Good without God?

That becomes the objective problem. What actually happens? What are facts? Even to these we need to agree about how to establish, from experience, what happens and what are facts.

hariaum

"We can not begin with a rightness of experience. There is no way to say what is the "right" experience..."

By "right" I meant not the quality of the experience, but whether the experience happened. If I say I am thinking of a purple elephant, no one really knows that I am indeed thinking of that. All they know is that I say I am thinking of that, and they have no way to know if I am lying.

But that personification is a personal experience with truth. It may not be your experience with truth, but you do have a personal experience with truth that is your own. (The proof is in your personal experience.)

I distinguish between truths about the human experience and facts about the universe. Personal experience plays heavily in the former, but probably not so much with the latter.

We can not begin with a rightness of experience. There is no way to say what is the "right" experience. We have experiences. We talk about these. We experiment on them. and then, in the epistemology of utility we conclude the rightness of the experience.

Thus the experience is the starting point. Then we establish causes of the experience. In the case of "mystic" ones we postulate a hallucination, a delusion, a mushroom, or a reality. Then we go about defining those qualities. Then we decide that those definitions are more or less utilitarian. Then we hypothesize. The we create null hypothesis, then we experiment... The rightness is the conclusion that each of us reaches individually. That too ends up being an experience rather than a Truth as it is.

Our being is truth as it is. Beyond that is experience. Then we have constructs of reality.

We suffer, we have order. Now we need to figure why and then how to fix the suffering. Order is a prerequisite to predictability / thus to plans. It is the opportunity to reduce suffering. Order is nature of where we are, that nature is opportunity to act. Perhaps, as moral agents, the right act is to do things to reduce suffering. An epistemology of utility.

When I depersonify that order I call it Brahman. When I personify it, I call it an Ishtadevata. But that personification is a personal experience with truth. It may not be your experience with truth, but you do have a personal experience with truth that is your own. (The proof is in your personal experience.)

Thus the Gita says that whatever ishtadevata you have, if you worship it (take that to mean that your are devoted to it - even if it is a secular truth), then that worship is accepted (by the ishtadevata of Krishna who is speaking on behalf of the impersonified Brahman). We see each other's honest approach to truth as a worship of Truth. We don't have to agree, but it is beautiful that we still both try to do it.

hariaum

"But we shouldn't deny data (mysticism) just because it is an ism."

That's not my argument. I'm saying that we have no proof that anything mystical or psychic even qualifies as data. First we must deal with the question of whether the person is right about even having the experience. If the answer is yes, then we must deal with the question of whether the experience is being caused by input coming into the mind or originated in the mind. This doesn't amount to "rejecting" mysticism, but it does rightly place the burden of proof on the mystical claim.

Agreed. Insisting is silly for humble people. Being open minded does not mean loose minded (blind faith) we should (valuation) use intellect to question the source. But we shouldn't deny data (mysticism) just because it is an ism. But we should be asking about reality as it is - if there is an order, and we do perceive that there is, then what are the qualities of that order is pretty important.

Agreed that the moral sense is rather blurred.

hariaum

"so open minded people listen and make their own judgments as to the nature of reality."

My point wasn't about the larger nature of reality. If someone insists that their gods want all humans to do Task X, the empirical issue isn't about the merits of Task X but about the alleged source for the task. The merits or lack of them should be considered separately. If Task X would help reduce suffering, that wouldn't automatically prove that the task came from gods. And if it would lead to more suffering, that wouldn't automatically prove that the claim was false. Task X could be something like "Hop on one foot while quacking like a duck" and the empirical question would remain the same - do gods require the task or not? We can't assume that gods have any interest in morality. They may be indifferent or even unaware of it. Being open-minded about the possibility of tasks ordered by gods doesn't mean blindly granting the assumptions involved in any claims about these.

"As to moral sense, I was just describing how it implies an objective morality - we all have a moral compass (there is a true north), s/he always knows the right thing to say and do (there is a right thing to say or do)."

People sometimes disagree on what the right thing is to say or do. We don't know how much of morality comes from upbringing and socialization.

The powerball example is exactly the argument for uncertainty based on our lack of knowledge of all of the inputs to an event. That is, randomness is a model to compensate for our ignorance.

The idea of a mean and randomness would be that all people have a certain mean IQ with a random normal distribution around that mean.

Yes we do live in a world where we perceive order. Then we can try and infer that order (f=ma, E=mc2, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind...)

"We only have different people claiming to know what those standards are, essentially claiming to be proxies for those beings, and the different claims conflict in some areas." and so open minded people listen and make their own judgments as to the nature of reality. In the modern nuclear age, my judgment is that we need to let individuals have the freedom to do this natural act of trying to put the world together (cognitively) and suppress those ideologies that divide the world into my way or the highway - diversity of truth perceptions is a good in itself. But if I were to enforce that, that would violate my own principle.

As to moral sense, I was just describing how it implies an objective morality - we all have a moral compass (there is a true north), s/he always knows the right thing to say and do (there is a right thing to say or do).

I do believe in an objective morality, known subjectively (and thus the subjective and objective collapse again in advaita - there is one truth but we call it by many names) but I recognize that the only solid proof of an objective world is immaterial (in both senses) - mystical - but even if it is transcendental, we live in an empirical world and thus that order to the moral universe is nevertheless worth exploring as our species grows and evolves. I fully accept the charge that my belief is not proof.

hariaum

What would a mean have to do with randomness? Is there a field of research that uses that particular definition of randomness?

"But if randomness is not around a mean, that is pure random events, then predictability is lost. If there is no predictability, there is no responsibility for the results of actions. If there is no responsibility, there is no moral agency. There is no sense of justice. "

That confuses an appearance of randomness with true randomness. The latter would mean that events don't have causes. A PowerBall drawing only appears random because our eyes and brain are too slow to capture all the movements of the balls. It would be hypothetically possible to construct a computer model of the ball tank and predict the outcome based on the balls being in a certain configuration in the tank.
I would hesitate to label predictability as "order" since the latter seems to be more of a systemic conce.t

In any case, we don't live in a world where the results of actions can never be predicted. We can predict the results of many of our actions, but this can never be 100 percent reliable simply because we're not omniscient. But even in cases where we cannot predict the results, we still say that needless suffering is objectionable, and sometimes we have to make educated guesses as to which actions produce the most help or least harm. We can still object to the intention to cause suffering.

"Not two theories but a range of theories.On one end is a theory based on principles that have some enduring valuation (utility or what my book says would be two examples). On the other end would be a theory of hedonism and might makes right."

Where would the latter come from? It sounds like an unintentional endorsement of the authoritarian stance on the "goodness without gods" question. That stance claims that people need supreme beings to decide right and wrong, or else they'll do whatever the hell they want with no regard for anyone but themselves. The logical flaw there is that we don't really have standards for right and wrong created by supreme beings. We only have different people claiming to know what those standards are, essentially claiming to be proxies for those beings, and the different claims conflict in some areas.

"Moral sense (do the right thing) means we can sense a moral input, as we sense the color blue. That is why it implies an objective morality."

It's inaccurate to equate the "moral sense" with sensory input. It's not really a sense at all, but simply a feeling that something is right or wrong. Feelings are "subjective" in the sense that they vary among individuals. We don't appear to be perceiving morality, at least in the same sense as light waves or sound waves. "Sensing a moral input" sounds like a psychic ability.

Color has "objective" and "subjective" components, and there may be better words for those. The first involves the actual shade where the light waves are in a certain range of frequencies. The latter involves the feelings that people have about color. Western culture talks about feeling blue, but there may be cultures where blue is equated with anger or excitement.

Sorry misusing your terms.

qualities to moral theories may be better than rules.

Moral sense (do the right thing) means we can sense a moral input, as we sense the color blue. That is why it implies an objective morality.

Now we have gotten to the nature of randomness. If randomness is variation around a mean, then the mean represents a tendency. A rule as you might say. That is usable.

But if randomness is not around a mean, that is pure random events, then predictability is lost. If there is no predictability, there is no responsibility for the results of actions. If there is no responsibility, there is no moral agency. There is no sense of justice.

Not two theories but a range of theories.On one end is a theory based on principles that have some enduring valuation (utility or what my book says would be two examples). On the other end would be a theory of hedonism and might makes right.

Evolutionary theory is our understanding of evolution. Evolution is that process by which things evolve. (perception v what actually is)

"I call this the epistemology of utility. We can not know what lies beyond our perceptions. We must infer the nature of being based on our perceptions and then the predictability of results based on that inference as to the nature of reality. Thus we see suffering and we see order. Now it is up to us to infer as to the nature of the reality that we are seeing. We must be humble in realizing we may be very wrong (and thus our logical morality should include an appreciation for diverse interpretations of reality. )"

I agree with most of that. I would add that any ideas about what may lie beyond our perceptions amounts to speculation.

"But as evolution is temporal in the past and the current and morality has to do with prediction of consequences, we must not see evolutionary explanations as the end of moral reasoning."

Who is arguing that evolutionary explanations are the end of moral reasoning? I haven't suggested that and I know of no scientist who would. Evolution is not just in the past but also in the present, with disease-causing bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics.

"We can have theories on the biologically determined nature of morality or a random nature to morality. And we need to attach the ideology that we have just creat"

Are you contrasting two theories? What would be an example of a "random nature to morality"?

"Perception of moral order is a theory as to the nature of rules of morality. One could say morality is self evident, that it is based on a book, that it is a selected trait of cooperation from evolutionary processes. Moral sense implies an objective morality to which one can tune in."

Again, I wouldn't use "rules" unless you are arguing that these are dictated by an authority. How would moral sense imply an objective morality?

"Evolutionary theory (as opposed to evolution) is based on randomness implying an underlying non-ordered process"

How are you defining those two terms?

"If the fundamental nature of being is randomness, then morality is no more than a mythology that has nothing to do with reality as it is. It may still have a utility and thus valuable, but randomness is hardly a foundation for justice. It may still be a foundation for something we call “the good” but not of justice."

How would randomness argue against justice? And why would order argue for justice? Again, that sounds like the argument made by the Charles Colsons, who insist that morality and justice as human-created concepts equate to amorality and injustice. My response is that for morality and justice, it shouldn't matter whether the universe has order or randomness - we can still value those things.

I call this the epistemology of utility. We can not know what lies beyond our perceptions. We must infer the nature of being based on our perceptions and then the predictability of results based on that inference as to the nature of reality. Thus we see suffering and we see order. Now it is up to us to infer as to the nature of the reality that we are seeing. We must be humble in realizing we may be very wrong (and thus our logical morality should include an appreciation for diverse interpretations of reality. )
Our current theory of evolution is one set of data that allows us to infer the “fundamental questions of being" and how that may relate to the fundamental constructs of our perception of reality. But as evolution is temporal in the past and the current and morality has to do with prediction of consequences, we must not see evolutionary explanations as the end of moral reasoning. (When we wipe ourselves out we will have proven our lack of moral reasoning.)
“The goal here is to determine what is factual to the best of our ability, to remove as much subjectivity from our perceptions as possible. Even if nothing exists outside of our mind, that would represent an objective fact independent of our perception. The same would hold if we're all just brains in jars. The basic question is "What exists independent of human perception?" Even if nothing existed that way, that exists would still be a descriptive statement of fact. Even if reality is merely a construct of our senses, we still perceive sensory data as distinct from our thoughts. We don't perceive earworms as coming from our ears.” And as you argued with gravity, we may not be able to be certain as to what actually is, but we can have a utility gained by a theory or what actually is. We can have theories on the biologically determined nature of morality or a random nature to morality. And we need to attach the ideology that we have just created to a construct of justice to make the theory of the good applicable – to the extent that it is applicable and predictable it has an epistemology of utility.

“Are you saying that morality and moral order would exist if humans (and other animals) didn't exist? While that may be possible, how would it be so? What about the possibility that our brains are wired through natural selection to understand moral order? I'm not sure what you mean by perceiving moral order - are you referring to the moral sense?”
Moral sense is a sensiblity to what is the right opinion. Perception of moral order is a theory as to the nature of rules of morality. One could say morality is self evident, that it is based on a book, that it is a selected trait of cooperation from evolutionary processes. Moral sense implies an objective morality to which one can tune in. Perception of moral order is a theory of morality.

“I question the idea that evolutionary theory involves a conflict with morality, although I'm not arguing the opposite. That idea sounds vaguely like the creationist argument that evolution undermines morality because it allegedly treats individual survival as the highest good.”
I do not believe evolution is a conflict with morality. Evolutionary theory (as opposed to evolution) is based on randomness implying an underlying non-ordered process. If the fundamental nature of being is randomness, then morality is no more than a mythology that has nothing to do with reality as it is. It may still have a utility and thus valuable, but randomness is hardly a foundation for justice. It may still be a foundation for something we call “the good” but not of justice.

In effect we are agreeing that mystical experience is not sufficient to prove anything to anyone else but those who have had mystical experiences." But the whole question is whether the experiences have a mystical cause. That type of individual "proof" suggests to me a failure to detach from one's own perspectives. Many religions implicitly or explicitly assert the existence of a mystical as objective fact - they do treat the experiences as proof that the entire human race should accept.” Yes mystics should (and often do) say you won't see it until you see it (and that is why I said personification of that reality is a mystical event with personal validation - not group validation. I did argue that we should use empirical science to study these experiences to see if we can get another inference as to the nature of being).
Religions can be wrong (the idea that all religions is the same is foolish). But they have a theory of the world as it is. If we can disprove it, we should. If we can apply it, gain a utility for it, we have rationalized an epistemology of utility. Thus I do conclude that moral authority of the christo-islamic religions is nil. Their utility is their empowerment. But a utility of morality that supports diversity of perspectives of reality is hugely valuable in a nuclear age. And this is of the nature of the epistemology of most of the world's religions: we can not know the ultimate reality (tat sat in sanskrit, yawahe in hebrew) but we try to understand it better using the literature from our ancestors (honor thy parents), through our own experiences (mystical and otherwise), applying our reason (buddhi in sanskrit) to cut out the things that are illusory to get down to the being that is. The Gita and Upanishads say just that. We are also cautioned that our biological make up alters our perspective, but that difference is valued as a part of Prakriti (nature as it is). I believe that the ancient religions were not about power or mortality (and the after life), as is commonly said, they were about reality and how we live in it, and scientific materialism is rediscovering that – an epistemology of utility.

"I would have hoped by now you would realize that I am not arguing against evolution."

I wasn't trying to imply that you were. I was trying to understand your point about "fundamental questions of being" and how that would relate to evolution.

"But the concrete representation of morality in evolution is undetermined - which is more selective for survival. If we global warm ourselves to extinction, that will be an argument against our sense of morality on a selection basis."

While I might agree, I'm not sure how that is relevant. Would you explain?

"Once a natural force selects a quality, the idea of valuation is not present. But once we say that the quality is not a value, we have imposed valuation."

My point is that the quality appears to exist separate from any human-imposed valuation, which is about preference.

"We can not imagine anything."

You're right that my statement was too broad. It would be more accurate to say that just because one imagines something, doesn't mean that the thing actually exists.

"Recognizing that everything comes to us by our senses, should allow one to understand that reality itself may be a construct of our senses...We can argue from simple objectivism that the world is as we see it, but science has proven that difficult many a time."

The goal here is to determine what is factual to the best of our ability, to remove as much subjectivity from our perceptions as possible. Even if nothing exists outside of our mind, that would represent an objective fact independent of our perception. The same would hold if we're all just brains in jars. The basic question is "What exists independent of human perception?" Even if nothing existed that way, that exists would still be a descriptive statement of fact. Even if reality is merely a construct of our senses, we still perceive sensory data as distinct from our thoughts. We don't perceive earworms as coming from our ears.

"So then lets get past the randomness (a presupposition to evolution) and order. "

I'm not prepared to dismiss any order involved in evolution, in the systemic sense. It's possible that there may be equivalents of physical laws that determine, say, DNA mutations.

"But as a part of that order, I have no problem including moral order. I do not make a distinction with moral order and physical order. I believe the human biological experience includes an understanding of that moral order and its complexity (not the simple platitudes of do onto other as you would want them to do onto you). It does not matter to me in this stance whether the order is created or simply perceived. I am a perceiver in that order."

Are you saying that morality and moral order would exist if humans (and other animals) didn't exist? While that may be possible, how would it be so? What about the possibility that our brains are wired through natural selection to understand moral order? I'm not sure what you mean by perceiving moral order - are you referring to the moral sense?

"The teleological aspect is that morality has to do with action and consequence (the future - telos). Evolutionary theory has only one consequence, the gene in the now. Moral theory can overthrow that order of genetic predominance even to the point of genetic self sacrifice (no children...)."

No disagreement about action and consequences. But I question the idea that evolutionary theory involves a conflict with morality, although I'm not arguing the opposite. That idea sounds vaguely like the creationist argument that evolution undermines morality because it allegedly treats individual survival as the highest good. I know of no one who chooses to have children with the explicit goal of passing on their genes. The idea of the "selfish gene" is that the implicit interests of the gene are not necessarily those of the organism or the population - natural selection at the gene level would override select at the organism or population level.

"It also argues of the problem of solopsism (one must detach from one's own perspectives / biases and it is the failure to do so that is ego and binding)."

While I'm not familiar with the Gita, that point about perspectives and biases is the one I tried to make earlier. Whatever constitutes reality, whether it's objective or subjective, it's not about me or what I want.

"In effect we are agreeing that mystical experience is not sufficient to prove anything to anyone else but those who have had mystical experiences."

But the whole question is whether the experiences have a mystical cause. That type of individual "proof" suggests to me a failure to detach from one's own perspectives. Many religions implicitly or explicitly assert the existence of a mystical as objective fact - they do treat the experiences as proof that the entire human race should accept.

"We can not prove gravity exists in and of itself. Though we can measure it, we can predict it, we have no real understanding of what it is. For now we create an idea called gravity. We may later on say it is the n'th derivative of magnetic fields on non metalic particles and there is no such thing as gravity."

I would amend that to say that we don't need to prove or disprove the existence of gravity. One need not believe in gravity to accept its measurability and predictability. The overarching principle I've been trying to articulate is distinguishing what we know from what we don't know. We have no grounds for really believing that gravity exists or doesn't exist as a fact - we simply take the idea's usefulness for granted.

I would have hoped by now you would realize that I am not arguing against evolution. I think evolution is wonderful (value judgment). Evolutionary theory has been taken to mean many things. Spencer considered the competitive model is sufficient to hypothesize social Darwinism. I am going the other way, having read the Origin of Species, I noted innumerable reference to cooperation. Sexual biology also creates a individual interaction selection bias. But the concrete representation of morality in evolution is undetermined - which is more selective for survival. If we global warm ourselves to extinction, that will be an argument against our sense of morality on a selection basis.

Once a natural force selects a quality, the idea of valuation is not present. But once we say that the quality is not a value, we have imposed valuation.

Can you imagine a universal triangle that is not a specific case: a three sided closed figure (euclidean space) that is acute, scalene, and equilateral? We can not imagine anything. This is a counter example to your hypothesis (and old classical one). Recognizing that everything comes to us by our senses, should allow one to understand that reality itself may be a construct of our senses. That is that the shared reality we have (say we decide to wipe out the jews, or that the sunset is happening) may be a "false construct." But then how do you judge whose construct is more real? Once we assume a reality outside of our perceptions (facts, the way it is, etc) requires a leap of faith - to establish a truthness to that otherness. We can argue from simple objectivism that the world is as we see it, but science has proven that difficult many a time. But we all have reasons to postulate that otherness. Evolution, naive objectivism, my book told me so, the evidence says so...

My argument does have subjective / objective non-duality. And perhaps that is where we are tripping up. One can assume an objective universe but, logically, that objective universe keeps falling apart. The only information that we have is subjective. Even your and mine debate is only experienced subjectively from our own perspectives and we may well be imaginary entities to each other.

So then lets get past the randomness (a presupposition to evolution) and order. We can have order without cause. My favorite argument against intelligent design is the many people who believe in it. (ergo unintelligent creations, but that is flippant). But as a part of that order, I have no problem including moral order. I do not make a distinction with moral order and physical order. I believe the human biological experience includes an understanding of that moral order and its complexity (not the simple platitudes of do onto other as you would want them to do onto you). It does not matter to me in this stance whether the order is created or simply perceived. I am a perceiver in that order.

The teleological aspect is that morality has to do with action and consequence (the future - telos). Evolutionary theory has only one consequence, the gene in the now. Moral theory can overthrow that order of genetic predominance even to the point of genetic self sacrifice (no children...). Though time, in a quantal sense, may be an illusion, it is heavy on moral responsibility. The Gita does not allow that temporality. It argues that a moral decision needs to be made in the here and now. That it is not teleological (one must renounce the fruits). It also argues of the problem of solopsism (one must detach from one's own perspectives / biases and it is the failure to do so that is ego and binding).

Inherent being, platonic forms, and Kantian Noema are the same pseudo objective constructs. The discussion you and I are having about mysticism is restating what I said. The validation of an other as objective is a mystical experience. In being mystical, it says proof is not provided but for primary experience (like blue can not be defined to a blind person). In effect we are agreeing that mystical experience is not sufficient to prove anything to anyone else but those who have had mystical experiences. But the form of that argument must recognize that mathematical proofs of E=mc2 are not sufficient to prove anything to anyone else but those who have had mathematical experiences (and sometimes not even then). So as logical discussants, we recognize the subjective reality that is trying to be objective in whatever way it can. Ultimately (and this is a mystical teaching or a quantum theory on space time singularity) we see the subject and object collapse into one - advaita, there is only one truth we see it in many ways, Krishna says,"I am the field and the knower of the field"...and we can make absolute statements like "there are difficult moral questions that DON'T HAVE ABSOLUTE answers."

(as a special case, take gravity. We can not prove gravity exists in and of itself. Though we can measure it, we can predict it, we have no real understanding of what it is. For now we create an idea called gravity. We may later on say it is the n'th derivative of magnetic fields on non metalic particles and there is no such thing as gravity. Or we may say that inertia is the result of light deceleration in the time-space continuum creating a subjective experience of gravity and space that is not "real." Like wise we can postulate as to the nature of the being in which we participate - conscious/unconscious, just/unjust, ...)

hariaum

"your statement is an absolute statement as to the nature of moral truths. "

How so?

"But IF we say there is a creator, then we can conclude things about the creator based on the creation..."

Why postulate a creator in the first place? That postulation is unfalsifiable because its breadth would include any possible evidence.

"But these things are not knowable outside of our human minds. This is very much the ideal of platonic forms and Kantian Noema."

Again, why postulate such things? Any such postulation would amount to speculation.

"difficult to prove anything exists outside of the human mind (like god)."

Solipsism is an interesting proposition for challenging one's assumptions. But it has little value for explaining and predicting what we perceive with our senses. It's not necessary to prove or disprove either solipsism or the alternative, because hypotheses are intended as predictive tools and not as proving tools. From the standpoint of the hypothesizer, the predictions and outcomes would be the same in a solipsistic universe.

"But when asking fundamental questions of being, the distinction of quality and value are themselves value laden, thus circular in reasoning."

How so?

"But if we accept there is a real distinction, which I agree with, evolutionary biology would well argue for a random morality that is selected for – there is no inherent morality, only a chance collection of behaviors."

Some evolutionary biologists hypothesize that the moral sense may have evolved through natural selection - they note that some animal species show rudimentary moral behavior. But it's important to remember that the theory of natural selection itself does not argue for any particular moral position. No scientific theory or hypothesis is intended as a moral position. What you're stating is only a subjective interpretation of the theory, and that is not the only interpretation.

"Since also morality is teleological, and evolution is not, the morality as a principle is man consciousness concocted. That itself does not make it good or bad, simply a random event. If we have the will we could try an overthrow that morality."

Would you explain? I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make. The lack of inherent value for an event doesn't automatically equate to it being random. What do you mean by "overthrow that morality"?

"But there are people who argue that if you study hard enough you too can experience these things. Prayers, drugs, or meditiation that effect the empirical world can be studied empirically. If they fail to meet statistical significance we can say they don't work. If we find people with mystical experience are empirically different than those that don't, we have empirical evidence to validate our perspectives (there is by the way with functional neuroimaging). But that does not change their perspective."

If such an empirical difference can be demonstrated, that still wouldn't prove the existence of a mystical component. The difference may have an explanation that has nothing to do with mysticism. The problem is the definition of "mystical," which is the argument from incredulity. Anyone can assert anything about objects or phenomena that are allegedly beyond human perception - there's no intellectual or scientific discipline involved.

"(and what is factual if it can not be known by the mind- is that not a transcendental being)"

No, I mean known through sensory input. Again, there may be objects and phenomena that can never be detected through the human senses, even indirectly, but the operative word is "may." Even if all data from our senses is a solipsistic illusion, it's still the only data we have. Thoughts are not really data because one can imagine anything. Thoughts and sensory input may very well be in the same mental pseudo-universe, but we still perceive our sensory data and our thoughts as being separate.

"Mystical experiences cross cultural boundaries and the teachers tell us that we too can obtain that knowledge and use it to predict events but it takes effort."

Again, why should we take those teachers at their word? That almost sounds like a psychic ability.

"Order seems to exist. If there was no order, then we would not have a big bang theory that holds together, nor a evolutionary process that was definable, not a continuum of morality across the spectrum of living beings."

I wasn't arguing against order or for randomness. Instead I was questioning the assumption that order always requires sentient beings to create it. Contrary to what many opponents of evolution assert, an undirected process is NOT automatically a random one.

There are difficult moral questions that don't have absolute answers - two people who both value the moral principles of help and harm can disagree on the most moral answers to those questions – your statement is an absolute statement as to the nature of moral truths.
"that is exactly what I have done." That wasn't apparent from your statement about "the existence beyond phenomenon," which appeared to assume that there was such existence. Was that not the case? I quote (myself and for that I apologize)
But IF we say there is a creator, then we can conclude things about the creator based on the creation. ...If the universe is just, the suffering must be just. If the universe is random then suffering is unjust.
But then we must also take the next step, viz, if the universe is just, there is a causality to consequence - a set of rules on the moral sphere established through the conscious creation (karma). If the universe is unjust.., - this is a series of logical postulates.

"What do you mean by inherent existence? I suspect you are there close to the Platonic / Kantian Forms."
I use "inherent existence" to mean non-conceptual things that exist independent of the human mind. If gods exist, they would have inherent existence. But these things are not knowable outside of our human minds. This is very much the ideal of platonic forms and Kantian Noema. Much argued about, difficult to prove anything exists outside of the human mind (like god).
"And how are you distinguishing between quality and value?"
To use the example of temperature, quality would be hot or cold. Value would be something like "Hot is good and cold is bad." ... I'm not arguing against the idea that life is good, merely pointing out that it's a value position.
And in general I agree. But when asking fundamental questions of being, the distinction of quality and value are themselves value laden, thus circular in reasoning. But if we accept there is a real distinction, which I agree with, evolutionary biology would well argue for a random morality that is selected for – there is no inherent morality, only a chance collection of behaviors. Since also morality is teleological, and evolution is not, the morality as a principle is man consciousness concocted. That itself does not make it good or bad, simply a random event. If we have the will we could try an overthrow that morality.
"Why should mystical experience be excluded from the same construct?"
It's not a matter of deliberate exclusion. The problem is that claims of mystical experience are not reproducible. When looking at praying, for example, there appears to be no pattern with answered prayers versus unanswered ones. But there are people who argue that if you study hard enough you too can experience these things. Prayers, drugs, or meditiation that effect the empirical world can be studied empirically. If they fail to meet statistical significance we can say they don't work. If we find people with mystical experience are empirically different than those that don't, we have empirical evidence to validate our perspectives (there is by the way with functional neuroimaging). But that does not change their perspective.
"There is no logical proof that things exist outside of us. We assume it for various utilities. What is validation if it is not true to the experiencer?"
If a thing exists or doesn't exist outside of the mind, then this would be factual for everyone whether or not anyone believes it. I wasn't arguing against solipsism, I was arguing against the idea of believing an idea to be true without testing the hypothesis. - so mysticism teaches you to validate it by reproduction. (and what is factual if it can not be known by the mind- is that not a transcendental being)
"the act of faith can be as simple as believing E=mc2 even though we don't have the mathematical and empirical wherewith all to prove it. We are simply assuming that Einstein was right. We are simply assuming the airplane we got on will fly..."
That's not the same thing, because we can hypothetically obtain the knowledge to prove those things, or to show that the hypotheses successfully predict events. No one can see into another's mind to confirm a mystical experience. - not true. Mystical experiences cross cultural boundaries and the teachers tell us that we too can obtain that knowledge and use it to predict events but it takes effort. (Is the science of psychology then a mythology) As some physicists point out, only maybe 10 people in the world understand E=mc2. There are more than 10 mystics in the world that agree with each other on what that experience is.
The issue is not whether order or randomness are good, but whether they exist. Order seems to exist. If there was no order, then we would not have a big bang theory that holds together, nor a evolutionary process that was definable, not a continuum of morality across the spectrum of living beings.

"When looking at praying, for example, there appears to be no pattern with answered prayers versus unanswered ones. "

To expand on my point, even a prayer that appears to have been answered brings up the question of whether it was the prayer that caused the event.

"To posit a middle ground bewteen absolutism and relativism need to be defined then discussed. What would that be? Some truths are absolute, some are relative? Then what would be the absolute rule to decide what is relative and what is absolute?"

I wasn't postulating absolutes and relatives, but making a point about the isms involved. Absolutism amounts to treating issues as matters of absolutes. "Relativism" is often invoked as a straw man to falsely accuse non-theists (not just atheists) of rejecting the concepts of right and wrong. But human life has no absolutes other than life's finiteness. There are difficult moral questions that don't have absolute answers - two people who both value the moral principles of help and harm can disagree on the most moral answers to those questions.

"that is exactly what I have done."

That wasn't apparent from your statement about "the existence beyond phenomenon," which appeared to assume that there was such existence. Was that not the case?

"What do you mean by inherent existence? I suspect you are there close to the Platonic / Kantian Forms."

I use "inherent existence" to mean non-conceptual things that exist independent of the human mind. If gods exist, they would have inherent existence.

"And how are you distinguishing between quality and value?"

To use the example of temperature, quality would be hot or cold. Value would be something like "Hot is good and cold is bad." One might justify that value by reasoning that the former might sustain life more easily than the latter. But that still rests on a value position that life (or a particular life form) is good. I'm not arguing against the idea that life is good, merely pointing out that it's a value position.

"Why should mystical experience be excluded from the same construct?"

It's not a matter of deliberate exclusion. The problem is that claims of mystical experience are not reproducible. When looking at praying, for example, there appears to be no pattern with answered prayers versus unanswered ones.

"There is no logical proof that things exist outside of us. We assume it for various utilities. What is validation if it is not true to the experiencer?"

If a thing exists or doesn't exist outside of the mind, then this would be factual for everyone whether or not anyone believes it. I wasn't arguing against solipsism, I was arguing against the idea of believing an idea to be true without testing the hypothesis.

"the act of faith can be as simple as believing E=mc2 even though we don't have the mathematical and empirical wherewith all to prove it. We are simply assuming that Einstein was right. We are simply assuming the airplane we got on will fly..."

That's not the same thing, because we can hypothetically obtain the knowledge to prove those things, or to show that the hypotheses successfully predict events. No one can see into another's mind to confirm a mystical experience.

"But the existence of AN order can be seen as a good – an argument against randomness."

It does nothing to prove that randomness doesn't exist, or does exist. The issue is not whether order or randomness are good, but whether they exist.

“We can't even assume that such a creator would recognize human concepts of logic and consistency, or see any value in them.” Absolutely, but that doesn't prevent us from trying.
"we are stuck in relativism and nothing can be absolutely morally wrong either." That falsely implies that there is no middle ground between complete absolutism and complete relativism. It also implies that the lack of absolutes involving right and wrong is a problem.” To posit a middle ground bewteen absolutism and relativism need to be defined then discussed. What would that be? Some truths are absolute, some are relative? Then what would be the absolute rule to decide what is relative and what is absolute?
I am using formal in the platonic and Kantian sense. The existence beyond phenomenon. But because this existence is beyond phenomenon, we can not empirically know it. “What do you mean by "existence without phenomenon"? If we cannot empirically verify it, then why assume that there is such existence? Or assume that there isn't? Why not simply treat it as an unknown?” that is exactly what I have done.
Certainly a bacteria values a neutral pH over an acidic pH (depending on its genetic makeup). An ape values equitable treatment to another ape... “Those values are subjective and wouldn't exist if bacteria or apes didn't exist. I mean "value" in the sense of preference or importance, not quality.” nothing would exist if something didn't exist. Not sure where you are going with that.
Does that set of rules extend beyond human, certainly there is behavioral observation to say so. "You're talking about other living things. What I was suggesting is that value (as opposed to quality) doesn't appear to have inherent existence.” What do you mean by inherent existence? I suspect you are there close to the Platonic / Kantian Forms. And how are you distinguishing between quality and value?
Once a mystic has an experience of a personified deity, we can deny that experience or we can accept it. As an open minded person (positing a valuation there) we need to see both sides. If multiple people have mystic experience we need to account for a non-random behavior. That does not validate a real transcendent being, only the experience.
“Assuming the experience happened amounts to simply taking the person at his word, and honest investigation involves rejecting that credulity. Also, even if we grant for argument's sake that the experience happened, honesty also involves considering other possible causes for the experience...” But isn't the idea of shared experience the foundation of empiricism. We can validate each other's experience by experiencing it ourselves. Scientific reasoning, in large part, has to do with reproducibility of experience. Even science can not claim to know another persons experience. But we can learn to talk about the construct of “blue” by bringing together experimental science in group agreement as to interpretation of the word and meaning of blue. Why should mystical experience be excluded from the same construct? The caveat being that sometimes scientific reasoning and common experience diverge. But we have absolute constructs that say we need to bring this diveregence together – we need to explain it.
But for the experiencor, it may be sufficient to validate the existence of that being. “That sounds somewhat solipsistic. Validation has to be more than an individual thing.” There is no logical proof that things exist outside of us. We assume it for various utilities. What is validation if it is not true to the experiencer?
“ that amounts to simply assuming that the gurus are telling the truth...” the act of faith can be as simple as believing E=mc2 even though we don't have the mathematical and empirical wherewith all to prove it. We are simply assuming that Einstein was right. We are simply assuming the airplane we got on will fly...
Thus in this universe, we can conclude that order has an implication to value (at least we value that fact that much of the universe is predictable – the sun rises, etc). 'Not quite. We can value any order or predictability in the universe, but that doesn't mean that the order is inherently a good or bad thing. The order itself is neutral.” But the existence of AN order can be seen as a good – an argument against randomness.

"True, or we can look at fundamental rules of logic, consistency, etc. We can never “know” what the BIG creator is thinking but we can infer. We are humbled by our own limitations, but that does not mean we should not try to figure it out."

We can't even assume that such a creator would recognize human concepts of logic and consistency, or see any value in them.

"we are stuck in relativism and nothing can be absolutely morally wrong either."

That falsely implies that there is no middle ground between complete absolutism and complete relativism. It also implies that the lack of absolutes involving right and wrong is a problem.

"I am using formal in the platonic and Kantian sense. The existence beyond phenomenon. But because this existence is beyond phenomenon, we can not empirically know it."

What do you mean by "existence without phenomenon"? If we cannot empirically verify it, then why assume that there is such existence? Or assume that there isn't? Why not simply treat it as an unknown?

"Certainly a bacteria values a neutral pH over an acidic pH (depending on its genetic makeup). An ape values equitable treatment to another ape..."

Those values are subjective and wouldn't exist if bacteria or apes didn't exist. I mean "value" in the sense of preference or importance, not quality.

"Does that set of rules extend beyond human, certainly there is behavioral observation to say so. "

You're talking about other living things. What I was suggesting is that value (as opposed to quality) doesn't appear to have inherent existence.

"Once a mystic has an experience of a personified deity, we can deny that experience or we can accept it. As an open minded person (positing a valuation there) we need to see both sides. If multiple people have mystic experience we need to account for a non-random behavior. That does not validate a real transcendent being, only the experience."

What do you mean by "experience of a personified deity"? Obviously we cannot reject the possibility of either the experience or the claimed cause. But we have no means of verifying even the experience. We only know that the person says he had the experience, and there is no way to tell if the person is telling the truth, is honestly mistaken, or is deliberately lying. (This would apply to any thought that a person claims to have.) Assuming the experience happened amounts to simply taking the person at his word, and honest investigation involves rejecting that credulity. Also, even if we grant for argument's sake that the experience happened, honesty also involves considering other possible causes for the experience. Jumping right to a personified deity is merely "gods of the gaps," automatically assuming that the cause of an unexplained event simply has to be something beyond human detectability or comprehension.

"But for the experiencor, it may be sufficient to validate the existence of that being."

That sounds somewhat solipsistic. Validation has to be more than an individual thing.

"But until that person can share the mystical experience another person can not validate the first person's conclusion (this is what gurus are said to be able to do)."

Again, that amounts to simply assuming that the gurus are telling the truth. How can such an experience or any thought be shared? If I express a thought, another doesn't really share the thought. The person only hears or reads a representation of the thought.

"Thus in this universe, we can conclude that order has an implication to value (at least we value that fact that much of the universe is predictable – the sun rises, etc)."

Not quite. We can value any order or predictability in the universe, but that doesn't mean that the order is inherently a good or bad thing. The order itself is neutral.

“We cannot infer anything about a Big creator's intentions or goals. Such inference is predicated on the assumption that such a creator would think like a human. “
True, or we can look at fundamental rules of logic, consistency, etc. We can never “know” what the BIG creator is thinking but we can infer. We are humbled by our own limitations, but that does not mean we should not try to figure it out.
"If the universe just is (without a sense of justice) then justice is our construct upon the natural world of randomness and we can and do make it up as we go along - there is no overarching principle."
"Making it up as we go along" implies that individuals define justice for themselves purely for self-serving motives. Groups of people can still define principles of justice, even though such principles wouldn't have inherent existence” – we agree. But this is contract theory of justice and limited by power of enforcement (to those that don't agree that driving on the wrong side of the road is wrong), plus we are stuck in relativism and nothing can be absolutely morally wrong either.
“would you define "formal world"? My point about physical laws is that we have no evidence that these were deliberately created by a designer or designer. “
I am using formal in the platonic and Kantian sense. The existence beyond phenomenon. But because this existence is beyond phenomenon, we can not empirically know it. I also agree that the empirical evidence of physical laws does not necessitate a creator.
"We can certainly talk about rules to help or harm. But in doing so we have already posited a value system. Does that value system exist in a random universe, in a brain created by random particle movements selected for by competitive biology, or does it reflect a sense of non-randomness to justice? I would argue the latter."
“Would you explain? My point is that value systems appear to exist only in human minds - they seem to require human minds to conceive of them.”
It now depends on what you mean by value systems. Certainly a bacteria values a neutral pH over an acidic pH (depending on its genetic makeup). An ape values equitable treatment to another ape. A male ape will sell tokens to see pictures of female ape's bottoms. Mammals will suckle animals of another species...and humans will kill at rates no other animal dares to approach. We have evidence of value systems in other animals and very odd value systems in humans. If we see value systems at all, not as random behavioral choices, then we have observed a set of rules in valuation (help and harm). Does that set of rules extend beyond human, certainly there is behavioral observation to say so. Thus we are in a continuum of value systems. We can argue that that is evolutionary. I think that is reasonable. But the order is a set of rules that can be known / approximated. It is not random behavior (though it may have random variation it still has a knowable distribution).
“the personification of that order is a mystical process. - Why would it be a mystical process? Whether or not there is order in the universe, we cannot assume that order can only be created deliberately by an intelligence. The question of how the order came about should be addressed without making an assumption either way. “
I agree. But that is why personification is mystical. Once a mystic has an experience of a personified deity, we can deny that experience or we can accept it. As an open minded person (positing a valuation there) we need to see both sides. If multiple people have mystic experience we need to account for a non-random behavior. That does not validate a real transcendent being, only the experience. But for the experiencor, it may be sufficient to validate the existence of that being. But until that person can share the mystical experience another person can not validate the first person's conclusion (this is what gurus are said to be able to do).

The last part of my post was on order itself. The universe we live in is ordered. This may be a single event in a series of otherwise ordered universes but we do not have access to those. Thus in this universe, we can conclude that order has an implication to value (at least we value that fact that much of the universe is predictable – the sun rises, etc).

"For example, when humans create cities they seem to find utility in using Euclidean / Cartesian geometries. So can we infer things about the BIG creator. Randomness means that either the creator does not find utility in controlled environments and finds utility in suffering without cause. This would be against OUR sense of justice."

We cannot infer anything about a Big creator's intentions or goals. Such inference is predicated on the assumption that such a creator would think like a human.

"If the universe just is (without a sense of justice) then justice is our construct upon the natural world of randomness and we can and do make it up as we go along - there is no overarching principle."

"Making it up as we go along" implies that individuals define justice for themselves purely for self-serving motives. Groups of people can still define principles of justice, even though such principles wouldn't have inherent existence.

"Physical laws do "exist" in the empirical world - they are reproducible and the modifiers can be empirically understood (to the level of our ignorance). Whether they exist in the formal world implies first proving a formal world exists."

would you define "formal world"? My point about physical laws is that we have no evidence that these were deliberately created by a designer or designer.

"We can certainly talk about rules to help or harm. But in doing so we have already posited a value system. Does that value system exist in a random universe, in a brain created by random particle movements selected for by competitive biology, or does it reflect a sense of non-randomness to justice? I would argue the latter."

Would you explain? My point is that value systems appear to exist only in human minds - they seem to require human minds to conceive of them.

"It seems to me that there is much order in the universe. That randomness is not real but rather a mathematical model for complex systems of which we do not know all of the inputs (Heisenberg), and that this order reflects rules that we can access through empirical study. Again, the personification of that order is a mystical process."

Why would it be a mystical process? Whether or not there is order in the universe, we cannot assume that order can only be created deliberately by an intelligence. The question of how the order came about should be addressed without making an assumption either way.

Mark, Mark, Mark,

The Mormon god is the same as the Christian god? Strange that your god had to work through a "pretty, horn blowing, thingie aka Moroni and a con artist to bring you the "truth".

And this "all-good" god for all seasons has a lot more power than we have. His/her/its children would never fall off a bicycle or be born without legs, arms, and/or eyes.

And no, Jesus, the simple preacher man was not the son of any god!!!! His "deification" was the work of P, M, M, L, and J and in your case another con artist named Joe Smith.

Ccnl

You fail, or refuse, to realize something.

1. The “Mormon” god and the Christian god are one, and the same.

2. God does not meddle in childbirth.

What happens; happens. But, he is watching how we deal with it.

What you are implying would be like saying when you bought your son a bicycle you were causing him to fall off of it and skin his knees and hands. You had nothing to do with him falling off, but you do watch how he deals with it and encourage him to get back on the bike and move on.

Like the bicycle, god knows the procreation process isn’t perfect and that as we come into this world we may not all get dealt a full deck. But we ourselves chose to take that chance in the pre-existance.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

I agree.

But we are approaching from opposite sides. From our perspective, there is suffering, there is apparent randomness, we can work towards greater justice as we define it.

But IF we say there is a creator, then we can conclude things about the creator based on the creation. For example, when humans create cities they seem to find utility in using Euclidean / Cartesian geometries. So can we infer things about the BIG creator. Randomness means that either the creator does not find utility in controlled environments and finds utility in suffering without cause. This would be against OUR sense of justice.

If the universe just is (without a sense of justice) then justice is our construct upon the natural world of randomness and we can and do make it up as we go along - there is no overarching principle.

Physical laws do "exist" in the empirical world - they are reproducible and the modifiers can be empirically understood (to the level of our ignorance). Whether they exist in the formal world implies first proving a formal world exists. Now to the extent that behavior is a reflection of the physical world's rules, then behavior too can have rules based in physics. We may not be able to translate those yet, but that does not mean they don't exist. Empirical science postulates that they are knowable and generalizable. If we postulate rules outside of the physical world for behavior, we get into the metaphysics of transcendent beings. Back to religion.

We can certainly talk about rules to help or harm. But in doing so we have already posited a value system. Does that value system exist in a random universe, in a brain created by random particle movements selected for by competitive biology, or does it reflect a sense of non-randomness to justice? I would argue the latter.

It seems to me that there is much order in the universe. That randomness is not real but rather a mathematical model for complex systems of which we do not know all of the inputs (Heisenberg), and that
this order reflects rules that we can access through empirical study. Again, the personification of that order is a mystical process. (I recognize the very logical possibility that a random event with apparent order is sustainable over random events without order and thus we could be creating a construct of more profound order than applies outside of our universe but now we are really into the problem of being and non-being.)

Hmmm, "Carstonio"?? Where have we seen that ID before???????

Hmmm, and is "Navin1" really "Carstonio"??

Ahh, the beauty of semi-anonymous blogs!!!

"A blog that does not identify the blogger. Such blogs are used to publish opinions about politics, celebrities, an industry or targeted companies. Anonymous blogs are very controversial in the U.S., as many feel they are protected under the First Amendment; however, others believe that anyone defaming another should be held liable."

"If the universe is just, the suffering must be just. If the universe is random then suffering is unjust."

What is your basis for that assertion? It reminds me of the Just World Fallacy, the idea that people who experience inexplicable suffering or injustices must have done something to deserve those things. The universe appears to be indifferent to human emotions or thoughts - we have no evidence that the universe is otherwise. That's neither just nor unjust, it just is.

"If the universe is unjust, then the creator has no sense of justice or there is no creator. If the last proposition holds, than we do not seek justice in the world as we are just kidding our selves by placing a sense of order on random events."

The first doesn't have to lead to the second. We can desire justice and work to achieve it within the limits of our power, while at the same time acknowledging that some instances of injustice are beyond our power to reverse or balance. Whether events are orderly or random doesn't change the fact that we can value justice as a principle.

"Since rules seem to apply to much of the creation, a reasonable deduction would be that the creation has a justice to it. "

What rules are you talking about? If you're talking about physical laws, those are merely human-created codifications for the behavior of natural events. Also, rules don't automatically involve ideas of justice or morality - they're simply commands. One doesn't and shouldn't automatically trust a rule to embody the moral concept of help and harm.

The question has had a slight shift recently: from the good to the just. Though the two are certainly connected, each presupposes the other.

The evidence points to suffering.

If the universe is just, the suffering must be just. If the universe is random then suffering is unjust.

But then we must also take the next step, viz, if the universe is just, there is a causality to consequence - a set of rules on the moral sphere established through the conscious creation (karma). If the universe is unjust, then the creator has no sense of justice or there is no creator. If the last proposition holds, than we do not seek justice in the world as we are just kidding our selves by placing a sense of order on random events. If the creator is unjust, the middle proposition, then we must tremble and fear. But also if the creator is unjust, then rules become irrelevant (and would be violated in some unjust fashion predictably => another set of rules / creator). Since rules seem to apply to much of the creation, a reasonable deduction would be that the creation has a justice to it. A just creation, as much as the evidence of suffering provides, complemented by the evidence of cross species sense of justice, is the good.

Now to have a personal relationship with that just being that is good takes a leap of faith unless evidence supports having that personal relationship - the mystical connection.

hariaum

"I fail to see how telling people that their suffering is the result of randomness can be used as an act of compassion."

It's actually far worse to tell people that they deserve to suffer. And in cases where people did nothing to cause the suffering, it's far worse to tell people that they did bring it on themselves. That sounds like the mentality that one often finds in abuse victims - they often rationalize the abuse by believing that it's their fault.

"Instead my fellow practitioners like to represent suffering as an opportunity to overcome and grow spiritually."

I agree that one can learn from one's suffering. But that doesn't mean that one brings the suffering on one's self or that one deserves it.

"Focusing outside oneself is an error. While life is eternal, the only opportunity we have to change our karma is right now."

would you explain?

"Nature provides many hints as to the nature of our own existence. Everywhere in the natural world we see cycles. Life and death are just natural parts of our cycle of existence. It is in harmony with the Mystic law."

While you have a good point about the cycles, what does that have to do with a mystic law? If a rock falls from a mountain, there may or may not be a creature at the bottom that may be hurt or killed by the rock. But the latter doesn't change the former.

"God does not play dice with the universe. Everything is a result of cause and effect, some of which is not apparent to we who must dwell in a world of delusion."

You're right about the principle of cause and effect. My earlier use of "random" was a misnomer. I wasn't saying that events are uncaused. Instead, I was arguing against the assumption that all events are caused by sentient actors, even ones where humans or animals played no role. We cannot assume a purpose for any event that appears to have no sentient cause. That was my point about "Farther Along" - people want to believe that suffering is part of some great plan, that there's some purpose behind it all. Since we have no evidence for such a purpose or plan, why assume or believe that one exists?

Hmmm, "Carstonio"?? Where have we seen that ID before???????

"Why mislead people like that, or encourage people to mislead themselves? Why give them the expectation that someone who causes them to suffer will automatically suffer himself? Or that someone who helps them will also automatically be helped? People can see that life's suffering has no apparent pattern to it, and the basis of the gospel song "Farther Along" is that people crave an explanation for the apparent randomness."

I fail to see how telling people that their suffering is the result of randomness can be used as an act of compassion. In fact, dwelling on the punishment and reward aspect in aiding those who are suffering is usually a mistake. Instead my fellow practitioners like to represent suffering as an opportunity to overcome and grow spiritually. Focusing outside oneself is an error. While life is eternal, the only opportunity we have to change our karma is right now.

Nature provides many hints as to the nature of our own existence. Everywhere in the natural world we see cycles. Life and death are just natural parts of our cycle of existence. It is in harmony with the Mystic law. God does not play dice with the universe. Everything is a result of cause and effect, some of which is not apparent to we who must dwell in a world of delusion.

That said, any philosophy or spirituality that makes people reflect on correct action whether it is reward or punishment or some other standard has value. It is much better than having people only act on the value of whether something is illegal or legal and the chances that they will be caught and punished by the secular authorities. It makes for a better society for all.

Yes this question assumes the god of the Cults of Abraham as the arbiter of good/evil.

For argument's sake, I'm a follower of Thor. Christ died on a cross, in ignoble martydom and humiliation. That is Bad.

My God,Wields a Hammer. Go figure.

If he dies, it will be in Glorious Battle fighting the Ice Giants during Ragnorak. That is Good!

To elaborate, the whole point of morality is to help others and avoiding hurting others for their sake, not simply to get a reward or avoid a punishment.

"We merely banish coincidence to the margins and assure everyone that cause and effect works on a transcendent level that may not always be as apparent as classic physics is to modern people. Make a bad cause, get a bad effect. It's that simple. It's karma."

Why mislead people like that, or encourage people to mislead themselves? Why give them the expectation that someone who causes them to suffer will automatically suffer himself? Or that someone who helps them will also automatically be helped? People can see that life's suffering has no apparent pattern to it, and the basis of the gospel song "Farther Along" is that people crave an explanation for the apparent randomness.

jsmith4

You wrote, "Intelligent and well-read people know that morality is evolutionarily developed and transmitted. Our moral reasoning ability is as innate as our language-learning ability."

Does this mean that the 20th Century, in which man seemed to show some of his "inhumanity to his fellow man" on a "scale" unseen before because of better technology among other things, is "proof" that "morality is evolutionarily developed"?

If this does, which "way" is "morality" "evolutionarily developing"?

You also wrote, "and atheists are at least as moral as people who believe in one of the 38,000 gods that man has invented."

Every one that is an "atheist" and every one that "believes in one of the 38,000 gods that man has invented" and every one that believes in the True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God are individual people and God looks at the person, not the "label".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"Suffering in the world is often random - "

From my first post here:

We merely banish coincidence to the margins and assure everyone that cause and effect works on a transcendent level that may not always be as apparent as classic physics is to modern people. Make a bad cause, get a bad effect. It's that simple. It's karma.

Beside that as per Shakymuni's original observation, life entails suffering. Nobody escapes.

As show in Universal Spiritual Reminder #1, "God" or "No God" is equally powerful.

Universal Spiritual Reminder #1:
Whether you are an atheist, Buddhist, Catholic, Islamic, Jewish, or a person of any other faith, we all have believes, but please do not make your belief into a religion. Religion is created when a person or a group of people taking believes as the absolute truth. The more religious a person becomes, the more willing the person is to hurt/sacrifice self, others, or both while carrying out his/her religion.

Believe: A conclusion from using a set of experience similar to the subject matter that contains derailing factor from the realm of unknown.
Faith: Out all sets of believes in a person’s mind, the used set as toolrules (rules, tools, or both) to conduct the person’s life.
Religion: The faith that a person taken as the absolution truth.

Have faith, but please do not make your faith into a religion

Whether you are an atheist, Buddhist, Catholic, Islamic, Jewish, or a
person of any other faith, we all have believes, but please do not
make your belief into a religion. Religion is created when a person or
a group of people taking believes as the absolute truth. The more
religious a person becomes, the more willing the person is to hurt
self, others, or both while using his/her religion.

Believe: A conclusion from using a set of experience similar to the
subject matter that contains derailing factor from the realm of
unknown.
Faith: Out all sets of believes in a person’s mind, the used set as
toolrules (rules, tools, or both) to conduct the person’s life.
Religion: The faith that a person taken as the absolution truth.

The Bible is a heinous guide to moral behavior.

If we imitated the characters in the myths there, and followed the directions of the sadistic God, we would regularly
Commit genocide
Still practice slavery
Sell our daughters into sexual service
Stone our children when they talk back
for starters.

Intelligent and well-read people know that morality is evolutionarily developed and transmitted. Our moral reasoning ability is as innate as our language-learning ability.

and atheists are at least as moral as people who believe in one of the 38,000 gods that man has invented.

Hmmm, "Carstonio"?? Where have we seen that ID before???????

"The concept is no more authoritarian than the law of gravity. If you toss a heavy object into the air, your head is in danger. Belief in the Mystic Law is just that same cause and effect on a level that few can perceive and must be taken on faith."

What would a "Mystic Law" have to do with cause and effect? Suffering in the world is often random - sometimes people who help others end up suffering and sometimes people who hurt others end up prospering. The "law of gravity" is a misnomer because it's not an authoritarian concept - it doesn't involve rules. "Mystic Law" implies an authority consciously establishing rules.

I'm beginning to like this NAVIN1 poster more and more -- except he does come from the "this religion is better than that religion" position. That always causes me to become pragmatic, and judge the results. That's a problem I give myself. To get past that, I have to acknowledge all religions have their saints.

I note simply that of the 7 billion humans on this earth, 6 billion of them are not living in much comfort, regardless of religions.

OK, maybe only 5 billion. 4 billion?

Still, quite a number.

Mark, Mark, Mark,

The Mormon god supposedly exudes the same ultimate goodness as the Christian god. As per both religions, this god has control of life yet somehow allows innocent children to be born with disabilities some so terrible that arms, legs, eyes and/or eyes are missing. When you finally see the light that your god has no control of nature, that there never was a "pretty, wingie, talking thingie named Moroni and that Joe Smith was one of the great con artists, get back to us.

biblical concept of free will is simplistic. A child does not have free will nor agency as the child is ignorant. Likewise, a human born in ignorance is not free. Even with learning, the human can never reach sufficient knowledge to take eternal responsibility. But a human can take responsibility for their intentions of action. This is expounded in detachment and renunciation in the Gita.

Real free will only is the property of the enlightened. Everybody else is groping in the dark. But if you give up the responsibility to a proxy, you give up what makes you human. (you end up rationalizing all sort of things - crusades, jihads, inquisitions, genocides...) No one can stand between you and God (see ten commandments) thus have no jesus between you and god. Take full responsibility for your actions and become free.

The christo-islamists god fails not because of tortured babies, but is that he is not a monotheist god, he is opposed by a god that promotes knowledge / free will - satan. Thus the christo islamist god is finite, vindictive, jealous, cursing, in a word hateful. In classic double speak, the god that made men ignorant, blames them for original sin, tortures them in an eternal hell, and then says I love you - not a god I want to worship, not a god that models goodness.

hariaum

THOMASBAUM.

I think you read me correctly, except I don't see the word "degree," in my post.

To my memory, the Darwinists used only the word "intelligence." And I think you may be meaning the word "wisdom." They didn't use that one.

By the way, I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. But as kids, we did say, "Here I come, ready or not."

Ccnl

You said:”Your attempt to prove the existence of god and that this god exudes goodness fails miserably when you consider some babies are born with severe physical and mental disabilities”.

Physical challenges do not disprove the existence of God.

Those of us who believe in God and have studied the bible, know that if God took away all “roadblocks” (life’s challenges), he would also be taking away our free will and our right to prove ourselves. Because in doing so makes life a breeze with no challenges.

Mortal life is a challenge to prove our worthiness to return to our father’s house. We are all born with gifts from God, and we all have natural challenges in our lives; some more than others.

How we overcome our challenges and how we use the gifts that God gave us play a huge roll on how Jesus will judge us.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

alltheroadrunnin

You wrote, "The 10/08/09 issue of Edge published the opinion of nine famous Darwinist scientists, each unabashedly offering their proof that human evolution is singularly toward intelligence -- "

Granted, I have not read this issue of Edge nor any other one and for that matter have not heard of it until now but could these "famous Darwinist scientists" be confusing "knowledge" and "intelligence"?

You then wrote, "intelligence perhaps resulting in morals, but not necessarily"

Quite a non-statement, don't you think?

It seems as if the "degree of intelligence" in no way correlates with the "degree of morals", doesn't it?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

gotero85

You wrote, "God created us in his image and likeness, with an intellect and a will."

And considering the FACT that God is a Being of Pure Love, God's "Image and Likeness" is Love, this is the "image" that we are created in, along with an intellect and free will so that we are not just "fancy biological robots".

You then wrote, "Being good, however, is not enough to attain heaven. For that, one must grow in holiness and become sanctified by receiving the Sacraments through which our souls receive sanctifying grace."

Have you ever thought about giving God some "wiggle room" in case He doesn't feel bound by your "steps to attain heaven" pronouncement?

You then wrote, "I hope readers are open minded enough to consider this response which is based on my Catholic faith."

I am Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith and hasn't Jesus called us to die for others that have either not accepted the "gift" or have thrown it away?

You then wrote, "Einstein himself was fascinated by the mystery of the Eucharist."

You know that Jesus instituted the Eucharist on Holy Thursday before the Crucifixion, therefore we are called to be "Good Friday" people so that ALL OF HUMANITY can be "Easter People", is this what you are referring to as "the mystery of the Eucharist"?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Carstonio wrote:

z"Edbyronadams, your concept sounds authoritarian, because it implies that all people need a moral standard handed to them and need punishment to keep them in line. The idea of Kohlberg's stages of moral development is that people are capable of valuing the help and harm they cause others because they value others, not because they're afraid of punishment. Your post seems to suggest that even if transcendent truth doesn't exist, people still need to believe in it. That sounds solipsistic."
______________________________

The concept is no more authoritarian than the law of gravity. If you toss a heavy object into the air, your head is in danger. Belief in the Mystic Law is just that same cause and effect on a level that few can perceive and must be taken on faith.

As far as Kohlberg's theory, it would follow that as time advances, more people would reach a stage of development in which they valued others. I don't observe that in the real world. Faith in the Mystic law works with both carrots and sticks and the punishment is entirely appropriate. It would be good if people tried to live by it even if they had no faith. The need for law enforcement and judiciary would decrease dramatically and everyone would live in a more pleasant environment.

Isn't any faith statement an inherent solipsism? Talking about the subject is just circling around since one must take the personal leap of faith into the middle. Faith is not necessarily blind however. If faith and practice do not yield returns, subjective though they may be, why would anyone continue?

DANIEL12.

Right, special issue 300. It was also dated 10/08/09. Sorry I missed the complete nomenclature.

CCNL1.

You mention, "...(that) god exudes goodness fails miserably...consider some babies born with severe physical and mental disabilities."

I look at that a little differently, considering the creator god worshiped on this earth. I look at how some (acutally many) species get the babies -- the act of sex required -- the act created by, I guess, the creator god.

Think of two house flies on the wall, joined, or joined as they fly around. Think of two elephants, joined; the joining of two horses, two crocodiles, two elk, two scorpions, and indeed, two whales. Think of what two male elk have to go through, even before the joining.

Now, think of the creator god thinking up this process. As DANIEL12 mentions, some things in this universe certainly are mysterious. Not so mysterious is that this worshiped creator god has a questionable sense of humor -- before we even get to the severely defective babies.

Morihei Uedhiba (founder of Aikido): It is not that I am humble because I am so small, I am humble because the universe is so great.

that's a paraphrase from the Art of Peace.

And, it is because we are ignorant of reality, that we need to judge carefully the god we worship: power full, vindictive, loving, a name, a being, immaterial, material...

hariaum

Morihei Uedhiba (founder of Aikido): It is not that I am humble because I am so small, I am humble because the universe is so great.

that's a paraphrase from the Art of Peace.

And, it is because we are ignorant of reality, that we need to judge carefully the god we worship: power full, vindictive, loving, a name, a being, immaterial, material...

hariaum

A thought on the existence of God, whether he exists or not...I can understand there is no proof of God. I can even understand there is great evidence such a being cannot exist--at least cannot exist and be perfectly good, for there is so much evil in the world. But the problem I have is that so far as I can tell the universe is not only mysterious, but vastly mysterious. All one has to do is contemplate the age of the earth and observe that South America was once connected to Africa, etc. So despite no proof of God, despite so much evidence of evil, still, one knows nothing--and this cannot help but make one respectful and careful, that is, if one is not a blind atheist out for blood against religion. In other words, I fail to understand how atheists can be so certain there is no God--for that is what they assert even though they stress they merely disbelieve in God and that God might exist. This is not to say I am a member of a particular religion, but how can one just toss all religion aside and be so certain before this grand mystery that there is no higher being? How can one say this when the difference between one's intellect and what lies before the senses is so great? An atheist would say there is no God so theoretically murdering someone would result in penalty only if one's fellow humans catch one. But how can one say this when the universe is so vast, so beyond comprehension? How can one be sure there is no penalty beyond that inflicted upon oneself by one's fellow humans? Certainly when I consider what would occur if I murdered someone I do not comfortably feel the only penalty can come by the hand of my fellow humans. I step on the balcony, look at the stars, wonder if there is some sort of trick. The Commandment no murder coupled with an absolute absence of God...but still the universe so vast...I pretty much catch myself, do not trust I know what will occur if I murder someone. And one does not have to be religious to understand this. One is just applying common sense. For example, pretend one is a general about to attack an enemy. One has considered all the possible outcomes. But is one absolutely certain of victory? Of course not. One does not know everything. So it is in every day life. One cannot be certain one knows all that will occur if one takes a certain action. The human race is not just ignorant but plain stupid when faced with the majesty of the universe. One might not believe in God, but if one has any sense at all one will hedge the bet and try to be careful in one's actions and words. There might be a God or something just waiting for one to fall into the trap, to be arrogant and take an action which is immoral, because one thinks nothing is there. This is something of religion I believe any sensible atheist can understand. And if a religious person is sensible I believe he can live with atheists and hold this position. In other words, here I believe atheists and the religious can agree on God.

To Alltheroadrunnin from Daniel. Are you sure the issue you mean is the 10/8/09 issue of Edge and not the one about Darwin, special issue #300? I looked under the issue you mention but there was only one article about a guy talking about biology and technology. The special edition, however, has I believe nine people speaking of Darwin.

Is there good without god?

OF COURSE!!!

Since there is not god outside the human imagination, siad entity is not even a direct part of the equation.

Good is a human construct and completely human idea. ALL religions co-opted existing human ethical concepts into their various, completely man-made belief structures (said religions).

Now do some of those who have created god in their imagination utilize said belief as a catalyst for their perosnally doing good? Probably. But a belief in deity is not needed to do good or bad. It is just an excuse (in a neutral use of the term) for some people's actions.

One could argue that being good without God (i.e. for the sake of those you would please, rather than for the sake of God) is the ultimate act of goodness. Why do people follow God? For eternal life? That kind of ulterior motive, the ultimate dangling carrot, strips good works of all selflessness and charity. Why not perform a good deed for the glory of the recipient, rather than for the glory of God?

DANIEL12.

The 10/08/09 issue of Edge published the opinion of nine famous Darwinist scientists, each unabashedly offering their proof that human evolution is singularly toward intelligence -- intelligence perhaps resulting in morals, but not necessarily

I thought your post might be an answer to that. Because, your few paragraphs were as informative, and thought provoking, as the dozens of paragraphs of each of these nine.

Reading everything on Edge is free, although suggesting donations. It usually covers many sides of issues, from the scientific point of view.

Your attempt to prove the existence of god and that this god exudes goodness fails miserably when you consider some babies are born with severe physical and mental disabilities.

The question is a mistake. This question is from religious propaganda.
A question that I would accept is:
- "Does Belief make you be good more often?"
There is actually evidence that nonbelievers are the more moral. (Atheists in prison are disproportionally few, among others.)
I find that recognizing other people as being equal to oneself is a very good guide to goodness and is much more comfortable to follow than any set of rules.

To Alltheroadrunnin from Daniel. Thanks for the reply. I can pretty much guess what Harris, Dennett and Pinker would say. Their views pretty much agree with one another and are fairly well known. But yes, I would be interested in what they have to say. As for the Edge.org site, I have visited only once. And from what I saw I think you have to subscribe to see the stuff written. But I did look it over too quickly. So I will go back to check it again. Thanks again. Dan.

But to have goodness in a moral sense we need agency. Agency has a pre-requisite of intelligence. So scientific atheism could easily argue that the evolution of intelligence (and group dynamics that engage network learning systems) is an evolution to morality and thus our sense of morality is more "evolved" than an ape but we are part and parcel of natural evolution without a creator.

Making sense of the natural world may also be an evolutionary trait. Since the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation is (for the human eye and mind) continuous, the order of a rainbow as composed of different colors is imposed by a cognitive construct. That construct may provide evolutionary benefit but it does not represent the continuum of physical truth - lying to our selves is useful.

The moral problem of a standard truth is what use is it? If we don't have access to it, if we can't know it, if we can only imperfectly attain it, then it is a star in the sky - a beautiful object outside of us.

Rather, if the moral standard is within us and does not, thus, posit and entity outside of us, we have access to that moral standard. The fact that we interpret it differently does not deny a universality. The fact that we try to attain it may be the real moral standard.

This does not need an external God. Now if we define god as that being (or metaphor) for what is good in us, we say, "oh, god is goodness" but this is simply circular. (I'm ok with that but it is not really logical is it). But if we define God as truth, then of course we are part of the turth and deeper, more intelligent, effortful approach to that God can be defined as good. Unfortunately, often what we here is this book says this is good, therefore this is good. That is based on the idea that the book is good and thus the teachings are good or make me feel good - circular again.

hariaum

DANIEL12.

I enjoyed reading your argument, immensely. I would also enjoy reading a Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Steven Pinker response.

I've got a feeling you visited edge.org. Good stuff there, wot?

I've also got a feeling Matt Ridley goes to church, most every Sunday.

There are actually several really good questions in here.

First, can good exist without God? The bigger question is can anything exist without God but we’ll try to stick to the question asked. I think the answer to this is a resounding, “No”. If there is a real standard of good out there and rules by which we either behave good or bad, then there must be being that created this standard of good. Now we can argue about the being, but easiest answer is that God created good.

We can obviously argue about certain points of goodness but we all have an understanding that there is a standard and we are all subject to it. We all want to be treated fairly and if we aren’t we point it out. This makes no sense if good is just an opinion I hold or something that is subject to change with the times. We understand that there is good that was created by God and we should try to behave this way.

Now the second question is whether we need to believe in God to be good. I would also say this is, “No”. Simply put, I see many people who are agnostic, atheists, or believe in other Gods and they certain display good characteristics. God certainly didn’t say that only people who believe in him can behave in a good manner. In fact, if he did, we would never be able to believe in him, since the belief process is a good thing in itself. All people can and do behave good in different ways.

No there is a catch to the above observation, especially if you are a Christian who believes the bible. While we mostly try to be good, we are horrible failures at it. Even our “good” actions are often filled with badness, like pride and selfishness. This can be quite disheartening for honest people. We often disguise these things and cover them up by comparing ourselves to others, which generally makes us feel good.

For Christians we know that the only way to truly be good is through Christ and believing in him. Christ didn’t come to tell us to be good, he came to make a way so we could be good. On earth we will never achieve perfection in our actions but we can make great strides. In heaven we will become good as we were intended. This is the ultimate answer on what is goodness and how to we get it.

Now, I see in some comments this idea of animosity between believers and non-believers. This isn’t something I really see but I’ll address. There is no reason for hate in this. We should all be striving for good as best we can, since that is the only way to achieve it. We may see things differently but I think we can agree on this. For those who don’t believe in God, I would say this. As you strive for good you may find yourself approaching a greater good than you could have imagined. Be prepared for this. If there is a good, he must be good and in the end your goodness will help you find

Can a person be good, moral, without a belief in God?

This question is deceptive, for we can observe that by morality we, the majority, mean no great thing, simply doing the every day and being quite removed from prison. Asking us if it makes a difference to morality whether we believe in God or not is like asking us if it makes a difference to our walking down a road whether we believe in God or not. It seems God is irrelevant to our behaving morally.

But things are not so simple. It may be there are many who do not believe in God yet act morally, but there is a big difference between not believing in God and having conclusive evidence there is no God. We might say we disbelieve in God, but we are not certain there is no God, so we are not acting as freely without God as we imagine. In other words, to make it clearer, pretend for a moment one is involved in an experiment in which one has two choices: Open door number one in which there is a 75% chance one will double the money one has put down, or open door number two in which there is only a 25% chance of doubling the money.

Of course everyone will go for door number one. But can a person be absolutely certain the money lies behind door number one? Of course not. Despite the relative certainty of the operation one is not completely certain, and this results in the characteristic physiological responses to uncertainty: hesitation; a certain sobriety; nervous movements of the eye. So it is with merely a disbelief in God and no conclusive evidence there is no God. One might disbelieve in God but one hedges the bet whether one likes it or not because one is uncertain.

One might say, in the parlance of modern science as opposed to creationism, that one lives on a planet which has existed for billions of years, its continents having come together and spread apart over millions and millions of years, and that this planet is located in a vast universe with no easy answer to explain it, but without conclusive evidence there is no God one cannot help but be in an awestruck state not at all far removed from the religious contemplation of the universe. Therefore one cannot say one can behave morally without a belief in God. The universe inspires belief rather than disbelief--unless one can prove God does not exist.

And saying the universe actually inspires no belief in God, that the evidence is rather of a kind that demonstrates no God, offers no way out. We still are hesitant, careful despite our professed non-belief in God. We can say that randomly killing someone will result in penalty only if our fellow humans catch us, but we act as if we are already seen--as religious people do in their belief in God. We can never be absolutely certain nothing watches us in our private moments. Now of course atheists everywhere reading this will say "what the hell's he talking about? I don't need conclusive evidence there is no God to act morally without God, disbelieving in God and acting morally is enough to demonstrate one can act morally without God".

But alas things are not so simple for atheists. There is more evidence showing they not only do not really reflect on morality with and without God, but act not at all far removed from the religious viewpoint. They are far more like religious people than people truly living a life without God. In other words, their very atheism is in question. Worse, although it seems everyone knows what morality is, the atheists' assertions are far more damaging to their position than religious people's assertions concerning their own position. This can easily be demonstrated.

Religious people have a familiar construct with respect to the world. This construct at its simplest is that God created the universe and of course man, then man rebelled and now must repent, behave in a particular manner to get back in good graces with God. The construct of religious people is all of a piece with their moral understanding. In other words, there is no incongruity between construct and asserted necessary behavior. One might be scornful of the religious construct, but there is consistency of view. There is no such consistency of view when it comes to atheists. They are incongruous. They say they can be moral without a belief in God, but they are carrying over into a quite different construct of the world the typical morality which has never really existed separate from the religious view.

The scientific view--scientific construct, if you will, to compare and contrast it with the religious construct--is a view which demands a quite different morality than that demanded by the religious view--if morality is demanded at all. And that the atheists do not grasp this demonstrates that for all their non-belief in God they are really not acting as freely without God as they imagine. They are still more religious than true atheists. Demonstration? What are the two greatest scientific views today? 1) The universe began in a big bang and had no creator behind it--and how it will end no one knows for certain. 2) That man descended from a creature which was also the ancestor of the chimpanzee, among other primates.

And what does that in essence tell us? That man has evolved toward primarily intelligence and not morality in a world located in a universe that began with an explosion! Atheists are fond of telling us that even animals are moral--to bolster their view of morality without God. Animals such as chimpanzees. But that just reinforces beyond belief the view that man differs from the chimpanzee by primarily intelligence! That morality has not been the path of man over millions of years of development but rather intelligence! What this means is that one must not speak of being able to be moral without a belief in God--as if this proves something--but rather speak of being willing to embark on making man more intelligent rather than moral, for it has been intelligence which has made all the difference to man in the world!

That is if one wants to be consistent with the scientific construct. So we can easily see the incongruity of atheists championing morality without a belief in God when the entire view of the world without God--the scientific view--demonstrates it is not really morality at all which man has been pursuing over millions of years of development but intelligence. And it is obviously further intelligence which should be aimed at. Man is not a moral animal, man is a predator. If one wants to speak of a moral animal try looking at one's hamburger. There one finds the meat of a creature vastly more moral than man--and it is not for nothing Hindus venerate the cow, for it is a peaceful creature, in fact a creature which meditates better than man.--Or at least ruminates better.

If Darwin is to be believed when he says that species in general when varying to another form drive to extinction the previous form--the parent form--then the human race of today drove to extinction its own ancestors and even wiped out offshoots such as Neanderthal man. No particular development of morality but rather a development of intelligence. And apparently man has been pretty good at developing intelligence (i.e. wiping out the less intelligent humans). And what this obviously means to the atheistic viewpoint is that we must champion the intelligent among us rather than the moral, even if the intelligent act less than morally desirable. Of course there must be some level of cooperation, morality if you will, but that is not the objective--certainly not the primary objective.

But just watch atheists foam at the mouth as they read this!--Thus proving they are not at all far removed from the very religious people they so despise. They do not even live up to the basic scientific evidence that can be explained to an adolescent. They are all about morality rather than scientific evidence and what that implies. And their morality is never so furious as when they are engaged in verbal combat with the religious. They never tire of saying they can not only be moral without a belief in God, but that they can demonstrate even greater morality.--When all the scientific evidence demonstrates that man is barely if at all of greater morality than a chimp! That the difference between man and chimp is intelligence and not morality!

Conclusion: Atheists have really nothing to say to the religious when it comes to discussing whether one can be moral without a belief in God. The religious are consistent--their construct is all of a piece with their conception of morality. In fact their construct is about morality rather than intelligence. They do not say become intelligent and God will forgive you, but act such as God will forgive. The atheists on the other hand never tire of saying they can be moral without God, but their construct--the scientific evidence--demonstrates that man should be about intelligence rather than morality, that intelligence has made the difference between man and the animals.

Hell, at this point I would not be surprised if atheists say we do not have conclusive proof God does not exist, so we had better be moral just in case...Thus demonstrating they really have no courage of the very science they tout but instead are quite a lot like the religious. All a battle of morality rather than about specific views of the world and what that implies. But again, man the moral animal? Even the views of the Buddha and Christ have resulted in nothing more than man spreading like a plague, a parasite, a cancer across the globe, annihilating species left and right. No, man is not known for morality but rather intelligence. The Nazis pretty much had it right--that is, were consistent in action with the scientific view. Wipe out the inferior peoples. Continue the millions of years old march toward intelligence rather than morality. Of course the Nazis erred in wiping out the Jews and homosexuals--certainly not necessarily stupid people. But what group of humans ever had action in perfect line with scientific insight?

To say it still again, if one rejects the religious view of believing in a God who will save us if we act relatively moral, we are left with the pure Darwinian, biological, paleontological evidence: man developing toward intelligence rather than morality. In fact it seems man is using his intelligence to increase his immorality. Perhaps we can use some morality after all. Thus I admit defeat in this intellectually pleasurable argument. Besides, the choices it seems we have today leave me rather ill. It seems we either believe in a God who created us only to punish us if we do not act as he wishes, or believe in the Darwinian view which demonstrates man has evolved to primarily intelligence and not morality. The choices are rather grim.

But I have a plan. Just remain calm and do as little harm as possible. Jump to no premature conclusions. In fact despite our science we should be living as simply and sparingly as possible. Perhaps make opium legal so we can smoke and ruminate with the cows. Just think things over a bit. No hurry. Even only that would make a wise man of someone. Maybe that is the essence of religion. Maybe that reconciles science with religion. But above it all, the human project: another human variant out of our species. The creation of a different and better human species.

GOTERO85.

I am no Einstein, but I too am fascinated by the Eucharist -- the idea of it. I notice that this idea goes way back in the history -- there even are indications of it in the pre-history -- of human beings.

Funny turn of phrase: a being greater... That would imply power, knowledge, ... that we wimps better follow or else = morality. I think that was what the other catholic, Hitler, was trying to get a-cross.

But I digress, which I enjoy doing.

But suppose a God came to the world and taught mankind things like, humans see the world through three principle qualities. These qualities exist in each of us to varying extents and that mixture defines our innate material nature; the supersould nature is one between all of us. These properties can be translated as truth-orientation, action-orientation, and inertia-orientation (satva, rajas, tamas). Each of these qualities result in a material alteration in what we perceive. As such we act based on these qualities and different people have different actions. As an individual attempts to act morally, in a system based on diverse forces, morality becomes itself a fluid construct. But this divine being does not hate us thus we are not condemned to a hell or an outer existence because we "failed." Rather, the more we buy into this material existence the more we are driven by the forces of the material existence and thus participate in this ocean of Love that is Devi. When we are ready, Oh Arjuna, cut down the tree of materialism that includes these very properties and transcend the material reality beyond categories or properties. (But it is ok if you are not ready.)

Now suppose further that we have a divine teacher. Now the divine teacher could use a platitude like: do onto other as you would have them do on to you. I, frankly, think that's nonsense. If I am a murderer, I want you to forgive me. If I am a thief, I want you to give me your stuff. But it does sound sweat. But let us put to this divine being: why should I harm another person. Now if s/he has a reason then we've got at least a teacher worth listening to. The atheist and the theist soldier that dies for his country must both also confront the morality of killing for their country. That is the real moral question (not how to be nice to nice people, but when to be mean to someone in a world of diverse perspective).

If you can solve that on your own, go for it (and yes the too easy solution is really wrong - my group v yours). If not, try reading the Gita.

You may also then want to look at the Jain Thirtankaras (that are not gods), the Buddha (who felt gods were largely irrelevant), Darwin (who spent much time talking about cooperation in the Origin that does not get talked about much),

Even if you don't believe in God, I hope you believe in truth, and wherever you can find truth is a good (morally as well I suppose). And yes, as said below, if we are all part of the universal stream of being, tapping into that stream of consciousness and being and bliss (satcitananda) is awesome good!

hariaum

God created us in his image and likeness, with an intellect and a will. These faculties allow us to know the truth and to love the truth. As a result, there is a natural law written upon our hearts. Whether one believes in God or not, he or she is capable of doing good based on the imprint of natural law on our souls. Being good, however, is not enough to attain heaven. For that, one must grow in holiness and become sanctified by receiving the Sacraments through which our souls receive sanctifying grace.

I hope readers are open minded enough to consider this response which is based on my Catholic faith. Einstein himself was fascinated by the mystery of the Eucharist.

Paarsurrey, Paarsurrey, Paarsurrey,

Hmmm, apparently the Five Steps to Deflaw/Deprogram Islam did not work last time.

Once again:

Are you ready?

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings."

i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc. should be added to your cleansing neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."
A major item for neuron cleansing.

Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."
Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.
Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

Accept these five "cleansers" and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic/"Allahic" ways!!!!
My Religious Beliefs as per Rational Reality/Common Sense
9/21/04 and Influenced by Crossan, Borg, Schillebeeckx, Clifford et al.

There is only one Goddess (traditionally the Triple Goddess) and she is equal to the Horned God. All praise to them and their pagan followers!!!! Good cannot exist without either of these pagan gods!!!

The physical body is to nurture and develop the mind, heart, and senses. The senses, heart, and mind are for the emancipation and transformation of intuition, knowledge, reason, experience, intelligence, conscience and insight. These traits form the basis for or the evolution of wisdom, compassion, and liberation. The physical body is the means for consciousness, spiritual, and the path to salvation or enlightenment: all existence is spiritual. Individual being potential for wholeness or oneness.

Spiritual is the means for higher consciousness, searching for meanings of life or existence and seeking truths in the physical and transcend or metaphysical world. Science is the art of deriving meanings and emancipation of knowledge from searching and seeking truths in the physical or material world. Spiritual is the reasoning, empirical analysis, observation, and experience of the natural world through the senses, mind, heart, and consciousness. Science is the rationalness, analysis, observation, and experience of the natural world through theory and technology. Spiritual and science are means or paths to meanings, truths, and enlightenment of natural law through the physical/metaphysical and physical world respectively. Therefore, spiritual and science are compatible and complementary to each other, or in other words, are revealing or expressing the law of nature or nature in their specific, special, and unique ways. The living or physical and spiritual worlds must adhere to or conform to or obey the law of nature, or in other words, are parts of the fabrics and essences of nature. This is neither illusion nor delusion. Individual and collective beings potential for wholeness or oneness.

It is the consciousness of all existence, particularly being or humanity, which creates such as morality, ethics, civics, belief, goodness, values, virtues, conscience, faith and reason. It is matter which nurtures consciousness. And it is consciousness which arises matter. In that sense, it is consciousness that gives rise or meanings to universal transformation, evolution, and wholeness or oneness.

Since we presume animals don't have a belief in God (based on scientific and christian beliefs) then if animals behave "good" then we must conclude that you can be a good animal without a belief in God.

If we presume animals do have a belief in God, unless they all bow down before one alter, we must conclude that God is a continuum between animal and human consciousness as to the meaning of the world and the goodness in it - that the name is not as important as the belief in this consciousness. Then god is simply an evolutionarily selected useful ideology shared between more sentient species - perhaps related to the psychological abstraction of mirror neurons. Thus God is a way of talking about goodness.

Since there is clear data of animals behaving with compassion and care, as well as joy and fun, we would have to conclude as empiricists, that this is an evolutionary trait.

The counter, that humans have greater moral reasoning because of a more formal (read dogmatic) understanding of God, is not useful as humans are one of the few larger animals that engage in wholesale calculated slaughter of their own species and others.

But more to come.

hariaum

Hi friends

It is no good without the Creator-God Allah YHWH. It is very unnatural not to believe in the Creator- God Allah YHWH. It is just like believing that one was born without one's parents. One has not seen one's father mating with one's mother even then one believes that one has a father. One has not seen one’s mother giving one birth yet one is not in doubt of one’ mother; so one very naturally believes in one’s mother and father and is never in doubt.

One knows that one’s mother and father had taken pains in upbringing one; they did it with love in a very natural way. It is no good without the father and mother; and in the same way it is no good without the Creator-God Allah YHWH.

Through the parents the Creator-God Allah YHWH gives us a taste of His Grace, Mercy.

We got born of our parents; when we were nothing; if left unattended, unfed we would have not survived and died in our infancy, not even knowing that we were ever born. From infancy, we reached childhood, adulthood, old age; so it all evolved very naturally. It is against evolution and progression not believing in the Creator- God Allah YHWH.

All we see in the Universe is the Work of the Creator- God Allah YHWH. All our knowledge and sciences are based on knowing the laws of nature that the Creator has set in motion; without His Work, there would be no knowledge and no sciences.

It is his benevolence that He did not leave us alone and through the perfect men called Messengers Prophets he sent his Revelations so that we may know about his attributes and other things most essential for our ethical, moral and spiritual advancement; from the unseen realm. This is called the Word of the Creator- God Allah YHWH.

I think without the Work of God or without the Word of god; we will be worse off in our lives.

Is there a doubt in Allah the Creator of the heavens and earth? (Quran)
Jesus was however not a god or a Son of god.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

There is no god but NoGod and NoOne is his Prophet.

ccnl1 :
There is only one Goddess (traditionally the Triple Goddess) and she obeys without question the Horned God. All praise to them and their pagan followers!!!!
**************************************************************************************
Wrong on all counts dear boy.
The Triple Goddess is certainly not the only one worshipped by Pagans, and she is not subservient to the Horned God, but his equal.

While we can dither over whether "Good" is fundamentally a philosophical concept or a religious one, at the end of the day the point is moot. Good is what forwards species survival. Bad (or Evil) is what damages our collective future.

There is only one Goddess (traditionally the Triple Goddess) and she obeys without question the Horned God. All praise to them and their pagan followers!!!!

Hmmm, "Carstonio"?? Where have we seen that name before?? Let us check our list of possible clones. There it is!!!

Note: This is a semi-anonymous blog so be aware that impersonators/clones are always possible.

There is no god but Nogod and Void Emptiness his prophet.

Goodness without God is simply an act of self preservation and has nothing to do with true beneficense and is therefore not truly good.

God teaches goodness for its own sake without the need of merit in its object. Out basic controling naturalistic instincts drive us to act for our own benefit even in acts of philontrophy. Charitable giving is largely because we will not affect our own lifestyles because we give out of our excesses; plus the added benefit of making ourselves feel better , and superior.

Even the laws of society are obeyed because we fear the harm that may befall us otherwise.

Edbyronadams, your concept sounds authoritarian, because it implies that all people need a moral standard handed to them and need punishment to keep them in line. The idea of Kohlberg's stages of moral development is that people are capable of valuing the help and harm they cause others because they value others, not because they're afraid of punishment. Your post seems to suggest that even if transcendent truth doesn't exist, people still need to believe in it. That sounds solipsistic.

Newsweek/OnFaith does all religions a disservice when it bases and words its questions on Christian or Abrahamic theological assumptions. This question assumes that there can be only one god, and that a god would be good. It ignores the possibility that gods may be indifferent to concepts of good and evil, or even unaware of them.

" Where do concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, come from if not from religion?"

This regressive question is the most salient. Even such a progressive thinker as Jefferson knew he could not assert the existence of human rights out of thin air, so he appealed to "the Creator" as their source.

People can be good and do good without a belief in religion, but for a standard of human behavior that all should be measured against, only a belief in a transcendent truth will suffice as a basis. Without the expectation that people should behave in ways that are in harmony with the common good or suffer direct consequences as a result of misbehavior, society devolves into a mess of legalism where good and evil are described only by laws and justice is only administered by the cumbersome machinery of government. It is an extremely poor way to organize a society. Everyone suffers.

Buddhism does this without creating a mystic hierarchy or dividing people. We merely banish coincidence to the margins and assure everyone that cause and effect works on a transcendent level that may not always be as apparent as classic physics is to modern people. Make a bad cause, get a bad effect. It's that simple. It's karma.

Taking the pizzazz out of god in one big chunk:

God is omniscient.

Not according to one of the foremost, contemporary Catholic theologians.

To wit:

From Father Edward Schillebeeckx's book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" .

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.

Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings.

For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

It is the consciousness of all existence, particularly being or humanity, which creates morality, ethics, civics, belief, goodness, values, virtues, faith, and reason. It is matter which nurtures consciousness. And it is consciousness which arises matter. In that sense, it is consciousness that gives rise to universal transformation, evolution, and wholeness or oneness.

People misunderstand who and what God is and His relationship to man.

No can do.