Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Over at WEIT, reader Ben Goren asks: “Why doesn’t Jesus call 911?”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over at Why Evolution Is True, New Atheist Professor Jerry Coyne has posted a letter he received from one of his regular readers, Ben Goren, regarding a major theological flaw which (he claims) undermines not only Christianity, but any religion that worships a God (or gods) who is both omniscient and good: why doesn’t such a being (or beings) assist the police, firefighters and ambulance workers by calling 911 whenever someone is in danger? Goren writes:

Imagine you find yourself in one of any number of calamitous situations — somebody you’re with clutches her chest in pain and falls to the floor; you hear, coming from the far end of a dark alley, the voice of a frightened old man crying for help; a tree falls as you’re driving down a lonely road, missing you but smashing the car following you.

In all such cases, the very first thing you — or anybody else — would do is call 9-1-1…

Now, imagine that it’s not just a single incident you observed and yet stood silently by, but every such case everywhere. Never mind the fact that you’d be a pervert for looking in everybody’s bedroom windows, but to look in a bedroom window, see a lit cigarette fall from sleepy fingers and catch the curtains on fire and then not call 9-1-1 to get the firefighters on the scene before the baby in the crib burns to death in uncomprehending screaming agony, well, that would go unimaginably far beyond mere perversion and move solidly into the worst brand of criminal psychopathy…

And that, at last, brings us to the question that nobody from any religion can satisfactorily answer — at least, not if at least one of its gods (however many there are) has enough awareness and ability to answer the simplest of prayers — or, for that matter, merely has a cellphone and the compassionate instincts of even a young child.

Why doesn’t Jesus ever call 9-1-1?

Goren is not impressed with theologians who respond by making “obfuscatory excuses” and by raising “obscure questions of ‘freedom of the will’ or placing the blame on an ancient ancestral maternal progenitor who procured culinary counseling from a speaking serpent.” Still less is he impressed by the claim that God dispenses justice in the hereafter – “as if post-mortem divine retribution is of any help to the person bleeding out by the side of the road after running into a falling tree, or of any comfort to the umpteenth victim of a serial criminal who enjoys continued success despite the desperate efforts of investigators hoping for a lead or even the slightest hint of a clue.”

Goren is particularly incensed at crimes committed by religious leaders against innocent members of their own flock – for instance, crimes such as child abuse. Goren expresses his astonishment at the fact that “not once in all of history has any deity ever alerted any civil authority to the misdeeds of one of its official representatives.” Crimes such as clerical child abuse, which are committed by God’s “official representatives,” would surely warrant a Divine telephone call to emergency assistance, argues Goren.

In this short post, I’m not going to put forward an answer to Ben Goren’s question: why doesn’t Jesus (or God) call 911? Instead, I’d like to identify a few background assumptions that Goren makes, in his argument. Remember that if even one of these assumptions turns put to be incorrect, then Goren’s argument collapses:

(i) the assumption that God’s responsibility to assist innocent human beings who are in distress is the same as (if not greater than) that of a passerby who happens to see them in distress and who hears their cries for help;

(ii) the assumption that, if God is responsible for alerting 9-1-1 whenever innocent people are in distress, He is directly responsible, and that He cannot delegate this responsibility to some lesser intelligence, such as an angel;

(iii) the assumption that God has no higher obligations towards the human race as a whole, which might conflict with, and over-ride, His obligation to assist individuals in distress;

(iv) the assumption that there are no “privileged members” of the human race who have the prerogative of deciding, on behalf of humanity as a whole, whether (and to what degree) God should offer assistance to individuals in distress who call upon his name for help;

(v) the assumption that anyone – in particular, anyone on 911 – would be capable of hearing the voice of God, if He wanted to leave an important message for them.

Finally, here are a few brief comments of mine regarding these “background assumptions” that Goren makes:

(i) God is not a mere passerby, but the very Author of our being. On the one hand, this fact increases His obligation towards individuals in distress: since He is all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful, God is obliged to dispense perfect justice. But on the other hand, the fact that God maintains everyone – good and bad alike – in existence may also prevent Him from dispensing justice now. (Think of the parable of the wheat and the tares.) Goren has not explained why a supernatural Deity with perfect knowledge, love and power, would be obliged to help each suffering individual right away. As far as I can tell, the only obligation that God has towards suffering individuals here and now is the obligation not to allow them to suffer irreparable harm. However, we should always bear in mind that what appears to be “irreparable damage” to us, may not appear so to God;

(ii) if God has delegated the responsibility for alerting 9-1-1 whenever innocent people are in distress to some angel (or some other super-human intelligence), then we have to consider the possibility that this intelligence – call it Lucifer if you like – has “gone rogue” and is working to sabotage God’s original plan;

(iii) if God’s always alerting 9-1-1 whenever someone is in distress would interfere with the moral development of the human race as a whole (e.g. by making them apathetic about assisting crime victims, leading to a hardening of people’s hearts towards suffering individuals), then it is at least arguable that God’s obligation not to hinder the moral development of the human race as a whole would over-ride His obligation to help those individuals who are in distress;

(iv) it is entirely possible that God, after revealing His existence to the first human beings at the dawn of human history, then asked them, as representatives of the human race as a whole, how much Divine assistance they would like to receive in the future. And it is entirely possible that these “privileged” human beings opted for little or no Divine intervention, thinking that it would give them more personal freedom and enable them to escape from the suffocating embrace (as they saw it) of a Deity Who loved them too much. It’s also entirely possible that God may have promised to comply with their decision, which would “tie His hands” until the end of human history, insofar as He cannot break a promise;

(v) finally, it may turn out to be the case that our ability to hear a message from God depends on our spiritual condition, and that bad or spiritually lukewarm people are simply incapable of hearing detailed 911 messages from the Almighty, due to their poor relationship with God. In that case, it would be our fault, not God’s, that we don’t receive 911 calls from Him, about individuals in distress.

Well, that’s about all I want to say, in response to Ben Goren’s question. The ball is now in his court.

Meanwhile, what do readers think?

Comments
bornagain77, you seem to have missed the point that both Quantum and Relativistic Mechanics reduce to Newtonian Mechanics at macro scales. And human bodies are smack dab in the middle of the macro realm. Do you observe yourself diffracting every time you walk through a doorway? If you stand against a solid wall, do you sometimes become unsure of your position and discover yourself on the other side? Have you ever observed humans spontaneously pop into existence from nowhere for no reason, and vanish similarly? No? Then why do you think anything else counterintuitive from Quantum Mechanics applies to you personally? b&Ben Goren
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Aleta, but alas by your own admission 'you' are not 'you' but 'you' are 'made of matter'. So Aleta if I remove your arm will you be less of a person? Your Legs? How about half your brain aleta? Would you be less of a 'person' then? How much less? Exactly what is the correspondence of amount of mass to amount of personhood? If the mind of a person were merely the brain, as materialists hold, then if half of a brain were removed then a 'person' should only be ‘half the person’, or at least somewhat less of a 'person', as they were before, but that is not the case. The ‘whole person’ stays intact even though the brain suffers severe impairment:
Miracle Of Mind-Brain Recovery Following Hemispherectomies - Dr. Ben Carson - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zBrY77mBNg Dr. Gary Mathern - What Can You Do With Half A Brain? - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrKijBx_hAw Removing Half of Brain Improves Young Epileptics' Lives: - 1997 Excerpt: "We are awed by the apparent retention of memory and by the retention of the child's personality and sense of humor,'' Dr. Eileen P. G. Vining,, Dr. John Freeman, the director of the Johns Hopkins Pediatric Epilepsy Center, said he was dumbfounded at the ability of children to regain speech after losing the half of the brain that is supposedly central to language processing. ''It's fascinating,'' Dr. Freeman said. ''The classic lore is that you can't change language after the age of 2 or 3.'' But Dr. Freeman's group has now removed diseased left hemispheres in more than 20 patients, including three 13-year-olds whose ability to speak transferred to the right side of the brain in much the way that Alex's did.,,, http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/19/science/removing-half-of-brain-improves-young-epileptics-lives.html
In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study:
"Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications." Strange but True: When Half a Brain Is Better than a Whole One - May 2007 Excerpt: Most Hopkins hemispherectomy patients are five to 10 years old. Neurosurgeons have performed the operation on children as young as three months old. Astonishingly, memory and personality develop normally. ,,, Another study found that children that underwent hemispherectomies often improved academically once their seizures stopped. "One was champion bowler of her class, one was chess champion of his state, and others are in college doing very nicely," Freeman says. Of course, the operation has its downside: "You can walk, run—some dance or skip—but you lose use of the hand opposite of the hemisphere that was removed. You have little function in that arm and vision on that side is lost," Freeman says. Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. ,,, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-when-half-brain-better-than-whole
bornagain77
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
There you have it folks, no evidence, no nothing, but pure unadulterated dogmatism. As to conservation, Conscious minds violate conservation of information all the time. Yet undirected material processes never violate conservation of information. Moreover, if you look into the details of quantum teleportation where a photon is destroyed upon measurement (i.e. conscious observation), yes 'destroyed' upon measurement, you will find that conservation of energy is violated so that the conservation of information, which is foundational to quantum theory, remains unviolated.
How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,” http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862 Quantum Teleportation Of A Human? – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfePpMTbFYY Will Human Teleportation Ever Be Possible? As experiments in relocating particles advance, will we be able to say, "Beam me up, Scotty" one day soon? By Corey S. Powell - Monday, June 16, 2014 Excerpt: Note a fascinating common thread through all these possibilities. Whether you regard yourself as a pile of atoms, a DNA sequence, a series of sensory inputs or an elaborate computer file, in all of these interpretations you are nothing but a stack of data. According to the principle of unitarity, quantum information is never lost. Put them together, and those two statements lead to a staggering corollary: At the most fundamental level, the laws of physics say you are immortal. http://discovermagazine.com/2014/julyaug/20-the-ups-and-downs-of-teleportation Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html Quantum no-deleting theorem Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence Black holes don't erase information, scientists say - April 2, 2015 Excerpt: The "information loss paradox" in black holes—a problem that has plagued physics for nearly 40 years—may not exist.,,, This is an important discovery, Stojkovic says, because even physicists who believed information was not lost in black holes have struggled to show, mathematically, how this happens. His new paper presents explicit calculations demonstrating how information is preserved, he says. The research marks a significant step toward solving the "information loss paradox," a problem that has plagued physics for almost 40 years, since Stephen Hawking first proposed that black holes could radiate energy and evaporate over time. This posed a huge problem for the field of physics because it meant that information inside a black hole could be permanently lost when the black hole disappeared—a violation of quantum mechanics, which states that information must be conserved. http://phys.org/news/2015-04-black-holes-dont-erase-scientists.html+/
bornagain77
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
ba77: "Aleta, since you really don’t exist as a real person..." Nonsense. Of course I'm a real person. You have a very cartoonish view of the perspectives you want to criticize. "I" am not a "neuronal illusion" - I'm an integrated biological organism whose parts work together in the interests of the whole organism. My conscious experience, and the role it plays in my life, is part of who I am, but so are all sorts of other biological processes. I don't see how I could be much more real than that! :-) The fact that I am made of matter surely doesn't take away the reality of who I am.Aleta
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
bornagain77, again again, I'm not claiming I can explain consciousness -- and I'm most emphatically not claiming that consciousness doesn't exist. What I am doing is rejecting outright, with prejudice, any suggestions that consciousness violates conservation. Life's far too short to waste on that sort of crank nonsense. If your consciousness can cause your muscles to contract and thereby do work, then either consciousness is an entirely physical phenomenon or it's violating conservation. Demonstrate for us your consciousness-powered perpetual motion machine and we'll talk; until then, you're just another Pons and Fleischmann at best. Cheers, b&Ben Goren
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Ben Goren to say your evidence-free refutation of the hard problem of consciousness lacks substance would be an insult to Aether theories. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/over-at-weit-reader-ben-goren-asks-why-doesnt-jesus-call-911/#comment-580769 Moreover Ben Goren, as I asked Aleta, since you really don't exist as a real person, but are, given materialistic premises, merely an illusion, why should I care one iota what your opinion is? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/over-at-weit-reader-ben-goren-asks-why-doesnt-jesus-call-911/#comment-580722 Another solid proof that atheism is false is that it is impossible for atheists to live consistently within their worldview:
The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, "Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get." An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, "The impossibility of free will ... can be proved with complete certainty." Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. "To be honest, I can't really accept it myself," he says. "I can't really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?",,, In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots -- that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one "can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free." We are "constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots." One section in his book is even titled "We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.",,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html [Nancy Pearcey] When Reality Clashes with Your Atheistic Worldview - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Kpn3HBMiQ podcast - Are Humans Simply Robots? Nancy Pearcey on the “Free Will Illusion” http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/08/are-humans-simply-robots-nancy-pearcey-on-the-free-will-illusion/#more-30001 Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
bornagain77
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
Andre @294
Subjective is the opposite of objective, which refers to things that are more clear-cut. That Earth has one moon is objective — it’s a fact. Whether the moon is pretty or not is subjective — not everyone will agree. Facts are objective, but opinions are subjective.
Isn't "objective" any entity that exists independently of what any person (or group of persons) could know or think about it? Wouldn't that include the characteristics associated with such entity? If that's the case, then wouldn't "subjective" be everything else, i.e. whatever isn't "objective"? Before I started to read your interesting comments in this website, I did not know anything about your existence. Did that mean you did not exist? Your existence is an objective reality, isn't it? However, if someone tells you that as a child I was ugly and my mom used to dress me up kind of funny, would that be subjective? Did I get this right? Please, correct me if I'm off track on this. Thank you.Dionisio
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Stephen, I was asked for my personal motivations, not for refutations of the irrational superstitions of theism. For the latter, you'll have to look to other posts of mine here. Cheers, b& P.S. Harry Potter's triumph over Voldemort was foretold before his birth, too; it's right there in the text. b&Ben Goren
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
Vincent, I'm sure Vaal will have a more thorough reply, but I just wanted to chime in that I think you're missing his point. He agrees with you and me that the evidence for Sai Baba is laughable. But your evidence for levitation in Cupertino a third of a millennium ago is no better, and your defenses of said evidences are indistinguishable from those of Sai Baba's followers. Take a step back for a moment. Let's agree for the sake of argument that Joe really could reliably levitate, that he wasn't just doing the same fakery as any third-rate stage magician can pull off today. Are we really to believe that nobody in the centuries since has managed to figure out how he did it? That no other Catholic, even, has been deemed worthy by Christ? And think of the practical applications; if Michelangelo could have levitated, he'd have had a much easier time painting the Sistine Chapel than with all that scaffolding. Cathedrals could have been built within the lifetimes of the architects. All would know the Catholics as the blessed deserving of the heavenly power of flight and would have no doubt as to the authenticity of their claim as heirs of Peter's rock. And the church could fund all the charity and evangelization and what-not that it could ever dream of by selling its levitation services to railroad operators and the like. None of that is the case, of course. So, if you want to convince me (and, I'm guessing, Vaal), you'll have to offer an explanation of why Joe could levitate but nobody else, including Sai Baba, can. Or you could just cut to the chase and demonstrate your own ability to levitate. I can drop my apple and time it with a stopwatch. If you jump off the table at the same time as I drop my apple from the table, will I need to use the lap function on my stopwatch to tell the difference between the times each reaches the ground? Cheers, b&Ben Goren
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Ben Goren
The world will be a much better place once they [Christians] stop worshipping at the altar of a made-up death god dressed up as a love god.
Is that supposed to refute the rational arguments for the existence of God?
I’d much rather live in a world where kids aren’t taught bad faery tales in place of science, where bigots can’t hide behind the authority of a love god to deny lovers the right to marry,
Is that supposed to tell us where rights come from or why humans deserve to have them?
...where medical ethics policy is set by sound evidential reasoning rather than ancient superstition, and so on.
Is that supposed to justify the act of using one's lower digestive tract for a sex organ?
Disabusing Christians of their self-deceptions is the most effective means I’m aware of at my disposal to bring that about.
Is that supposed to change the fact that detailed accounts of Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection, were foretold a thousand years before His birth?StephenB
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Ben Goren at 300, Hmmmm, hello, hard problem?
bornagain77, I don't need to explain consciousness to know that the explanation doesn't involve over-unity perpetual motion physics as part of its explanation. That's a concept that I've noticed a lot of theists have trouble with. Just because you don't know the answer to something doesn't mean that any answer you pull out of your hindquarters is therefore valid, even if you've got some laughable excuse of a pretense at evidence and reasoning to pretend to support your answer. "I don't know" isn't merely a perfectly valid answer, but it's the only honest one when you truly don't know. I have good reason to suspect that consciousness is the result of recursive application of structures like mirror neurons that monitor internal brain states. I'd even bet you a cup of coffee or a beer or other suitable beverage that that'll be conclusively demonstrated within a decade from now. But do I know that that's the case? No. I don't know. But, just because I don't know doesn't mean I'm going to waste my time with nonsense about phantasmagorical ectoplasmic spooks in the astral plane pulling our puppet strings. Cheers, b&Ben Goren
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
HOWEVER atheists are somehow totally convinced by some argument that God does not exist.
I've yet to meet any atheists for whom that would be an accurate characterization of their positions. Most atheists are simply utterly unconvinced by the arguments of theists. You know how you're utterly unconvinced by the arguments of Muslims or Hindus or Wiccans or the rest? Christianity is equally unconvincing to everybody else, too -- and not just atheists, but the Muslims and Hindus and Wiccans. Most atheists don't see any need to take it farther than that. Present them with a convincing case and they'll be convinced -- but all the cases presented by all the religions are (as, again, you yourself would agree with a lone exception), frankly, laughable. If you really want to convince them, you'll need evidence and argument on the scale of what we've got for gravity. I can drop the apple and time its fall any time I might doubt gravity; what tests do you have to verify the voices of your gods aren't just in your heads? I personally fall into a much smaller set of atheists, those convinced that there aren't any gods. But, as with most of those like me, it's not because of any argument against the gods; it's because the gods themselves are presented by the theists as self-contained contradictions. I don't need any argument to know that there aren't any married bachelors or that there's nowhere north of the North Pole; so, too, do I not need any argument to know that there aren't any entities that can perform impossible miracles. As that ability, in one form or another, is the defining characteristic of a god, all gods are absurd. (Of course, they do do the impossible...but only within the contexts of their respective myths. In that sense, gods are as real as any other class of stock fictional character or plot device.) Hope that helps you understand where we're coming from. Cheers, b&Ben Goren
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Ever heard of a very simple thing called cause and effect, foundational to this universe
Hate to break it to you, Andre, but Aristotelian causality is a primitive superstition with as much bearing on reality as the Four Elements and the demonic possession theory of infectious disease. It can still serve a very limited utility in certain narrow contexts at macro scales, but it's not even worng, as they say, at quantum and relativistic scales. There's nothing causing a radioisotope to decay at a particular moment in time...and Einstein's big epiphany was that two observers moving at sufficient relative velocity will see the same set of events occur in reverse sequences -- and that both have equal claim as to which is the "right" order. Never mind the special pleading painfully obvious in the Ontological Argument and its variations; this is why we know they're as relevant as those of Flat Earthers demanding we explain why people in Australia don't fall off the bottom of the Earth. Cheers, b&Ben Goren
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
There are no colors (and other qualia) in the brain.
And yet, physical manipulation of the brain in various ways can reliably induce or otherwise alter the sensation of color. A major project I've been working on for some time is accurate color reproduction with digital photography. To my surprise, I'm actually doing some cutting-edge innovative work, and achieving results that are on a par with the best using equipment that's not supposed to be capable of that level of accuracy. And to do so I've obviously had to learn an awful lot about color and light and spectroscopy and all those sorts of things. There're those who've forgotten more than I'll ever learn about the subject, but I already know far more than enough to have superb confidence that color is the physiological phenomenon of the brain's perception of light, exactly as everybody else who knows anything about the subject would tell you. I would heartily encourage you to learn the same for yourself. It's been an absolutely amazing educational experience. And if you've never seen for yourself wide-area diffuse monochromatic light.... b&Ben Goren
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
What’s the point of your presence here at UD, if there is any?
Mung, I've already explained. Christians, by and large, are good people not because of but in spite of their religion. The world will be a much better place once they stop worshipping at the altar of a made-up death god dressed up as a love god. I'd much rather live in a world where kids aren't taught bad faery tales in place of science, where bigots can't hide behind the authority of a love god to deny lovers the right to marry, where medical ethics policy is set by sound evidential reasoning rather than ancient superstition, and so on. Disabusing Christians of their self-deceptions is the most effective means I'm aware of at my disposal to bring that about. Not just Christians, of course -- all the other gods are equally made up, and the other popular god these days, Muhammad, is a war god dressed in peace god clothing. You can imagine why that's far worse than the case with Christianity...but I live in America, and our population is overwhelmingly Christian with a negligible number of Muslims. b&Ben Goren
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Vaal, After reading your post (#245), I decided to check out Sai Baba's miracles. I was utterly underwhelmed. I'll let viewers judge for themselves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1m1bJpyZGE (post-mortem images of Sai Baba on temple walls) http://www.saibabaofindia.com/4_stories.htm (four miracle stories) http://www.saibabaofindia.com/hislop_sai.htm (alleged resurrections by Sai Baba) http://www.saibabaofindia.com/matrz.html (materialized objects) http://www.saibabaofindia.com/materializationofjewels.htm (materialization of jewels) http://www.saibabaofindia.com/aura_of_sai.htm (testimony of a professor who saw Sai Baba's aura) http://www.saibabaofindia.com/Shirdi_Sai_Baba_%20open_eye_miracle.htm (Sai Baba idol opens one eye) No doctors' certificates like you'd find at Lourdes, no independent committees for investigating alleged cures and sifting the wheat from the chaff, no sworn testimonies, no statements signed by multiple eyewitnesses, and no devil's advocate trying to debunk the cures before they are officially proclaimed miraculous. All of these procedures are par for the course in the Catholic Church, and none of them are present here. Really, Vaal, is this what you call evidence???
(I have been putting up the Sai Baba challenge to Christians for years and years and no one has ever taken up the challenge of explaining how the eyewitness claims could have arisen through non-miraculous events. Again, it’s not that their explanations fail... it’s that when they even begin trying they quickly get to “uh-oh” land for their own miracle claims, and suddenly have better things to do).
"Uh-oh"??? Vaal, I'm trembling in my boots (NOT!) If this is your best answer to St. Joseph of Cupertino, then I'll go with the testimony relating to the 17th century Italian saint any day. By any criterion, it's much better authenticated than the anecdotal rubbish relating to Sai Baba.vjtorley
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test - Douglas S. Robertson Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information. http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence - June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search -- unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with "natural evolution." ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab's website states, "The principal theme of the lab's research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems." So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can't prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can't derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html
Goren, to remove all doubt that he is a drunken college freshman trying to impress his sophomore brethren, then states the "And yet it moves" phrase from Galileo:
You can offer all the incredulity you like…eppur si muove.
And so it does move Goren. Perhaps when you sober up tomorrow you would like to tell us exactly how 'it' moves?
A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - University of Wyoming - J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: "There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don't know. "But there is gravity," you say. No, "gravity" is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. "But there are laws of gravity," you say. No, the "laws" are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term "laws"; they prefer "lawlike regularities." To call the equations of gravity "laws" and speak of the apple as "obeying" them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the "laws" of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn't trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn't have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place." http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdf Aquinas’ First Way – (The First Mover – Unmoved Mover) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpw0_w27As Aquinas’ First Way 1) Change in nature is elevation of potency to act. 2) Potency cannot actualize itself, because it does not exist actually. 3) Potency must be actualized by another, which is itself in act. 4) Essentially ordered series of causes (elevations of potency to act) exist in nature. 5) An essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act cannot be in infinite regress, because the series must be actualized by something that is itself in act without the need for elevation from potency. 6) The ground of an essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act must be pure act with respect to the casual series. 7) This Pure Act– Prime Mover– is what we call God. http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/08/aquinas-first-way.html
Or to put it much more simply:
"The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment." Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html
And in confirmation of this ancient ‘first mover’ argument, in the following video Anton Zeilinger, whose group is arguably the best group of experimentalists in quantum physics today, ‘tries’ to explain the double slit experiment to Morgan Freeman:
Quantum Mechanics - Double Slit Experiment. Is anything real? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0
Prof. Anton Zeilinger makes this rather startling statement in the preceding video that meshes perfectly with the ‘first mover argument’::
"The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable." Anton Zeilinger
If that was not enough to get his point across, at the 4:12 minute mark in this following video,,,
Prof Anton Zeilinger Shows the Double-slit Experiment - video http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgt69p_prof-anton-zeilinger-shows-the-double-slit-experiment_tech
Professor Zeilinger states,,,
"We know what the particle is doing at the source when it is created. We know what it is doing at the detector when it is registered. But we do not know what it is doing in-between." Anton Zeilinger
And if that was not enough to get the ‘unmoved mover’ point across, in Quantum Electrodynamics, arguably the most stringently, and accurately, tested theory in science today, we have these following comments
Quantum Electrodynamics The key components of Feynman's presentation of QED are three basic actions.[1]:85 *A photon goes from one place and time to another place and time. *An electron goes from one place and time to another place and time. *An electron emits or absorbs a photon at a certain place and time. These actions are represented in a form of visual shorthand by the three basic elements of Feynman diagrams: a wavy line for the photon, a straight line for the electron and a junction of two straight lines and a wavy one for a vertex representing emission or absorption of a photon by an electron. These can all be seen in the adjacent diagram. It is important not to over-interpret these diagrams. Nothing is implied about how a particle gets from one point to another. The diagrams do not imply that the particles are moving in straight or curved lines. They do not imply that the particles are moving with fixed speeds. The fact that the photon is often represented, by convention, by a wavy line and not a straight one does not imply that it is thought that it is more wavelike than is an electron. The images are just symbols to represent the actions above: photons and electrons do, somehow, move from point to point and electrons, somehow, emit and absorb photons. We do not know how these things happen, but the theory tells us about the probabilities of these things happening. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics#Introduction
Verse:
Acts 17:28 For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as also certain of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’
bornagain77
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
Ben Goren at 300, Hmmmm, hello, hard problem?
David Chalmers on Consciousness (Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
Ben Goren at 300, claims the hard problem of consciousness is no problem at all because of,,,
bornagain77, everything you wrote about how the mind can’t possibly be the product of the brain was rendered moot with the invention of beer…and became completely insupportable when that railroad spike shot through Phineas Gage’s head.
Well I guess that does it folks. You guys heard it from Ben Goren himself. Railroad spikes and beer explains the hard problem of consciousness, i.e. explains the mind, i.e. explains 'you'. But something tells me that Ben Goren is missing something very important in trying to explain away the hard problem of consciousness with railroad spikes and beer. (Moreover, I think that perhaps Ben Goren should have stayed away from the all night beer parties in college where he apparently learned most of his current debating techniques). As to the tired chestnut of Phineas Gage’s railroad spike, that chestnut is refuted at the 7:00 minute mark of the following video:
The Case for the Soul (Neuroscience) - video https://youtu.be/oBsI_ay8K70?t=420
As well, 4:03 minute mark of the preceding video, and completely contrary to materialistic thought, 'Brain Plasticity' to a person's focused intention has now been firmly established by Jeffrey Schwartz, as well as among other researchers. Moreover, completely contrary to materialistic thought, mind has been now been shown to be able to reach all the way down and have pronounced effects on the gene expression of our bodies:
Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, - December 10, 2013 Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.,,, the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways. http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes/
Despite Goren's self assurance that railroad spikes and beer explains (away) the hard problem of consciousness, no one, and I repeat no one, not even drunken college freshmen and sophomores, have a clue how anything material can possibly be consciousness. Massachusetts Institute of Technology neuroscientist Sebastian Seung makes this clear in his book “Connectome,” saying:
“Every day we recall the past, perceive the present and imagine the future. How do our brains accomplish these feats? It’s safe to say that nobody really knows.”
There is simply no direct evidence that anything material is capable of generating consciousness. As Rutgers University philosopher Jerry Fodor says,
"Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness. Regardless of our knowledge of the structure of the brain, no one has any idea how the brain could possibly generate conscious experience."
As Nobel neurophysiologist Roger Sperry wrote,
"Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature."
From modern physics, Nobel prize-winner Eugene Wigner agreed:
"We have at present not even the vaguest idea how to connect the physio-chemical processes with the state of mind."
Contemporary physicist Nick Herbert states,
"Science's biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot."
Physician and author Larry Dossey wrote:
"No experiment has ever demonstrated the genesis of consciousness from matter. One might as well believe that rabbits emerge from magicians' hats. Yet this vaporous possibility, this neuro-mythology, has enchanted generations of gullible scientists, in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it."
But alas, what could they possibly know, railroad spikes and beer explains it all! Just ask Ben Goren. :) The ever wise Ben Goren goes on to inform us that,,,
"And everything we now know about physics and information theory only confirms it; for cognition to be anything else, all of physics would have to be thrown out."
That statement is so wrong that it is, sans Pauli, 'not even wrong'. If anything, everything we now know about physics and information theory now confirms the primacy of consciousness to reality.
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), the originator of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” (Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.) "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" - Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961
Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. Moreover, his insights into quantum mechanics are now driving a 'second quantum revolution':
Eugene Wigner – A Gedanken Pioneer of the Second Quantum Revolution - Anton Zeilinger - Sept. 2014 Conclusion It would be fascinating to know Eugene Wigner’s reaction to the fact that the gedanken experiments he discussed (in 1963 and 1970) have not only become reality, but building on his gedanken experiments, new ideas have developed which on the one hand probe the foundations of quantum mechanics even deeper, and which on the other hand also provide the foundations to the new field of quantum information technology. All these experiments pay homage to the great insight Wigner expressed in developing these gedanken experiments and in his analyses of the foundations of quantum mechanics, http://epjwoc.epj.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2014/15/epjconf_wigner2014_01010.pdf
Thus, since Wigner’s insights into the foundational role of the ‘conscious observer’ in Quantum Mechanics are bearing fruit with a ‘Second Quantum Revolution’, then that is certainly very strong evidence that his ‘consciousness’ insights are indeed true. As well, Dean Radin, who spent years at Princeton testing different aspects of consciousness, recently performed experiments testing the possible role of consciousness in the double slit. His results were, not so surprisingly, very supportive of consciousness’s central role in the experiment:
Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: six experiments – Radin – 2012 Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s(seconds). Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z = -4:36, p = 6·10^-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z = 0:43, p = 0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem. http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics%20Essays%20Radin%20final.pdf Psychophysical (i.e., mind–matter) interactions with a double-slit interference pattern - Dean Radin, Leena Michel, James Johnston, and Arnaud Delorme - December 2013 Abstract: Previously reported experiments suggested that interference patterns generated by a double-slit optical system were perturbed by a psychophysical (i.e., mind–matter) interaction. Three new experiments were conducted to further investigate this phenomenon. The first study consisted of 50 half-hour test sessions where participants concentrated their attention-toward or -away from a double-slit system located 3 m away. The spectral magnitude and phase associated with the double-slit component of the interference pattern were compared between the two attention conditions, and the combined results provided evidence for an interaction,,,. One hundred control sessions using the same equipment, protocol and analysis, but without participants present, showed no effect,,,. The second experiment used a duplicate double-slit system and similar test protocol, but it was conducted over the Internet by streaming data to participants’ web browsers. Some 685 people from six continents contributed 2089 experimental sessions. Results were similar to those observed in the first experiment, but smaller in magnitude,,,. Data from 2303 control sessions, conducted automatically every 2 h using the same equipment but without observers showed no effect. Distance between participants and the optical system, ranging from 1 km to 18,000 km, showed no correlation with experimental effect size. The third experiment used a newly designed double-slit system, a revised test protocol, and a simpler method of statistical analysis. Twenty sessions contributed by 10 participants successfully replicated the interaction effect observed in the first two studies. http://deanradin.com/evidence/RadinPhysicsEssays2013.pdf
Shoot 3-D material reality, as we experience it, does not even exist without conscious observation:
Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms - Mind = blown. - FIONA MACDONALD - 1 JUN 2015 Excerpt: "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release. http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It - June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
As to information theory, and Goren's drunken college freshman claim that information theory somehow explains consciousness, all I can say is, Goren, please step away from the beer keg nozzle.
Sentient robots? Not possible if you do the maths - 13 May 2014 Over the past decade, Giulio Tononi at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and his colleagues have developed a mathematical framework for consciousness that has become one of the most influential theories in the field. According to their model, the ability to integrate information is a key property of consciousness. ,,, But there is a catch, argues Phil Maguire at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth. He points to a computational device called the XOR logic gate, which involves two inputs, A and B. The output of the gate is "1" if A and B are the same and "0" if A and B are different. In this scenario, it is impossible to predict the output based on A or B alone – you need both. Crucially, this type of integration requires loss of information, says Maguire: "You have put in two bits, and you get one out. If the brain integrated information in this fashion, it would have to be continuously haemorrhaging information.",,, Based on this definition, Maguire and his team have shown mathematically that computers can't handle any process that integrates information completely. If you accept that consciousness is based on total integration, then computers can't be conscious. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25560-sentient-robots-not-possible-if-you-do-the-maths.html#.U3LD5ChuqCe
bornagain77
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
Vaal
I have described the typical Christian conception of heaven correctly. Christians are to love God/Jesus with all their heart, and in heaven will be joined with this God Of Love in an eternal relationship. As opposed to this wretched earth full of sin, our affections and thoughts contaminated by sin and base impulses, joining God in His realm is generally held to be a vastly higher, more desirable level of existence, of bliss, joy, love. Being in Heaven is the end game, this is purportedly the BEST POSSIBLE STATE OF AFFAIRS to be in, and that state of affairs is one in which love exists without suffering, evil and peril.
Of course No one has said otherwise. Certainly not me.
You HAVE made the claim that God requires us to pass a “test” to get into heaven, and that on this view love is something that must “pass this test” through demonstrations of peril and sacrifice.
That is absolutely correct.
But I’ve been QUESTIONING that premise on the grounds of everyday, moral consistency! So you can’t just assert it as if it makes your position compelling or coherent.
TThere is no inconsistency about it at all.
As I said, I’ve explained why, appealing to our moral sentiments on earth, this demand is actually screwed up and leads to immoral ideas – e.g. that my being in love with my family can not suffices as “love” or be good in of itself – that you or your God demand it be accompanied by peril, suffering, sacrifice. That’s screwed up big time and I see every reason to reject it.
This demand is inherent in every human act. This world is full of temptations to do evil things. Your notions of love are unrealistic because they do not take that fact into account. You say that feelings of love will "predict" acts of love. Notice, that you didn't say that they guarantee acts of love. That is because feelings can mislead us and even cause us to be very unloving. On a daily basis, those feelings of love are in competition with many other feelings that can be even more compelling. If those other feelings win the day, then feelings of love fail to produce acts of love. In other words, feelings of love, undisciplined by the conviction that other feelings must be suppressed, will lead to unloving actions. Thus, agape love will, through decision and discipline, supported by grace, will conquer those other destructive feelings, It is only by deciding to love in spite of our feelings, that we can perform loving Actions. Thus, we are tested every moment of the day. Will we do the right thing, or will our feelings win the day. We can win that fight only by overcoming evil, which requires suffering. Agape love is inseparable from suffering. Feelings of love are easy. They come and go. Those who live by their feelings will not overcome their evil instincts, which means that they will fail at love, in this life---and the next.
(BTW, I’m feeling like I’ve spent enough time here and likely will be on my way….) Thank you.
I believe our last round was more fruitful than the preceding rounds. Thank you.StephenB
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
Vaal
Nor can we be, on this view, “morally obligated to love.” Because as anyone knows, love (again as the word is commonly used) is not something one is entirely in control of, and you can not just “love” someone – feel deep affection – on command. Love can be encouraged, to the extent anyone can widen their affection for others. But to command as obligatory something that is not possible for us, is irrational and incoherent. Moral obligation, on the other hand, gets across this problem as it directs us to moral action, and acting for the welfare of others *whether we can summon feelings of love while we do it or not.*
What you have described is not agape love, which is, by definition, self sacrificial in nature. Agape love is something we can, with moral exertion, control because it is based on the power of decision. Recall, that we are discussing the notion of Christian love, not the dictionary definition of love as a “feeling.” Christian love is not based on feelings. Your definition of love requires no moral exertion and is easy to practice. Christian love is not easy to practice. No one feels like loving their enemies. No one feels like taking care of their elderly, at least not at first. No one feels like saying no to illicit sexual behavior. No one feels like suppressing anger. No one feels like avoiding gossip. In every case, it requires moral exertion to practice agape love. Yet Christian love entails all these things and more. The Son of God did not allow himself to be mocked, scourged, and crucified because he felt like it. Nevertheless, these were profound acts of love that were not prompted by any kind of a “moral obligation.” You have come here to criticize Christianity, yet you appear to know little about it. According to the Christian doctrine, we can decide to love people that we don’t like or those for whom we do not have good feelings. Not every Christian lives up to that standard, of course, but that is irrelevant because you are criticizing Christianity as a world view. Thus, you are obligated, for purposes of clarity, to use the Christian vocabulary of love, not the dictionary definition.StephenB
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT
Vaal: I appreciate the link. However, it leads me to all the same old arguments that I have never found to be convincing. (I’m around 30 years or so into my interest in philosophy, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science etc, so it’s rare to encounter a new argument, though I love it when it happens).
Atheists, such as yourself, are capable of extraordinary skepticism. Only in the last couple of weeks I have witnessed several atheists expressing their doubts about the validity of law of identity — the first of the three classical laws of thought: "A=A". HOWEVER atheists are somehow totally convinced by some argument that God does not exist. And after all these years I haven't found out what that argument is. If successful, the argument from evil proves that (the Christian) God is not a thoroughly nice guy, but doesn't prove His non-existence. For me the argument from evil — uttered by people who according to their position cannot ground a single bit of morality — contrasted with the evidence in favor of God, isn't impressive at all. Moreover, by not being a Christian, I don't see how concerns wrt to "hell" and "omnibenevolence" and so forth are related to the existence of God. So why is it so convincing for atheists who are more prone to skepticism than I? Maybe I have missed something. Are there any positive arguments for the strong “there is no God” position? If so, what are they?Box
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT
Ben
Of course, there are some powerful incentives to care.
List them please?Andre
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT
Ben Goren
Andre, why should I need a reason to care? Is it not enough simply that I do?
No its not, what makes you care? Ever heard of a very simple thing called cause and effect, foundational to this universe...... What caused you to care? Don't you want to know?
Vaal, I, too, give some thought for leaving the world a better place than I found it.
Does the world care about you? Why would you care about something that has no interest in you?Andre
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
Goren:
bornagain77, everything you wrote about how the mind can’t possibly be the product of the brain was rendered moot with the invention of beer…and became completely insupportable when that railroad spike shot through Phineas Gage’s head.
I'm a Christian and I fully agree that there can't be no mind without a brain. The brain is what provides the actual intelligence. Although it is not sufficient for mind. There are no colors (and other qualia) in the brain. Claiming otherwise is pseudoscience. BA77 has been preaching his doctrine of the mind being 100% non-physical but it's a false doctrine, one that originates from medieval Catholic thinkers and others.
And everything we now know about physics and information theory only confirms it; for cognition to be anything else, all of physics would have to be thrown out.
Physics may explain the brain but not the entire mind.Mapou
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT
Ben Goren: why should I need a reason to care? Is it not enough simply that I do? What's the point of your presence here at UD, if there is any? Why should you need a reason. You don't need a reason.Mung
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT
bornagain77, everything you wrote about how the mind can't possibly be the product of the brain was rendered moot with the invention of beer...and became completely insupportable when that railroad spike shot through Phineas Gage's head. And everything we now know about physics and information theory only confirms it; for cognition to be anything else, all of physics would have to be thrown out. You can offer all the incredulity you like...eppur si muove. b&Ben Goren
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT
Vaal, I, too, give some thought for leaving the world a better place than I found it. If nothing else, it seems only fair. But once I've drawn my last breath, It'll be somebody else's problem. I can do my best while I live, but there's no point in worrying past that. b&Ben Goren
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT
Why do you care? If there is no rhyme or reason for the universe your caring about it is what’s incoherent. Can you give me a single reason for your caring?
Andre, why should I need a reason to care? Is it not enough simply that I do? Of course, there are some powerful incentives to care. If I just lay in bed paralyzed from existential angst, I'll be miserable and starve. If I commit suicide, I'll miss out on an awful lot of really neat stuff. What's the point in either? And, for better or ill, we are each the product of billions of generations of organisms that survived; as such we wouldn't be here were there not something in our ancestry that drove individuals towards survival -- the ones who lacked such a drive didn't survive to have descendants. But, again; all that's moot. I'm eager to find out what comes next. What more could I possibly need, even in theory? b&Ben Goren
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT
Aleta: Religious beliefs are stories. So? People say the same thing about scientific explanations, especially evolutionary ones.Mung
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
Vaal
I appreciate the link. However, it leads me to all the same old arguments that I have never found to be convincing. (I’m around 30 years or so into my interest in philosophy, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science etc, so it’s rare to encounter a new argument, though I love it when it happens).
Really the evidence is not convincing? What would make it convincing?Andre
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 13

Leave a Reply