Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Stephen Law
I have started hanging out on his blog of late. It appears I may be a sociopath so far. I simply don't think or cannot see any sign of an objective morality. I can't see a good reason to not believe in God, although I acknowledge that my belief is irrational and unjustified. Then again, I believe I may not exist as well, so go figure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well instead of just asserting bold claims as you see them, attempt to justify them. An objective morality for example means "actions are good or bad independent of an agent's opinion." Why would we need a theology to assert this? How would we create a compelling argument that allows for this independent of theology (it CAN be done, see John Locke, Kant, etc.. who provided secular arguments that allow for a morality based on logic).
ReplyDeleteAs for the belief that you may not exist... Descartes effectively showed this to be a complete contradiction. Belief entails a believer. Logic holds in all possible worlds, so you should use it. For example, could an all-powerful god create a rock so heavy he could not lift it? No. And thus, even god functions by a priori logic, and therefore he is limited and not completely omnipotent.
Logic is easy to get around. Consider this, do I disbelieve I exist or do I lack a belief? If I do not exist then I cannot disbelieve, but I can lack belief, for nothing lacks belief because nothing cannot believe.
ReplyDeleteAs far as objective morality, I have alot of trouble when I try to "see" morality. What are morals anyway? Is it just a label of "right" or "wrong"? If so, how do you know that what I think is right is what you think is right, and whose word is more important?
I have to respond to the God/logic question. I am always entertained by it. Answer me two questions. What is heavy or lift to God? What is north of the north pole? To me they have the same problem. Can you get north of the north pole? No, by definition the north pole is as north as it gets.
What is "heavy" or "lift" to God? If God is infinite then He is bigger than our finite universe. There is neither "heavy" nor "lift" to God. While the answer to the question is no, it is the question that is illogical.
Hmm... well, a question being "illogical," as you call it, presupposes that there is a standard of logic.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I agree that logic is easy to get around. Can God create a square circle? Can he both exist and not exist at the same time? God is always defined by some kind of meaning, and that meaning will be constrained by the function of logic. "Lift" to God is the same as "lift" for us if we are successfully communicating (because this entails understanding of the terminology, and god would understand this no?). If you're a pantheist, then god IS logic - because god is all things. However, most people don't go for this kind of pseudo-profundity.
As for your question: Do I disbelieve I exist or do I lack a belief? If I do not exist then I cannot disbelieve...(etc.)
First notice that you are invoking the subject "I". This invokes existence of the self. Who is "I"? If you did not exist, you would not be reflective. "I am thinking, therefore I exist." - Descartes
Second, you can have a lack a belief. But it's not possible to lack belief in all things just because you will it. When it comes to your own existence, you cannot contradict yourself without delusion. So I can lack a belief in god, because I have no evidence or justification. However, I cannot lack a belief in my own existence without contradiction.
To lift something would be to move it "up", correct? Ask an astronaut what direction was "up" when he had no frame of reference, he may simply point above his head, I imagine. Now, another astronaut in a similar situation, but with a physical orientation opposite the first, would he agree with the first astronaut or choose his own "up"?
ReplyDeleteWhat I am getting at is that if God exists as defined then He would provide the ultimate subjective definition of things, being the highest authority. However, all things being subjective, there will still be the available argument about what such things truly are.
What is a square circle? Each is simply a linguistic assignment made to describe a shape of some sort. Who assigned these labels, and why could they not be changed at the whim of a God?
Then to "I". The problem here goes back to the idea that we are not having our "thoughts" piped in from elsewhere. "I think therefore I am" my response, "How do you know you are thinking at all?" Thus my quandry.
As far as lacking a belief in my own existence, I'm afraid I see no contradiction. Do I truly have evidence of my own existence? Physically or mentally?
As far as lacking a belief in my own existence, I'm afraid I see no contradiction. Do I truly have evidence of my own existence? Physically or mentally?
ReplyDeleteOf course you do! You're talking to me, right? ;) Even if you were a brain in a vat, or trapped in the Matrix, - You think, therefore you exist! Because thinking requires a thinker, believing requires a believer, and communicating requires a communicator. Not to mention, you keep invoking self-awareness by using the word "I", and "me". This absolutely IS a contradiction if you doubt your existence.
I know I'm thinking because I am self-aware. I can reflect on my experience, memory, actions, and thoughts. My thoughts may be caused externally, or "piped in from somewhere," but I still have personal identity despite this manipulation.
ReplyDeleteBut if this is the case, your personal identity is an illusion. At that point we return to the idea that the illusory nature cannot be proven or disproven.
ReplyDeleteAs far as invoking "I": If I begin speaking in the third person, will this make a difference? How about if I refer to myself as "Pig"? This seems to be a linguistic game to me.
Ever played "Sims"? Do they think? Do they exist? If someone turns off the universe and you cease to maintain the illusion of existence, won't that basically declare that you never really existed?
I guess I am mostly imagining us as characters in a grand cosmic play. Do the characters in any work of fiction "exist"? Subjectively they might, but not in an objective fashion. When I turn off the movie, they go away. Sure, they might be real actors, but there have been no sightings of "The Hulk" here in our idea of reality. If they do not exist, and from my perspective they could think, then who am I to say that I am not in a similar situation?
Talking in third person wouldn't help because, who then is talking in third person? You! ;)
ReplyDeleteIt's not that we can prove physical existence, but that we know we have real being. We can't even posit, without assumption, other people's existence, we can only justify our own.
Anyway.. I guess I'm not convincing you huh?
Perhaps if you could give me evidence of "thought". A picture would be nice. Something taken by some kind of very expensive piece of equipment in a hospital or research facility, perhaps. I simply want a visual record of the "mind" of someone.
ReplyDeleteWithout that, discussing physical reality is a moot point. Without "mind" the body is at best an automaton driven by animal instinct, and at worst a complete hallucination.