, even if someone could definitely prove me wrong.
24. April 2008 @ 22:25 ( Permalink )
Well, Loki is more or less correct on my view. There ain’t no continous self, only a series of selves. Like the difference between seeing a video and a series of still-frames. This view is also more or less deterministic, since it means that “we” are only the result of “our” direct enviroments, and if the conditions outside the metaphysical self change, so will “we” (say, if someone drugs you). Still, as you say, it is more or less irrelevant, but it may allow someone to treat life with just a little less respect (or make them succumb to depression, I guess it depends..).
And yes, the placebo, or circle logic, or Thomas theorem or whatever you want to call it, is truly one of the more interesting aspects of philosophy. There is no such thing as a Norwegian nation, but everybody structures there lives as if there was, and so there is a Norwegian nation. I’m not saying that the same is true for the “self”, since we can’t stop experiencing a sense of continuity no matter how hard we try. The self is a placebo, yes, but we can only think rationally about things that come about as a direct result of this placebo, things we “experience”, so it’s not really possible to destroy it. Unless you believe in some obscure sort of Buddhism, I guess.
(And I’m not saying that I adhere to this “truth” as I go about living my life. That would be way too difficult, and also needlessly confrontational. Hypocricy is easy, as they say.)
25. April 2008 @ 15:24 ( Permalink )
It doesn’t allow “someone” to treat life like anything, as there would be no “someone” to do so. Anybody acting on the assumption that life isn’t worth anything based on that series of logic is acting irrationally as the very argument implies they themselves exist to perform the action, thus rendering their initial moral alibi useles.
(And hypocrits only live in Africa, I think.)
25. April 2008 @ 21:53 ( Permalink )
Heh, well. If “we’re” influenced only by external factors, then what external factors “we’re” influenced by can have quite a lot to say for the illusion of self. In this way thoughts can have (and does have) an impact.
And it’s not about any moral alibies. It’s about the complete absense of any alibies. I’m not saying people should act as if human life doesn’t have any value. As you say, “if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do”. I’m just saying that nothing we do matters.
26. April 2008 @ 01:24 ( Permalink )
I think we mostly understand each other, but you seem to miss what I tried to point out about the lack of relevance for this way of seeing things vis-a-vis morality. My point is, that actions do not have morality in this way of looking at things because actions aren’t actions, they’re just occurancies. In which case the entire point of looking at things this way disappears, as there is no you to look at them, nor any you to perform deeds based on the view, nor is there in truth even a view to base them on, as “view” implies someone to see and there’d be nobody.
26. April 2008 @ 01:54 ( Permalink )
… Yes? I think I misused the word “treat”, I didn’t mean that people who looked at the world in such a way subscribed to a certain system of (lack of) morality, and treated the world according to this system. I meant to say that looking at the world in this manner from time to time allowed you to see a lack of morals, and that this “seeing” would make it possible to look at other systems of morality with less respect. Not necessarily to the point of not being influenced by them, but at least to the point where you acknowledge that they’re just that: influence. But I also tried to say that it is impossible to consistently “look” at the world in such a way, even though it might be the only objective way to observe an occurrance. Or, if not impossible, it is damned difficult and requires a complete “knowledge” of the “self” that exists at any time. And that knowledge would still exist inside the self, so, well. Damned difficult.
26. April 2008 @ 13:58 ( Permalink )
My point was only this: You can’t observe it, as observing it implies that its wrong - you shouldn’t be able to observe it as there is no you.
26. April 2008 @ 17:32 ( Permalink )
bah, *it’s
26. April 2008 @ 17:32 ( Permalink )
Oh, I didn’t say that you don’t exist. It’s clear that there is some sort of facility that observes it’s surroundings, and that you think of this facility as your continous self. I’m just saying that there isn’t a continous self that does these observations.
26. April 2008 @ 18:25 ( Permalink )
But the mere act of observing takes time. Thus there must be some form of continuation of self for a self to observe anything.
26. April 2008 @ 18:34 ( Permalink )
Oh please. Observation isn’t a static activity. And even if it was, and “you” observed the exact same thing and thought the exact same thoughts two seconds in a row, well, every film is a collection of still images.
26. April 2008 @ 23:39 ( Permalink )
You’re misunderstanding me. To observe, you must register. To register, you must process. Are you trying to tell me that a self that doesn’t exist in any form of duration would be able to perform processes?
27. April 2008 @ 01:02 ( Permalink )
I’m saying that the processes aren’t a result of the self, but that the self is a result of the processes. It might be a bit too zen, I don’t know. I see your point, however, and it is a good one, and one I’d not really thought through… I suppose one could say that the illusion of the self is the result of activities in the brain, and that the brain exists from moment to moment (although it is constantly changing), but that might be a bit of a cop-out. I won’t say “touché, good friend”, but you’ve certainly got me thinking.
27. April 2008 @ 11:47 ( Permalink )
Hm, so your claim is that the self is the illusion of consistency in our thought-processes?
I honestly fail to see how that, then, is at all an illusion and not an actual self. If the self is convinced from second to second that it is the one and same self, and the only thing to define it is the continuous thought-processes, then wouldn’t the illusion by all means there is to define it actually be real?
27. April 2008 @ 12:28 ( Permalink )
I wrote a comment here, but when it was done, it struck me that it read like a Hallmark card, so I erased it. However:
“In my own arse-headed way, I find them somewhat worse - at least, if you’re a theist, you have valid reason to bug everybody about it; if there IS a God, and you want people to be well, you need to let them know. It’s a kindness.”
And what could be refered to as “atheist mission activity” isn’t? If you believe there is no gods, and believe that rejecting religion would empower people in some way, isn’t it a kindness to try and bring people around to your way of seeing things?
Granted, we’re talking dogmatic atheists here (at least I am), who like the dogmatic theists don’t even consider the idea that there might be the slimmest chance that they are wrong, and both these camps tend to be both obnoxious and destructive in the way they relate to “the other side”. But even non-dogmatic atheists such as myself can at times feel the need to challenge the (from our, admittedly subjective, point of view) “empty” beliefs of our religious friends, relatives, acquaintances, strangers and enemies — because we perceive it as a kindness.
Also, peace of mind is kinda overrated. Sure, it’s nice to have faith that everything’ll turn out a-okay in the end (a parody of a presentation of religious belief, I know, but bear with me for the sake of brevity here), but believing that things won’t has its own rewards, too.
“I just wasn’t aware that this was New Insight for you.”
In the sense that I’ve just recently thought this out on my own, it’s new, yes.
“I mean - you DID watch “Not Fade Away” some time back, I have that on good authority… But yeah. If nothing matters, all that matters is what you do. If nothing has value, then all that has value is what someone chooses to value. Projected meaning.”
Right-o. Thing is, things tend to go in one eye and out the other, or whatever one should say. Not too good at connecting these kinds of dots, this fellow you know as Terje. Also, if I should happen to connect dots, they’re sure to be disconnected in just a matter of days as I don’t tend to remember stuff like this very well. Which is one of the reasons why I’m half-way trying to write it down like this.
“It’s hardly ground-shatteringly original, though, and I have to admit some measure of surprise this hadn’t occured to you before. (And I’m trying pretty hard to find some way to do that which doesn’t make me seem obnoxious…)”
Hehe, you don’t sound obnoxious, at least not here. I’m just not very good at intellectually handling abstract concepts and pure logic.
(Also, sorry ’bout the long posting intervals. Although I see you’ve been able to keep yourselves occupied during my absence.)
27. April 2008 @ 19:07 ( Permalink )
“If you believe there is no gods, and believe that rejecting religion would empower people in some way, isn’t it a kindness to try and bring people around to your way of seeing things?”
Empower? How? I can see how a religious person’s belief in the hierarchy, the structure and the authorities of his or her religion might be something they’d be empowered (in a certain p.o.v. anyway) if they let go of, but there actual spiritual beliefs? Letting go of them would empower them? How? And what makes empowerment for its own sake positive? To me, it sounds as though you are advocating empowerment (though as I said, I don’t understand in what way) at the cost of mental safety and tranquility for empowerments own sake. If that’s the case, then logically, to be a little crass, you’re also okay with my advocating my right to empower myself by killing my next-door neighbour, because upsetting him and his loved one’s peace and tranquility is okay since I’m being empowered.
I honestly see no good reason why an atheist would think someone else benefitted from seeing things his way if they were happy in their beliefs. There is no God, so there is no punishment for believing wrongly. As far as I know, there is no statistics indicating atheists are happier, more successful or live longer than religious people. There is no value in being right for being right’s sake when the matter in which you’re right is irrelevant - believing there is no God if there really is no God if you’re still going to adhere to the same basic moral codes as the people who does seems to me to be about as useful as believing there is no such thing as a green and purple breed of lion when there isn’t. If someone is happy in their beliefs, what do you, as a missionary-atheist, add to their lives if you convince them they are wrong?
27. April 2008 @ 20:15 ( Permalink )
“Hm, so your claim is that the self is the illusion of consistency in our thought-processes?
I honestly fail to see how that, then, is at all an illusion and not an actual self. If the self is convinced from second to second that it is the one and same self, and the only thing to define it is the continuous thought-processes, then wouldn’t the illusion by all means there is to define it actually be real?”
My claim is that “the self” is the result of processes continually changing, but that we see these processes as the result of a continous self (or if not a result of the self, then as the result of either other personalities or natural laws). And I object to defining something using meta-physics. The self can be defined by chemical and electrical impulses in the brain. The impulses can be measured using the correct equipment in an objective (as objective as anything is, anyways) fashion.
27. April 2008 @ 22:11 ( Permalink )
Ah. Well, in that case, you’re talking biology more than philosophy, and the more you move away from the one and towards the other, the more sleepy I find myself to be. Thus I think I’ll refrain from going further, while I can still follow your arguments. (Otherwise I would have probably tried to point out that I don’t quite see why, if you define it like that, the continous self had to be an illusion. If it keeps building on old selves, then obviously there is a continuity between them, and the change from one to the other would be small enough for them to be identified as the same entity, thus allowing the process of changing selves to be defined AS the self, and no illusion at all. But I concede I fear I’ll not understand your reply to such a suggestion, and thus I won’t make it except obviously inside this parantheses)
27. April 2008 @ 23:41 ( Permalink )
“Empower? How? I can see how a religious person’s belief in the hierarchy, the structure and the authorities of his or her religion might be something they’d be empowered (in a certain p.o.v. anyway) if they let go of, but there actual spiritual beliefs? Letting go of them would empower them? How?”
Sigh. It seems as if I have once again messed up by not choosing my words carefully enough. Or possibly by not thinking things through at least twice before posting. Thing is, you see, I’ve never really been much concerned about faith in itself. However, I have been concerned with the practice of religion, and while religious faith might be perceived as constrictive, religious practice is much more so. I might have forgotten that this is the thing I really care about, and been carried away by my more ontologically and epistemologically oriented friends, and for this I am sorry. Thank you, though, for helping me remember.
“I honestly see no good reason why an atheist would think someone else benefitted from seeing things his way if they were happy in their beliefs. There is no God, so there is no punishment for believing wrongly.”
With the modofication I made above, you’re able to, surely? There is no punishment for believing wrongly, there’s no punishment for not following the religious ethics, there is little or no reason to feel shame.
There’s no otherwordly reward for behaving as religion would have you behave, so if you feel like, say, the pietism of your parents or religious community is stifling you, go do something else.
Naturally and also rather unfortunately, harmless religious faith and harmful religious practice are often rather close-knit, and so it becomes easy to take one when you meant to go after the other, and to forget that it’s the one you dislike, not the other. But in general, I’m not one of those atheists who nag on about the dogma of religious faith, and although at times I don’t understand how intelligent people can hold religious beliefs, I acknowledge that this is one of my many shortcomings, and not necessarily one of theirs.
Their harmful religious practice, on the other hand, is solely their own.
To conclude:
“If someone is happy in their beliefs, what do you, as a missionary-atheist, add to their lives if you convince them they are wrong?”
Nothing, if the only thing that changes is their beliefs.
As for the issue of empowerment, I believe I have turned that into something of a moot point by now (I’m probably wrong, though), as you seemed to object primarily to my claim that the abandonment of a spiritual faith could be empowering, but seeing as I was my usual hamfisted self when I wrote that, I’ll try to explain myself.
“And what makes empowerment for its own sake positive?”
Empowerment… You know, I have somne problems, myself, figuring out what the Hell I meant with that term. It is of course obvious that for, say, a homosexual Muslim, abandoning a faith that robs him of his humanity might be a good thing. If his family and (former) friends still hated him for his sexual preference, at least he would have less reason to despise himself. Abandoning many of the religious faiths that include some form of predestination or determinism might also cause a sensation of liberation (probably a better word than “empowerment”, although I guess what I was thinking of is something in the area between these). And, to say it with Marx, the salvation religions that promise that everything will be alright after death if you just behave in life, can be seriously harmful to human progress.
But obviously, while connected to spiritual faith, all these examples are primarily more typically examples of religious practice. More purely spiritual faith-related examples are a little bit beyond me at the moment, and while I suspect that they might exist, I am not familiar enough with the various religions in the world to point to them, and the examples I think I come up with, usually turn out to be examples of religious practice, as they’re not really problematic until they manifest themselves in the world we experience together (as opposed to our minds, which we don’t share, obviously), and then they’ve become religious practice.
It feels like I’m satisfied with my answers now, but it’s late, and I’ve been ranting for an hour or two, so I would understand if I still don’t make any sense. I do however hope that I make more sense than I used to, and that if you’re not content with my explanations, you’ll take the time to say so.
(Also, sorry for the long absence, again; I went home and to Røros last week.)
8. May 2008 @ 00:47 ( Permalink )
That’s a nice comment, I think you cleared up a lot of things for me regarding your stance and feelings.
One thing:
“With the modofication I made above, you’re able to, surely? There is no punishment for believing wrongly, there’s no punishment for not following the religious ethics, there is little or no reason to feel shame.”
I dislike the implication here, as I know for a fact you’re not arguing a world of no ethics, and thus there would be just as much reason to feel shame for not conforming to the norms, the norms and their basis would just be different ones (and, to my mind, usually less rational, too, without the divine right to back them up, though that’s mostly irrelevant to my objection here). The implication I thus dislike is your basic “my ethics and practices are the good kind, so it’s okay that those not conforming to them feel shame about it, while THEIR ethics and practices are dubious and it’s thus liberating/empowering to be relieved from feeling shame for not conforming to them”-stance. We’re all to some degree victims of feeling like that about our own values over others’ values, of course, but I don’t like it when it becomes a foundation for arguments against other people’s lifestyles, beliefs, practices norms and values.
8. May 2008 @ 01:45 ( Permalink )
I agree, absolutely, but in a generalised discussion such as the one we’ve been having here, I didn’t deem it efficient to go into the specifics of particular cases. Which would be what I’d pretty much need to be able to argue properly, as I don’t categorically reject the usefulness or virtue of religiously based ethics. I’m inclined towards disliking their basic axioms, to put it mildly, and while this does leave me a bit prejudiced against their whole ethical paradigm, I don’t think I use arguments based solely on this when discussing particular cases. I might point it out, but I can’t recall a time when I have used such an argument. Which is not to say that I haven’t, naturally, but then again, the people I usually talk to about stuff like this don’t usually use arguments that can be reduced to “it’s right/wrong because God says so”. Something which is less probable to provoke me into one of my religion-hating spasms, of course.
12. May 2008 @ 10:15 ( Permalink )