Searching for GOD...

[Enki]

I am surprised you express surprise at theological discussion of the Adam and Eve story and yet buy moral relativism where the idea of morality collapses almost instantly.

Moral relativist. Son it's time to talk about morality
Son. Oh yeah?
Moral relativist Of course there is really no such thing as Good or bad
Son. F*ck off then you old c*nt.

Your idea of morality would collapse. My idea of morality doesn't collapse at all as it bears little relationship to what I presume is the message that we are supposed to take from the Adam and Eve story.

As far as I can see this story is mainly about obeying/not obeying commands given by some entity with enormous power to punish if those commands are not obeyed. Furthermore this entity, according to the story, does punish not only those who disobeyed, but every entirely innocent individual who will be born subsequently. This entity also absolves itself of all responsibility for this process. If I took it seriously, which I don't, then my own moral attitude would be that this particular entity is completely lacking in integrity, compassion and understanding. It also seems to show a rather worrying sadistic tendency to boot.

You can keep it. I certainly don't want anything to do with it, thank you.

[Walter]

Your idea of morality would collapse. My idea of morality doesn't collapse at all as it bears little relationship to what I presume is the message that we are supposed to take from the Adam and Eve story.

As far as I can see this story is mainly about obeying/not obeying commands given by some entity with enormous power to punish if those commands are not obeyed. Furthermore this entity, according to the story, does punish not only those who disobeyed, but every entirely innocent individual who will be born subsequently. This entity also absolves itself of all responsibility for this process. If I took it seriously, which I don't, then my own moral attitude would be that this particular entity is completely lacking in integrity, compassion and understanding. It also seems to show a rather worrying sadistic tendency to boot.

You can keep it. I certainly don't want anything to do with it, thank you.

nor  I . Simply preposterous .

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

It just comes across to me as 2 people in a discussion who have no interest in adopting the other's perspective, which is fair enough. Faith does not require demonstrable evidence - it's based on experiences, thoughts and emotions generated by an individual mind's processing of inputs, so I am not sure there is a way to justify my perception of reality to someone else if I adopt a faith position, whether it is on a religious issue or a moral issue of what I think is good or right, or whether it is about the existence of Leprechauns.

Which is fine provided the faithful don’t overreach into insisting that their private, subjective convictions aren’t also true for others – by sitting by right in the legislature, having mandatory “acts of worship” in schools and telling children generally that their beliefs are facts, insisting on exemptions from equality laws while taking tax breaks etc. 

This is not a major problem in society - we are not required to agree with all the different faith positions, beliefs and morals of people in a particular society but we are required to adhere to the laws in that society and are permitted to go through the proper mechanisms if we want to try to change those laws. Though having said that, the philosophy lecturer at Nottingham university did point out that sometimes people think it is necessary to break laws that they think are unjust (civil rights movements) - which then got onto a philosophical discussion about justice.

Religion as a phenomenon is a huge problem in many societies, and “we” are required to afford it special privileges – it’s still for example a law that that schools should have a mandatory daily act of worship, though as I understand it many ignore it.     

Again I genuinely don't get why you are so fixated on the "only good" phrase. The "only good" part is not explained enough in the story to jump to any firm conclusions about what A&E could intellectualise, and as we have no way of testing their capabilities to intellectualise in order for us to reach any firm conclusions, I don't see the point of guessing about this part of the story.

But “the story” is just that – a story – that’s used to validate beliefs in a beneficent god who sits with arms folded in the face of bad stuff because, it turns out, that bad stuff is all our fault because of “original sin”. Thus emboldened, the religious can blithely carry on with the insistence on special privileges for their faith beliefs. I merely suggest that the story fails on its own terms in any case because it was rigged – or at least it was if you buy the “A&E knew only good” line.   

I think some of the themes in the A&E story from a Muslim perspective is acknowledgement of a creator/ first cause;…

And you think that particular irrationalism is a good thing?

…secondly, a purpose for human higher intellectual capabilities that can comprehend abstract ideas such as a creator and right and wrong;

You’re overreaching. It’s “can comprehend the conjecture “creator” etc”, and I’d have thought an iron-age myth that fails even on its own terms is superfluous for that purpose. “Higher intellectual capabilities” seem to function perfectly well without superstition being a requisite. 

…thirdly that God tried to motivate A&E to avoid the tree by giving them a negative incentive - that they would be committing a wrong;

So the myth goes. The problem though is that it was a rigged game if A&E had no concept of what “wrong” meant – either experientially or intellectually.

…and fourthly that despite the clear instruction and negative incentive A&E were unable to stick to the moral code or instruction if it meant denying their personal desire of wanting to eat from the tree.

See above. 

In the Muslim version of the story A&E repent and are forgiven so there is no 'original sin' concept and the story just illustrates that humans can be influenced to desire things;  and how hard it is for humans to control their desires e.g. for something more, even when they already have a lot; and that there is opportunity to repent and be forgiven.

Hate that. Was it so bad for example to “desire something more” in the field of medicine when they already knew about the four humors? 

While I get that it is interesting for a little while to pick apart the logic in a story, I think when it gets to a point where that becomes endless repetition in certain discussions, there is nothing to be gained by it. I think the story adequately conveys the themes I mentioned and for the story to work A&E would need to know that obeying the command was right and disobeying the command was wrong. I'm not really interested in picking apart how A&E's minds processed the abstract concept of right and wrong in the story.

Yes they would – something they could not have known though if they “knew only good”. The point about picking apart the logic of the story is that, for those who would use it to validate their beliefs in the public square, it pulls away one of the planks they think supports their claims. 

Well, that's kind of what the story is trying to illustrate by having a God in it. If you are figuring right and wrong out for yourself, you probably need contextualising criteria, but with a god in the story, A&E were only required to obey God's command. In the Muslim version they start thinking about why they were issued with the command to stay away from the tree, which then opened them up to being influenced by their own desires rather than God's commands.

Having “a god in the story” is the abnegation of moral responsibility. It’s the enemy of reason (just look up the answer in a book), it atrophies moral thinking to that of the (often primitive) times of the authors, and it denies even the possibility of development and change (because an omniscient god set the rules).
 

Praying 5 times a day is an example of obedience overcoming personal desire.

You do know that “personal desire” could include the personal desire to be a lollipop lady or conduct research into cures for cancer right? You know – socially useful things, as opposed to spending time genuflecting in pursuance of superstitious beliefs.

Again that's down to whether someone adopts a faith position or not, as to the personal interpretation they put on their experiences.

No really. What would “wrong”, “sin” etc even mean to someone who’d never experienced such things? How would you explain the concept so as to make the “choice” not a rigged one? 

Yeah - I don't do the eternal condemnation line - that's a Christian line and doesn't hold any appeal for me. I don't know what the "walk with God" line is about either. These are Christian phrases so will have to leave that to the Christians to offer their thoughts.

Fair enough. Notice though that Vlad reifies his “walk with god” notion as if either “god” or walking with him (whatever that means) had been established a priori. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

BHS

Gabriella,

Which is fine provided the faithful don’t overreach into insisting that their private, subjective convictions aren’t also true for others – by sitting by right in the legislature, having mandatory “acts of worship” in schools, insisting on exemptions from equality laws while taking tax breaks etc.

That is a matter for the legislative process to decide upon - people can insist on what they like in a parliamentary democracy but they won't necessarily be allowed what they are insisting on without political support. If there is political will to force multi-national corporations to pay more tax, then similarly all you need is political will to withdraw tax breaks, exemptions etc.   

Religion as a phenomenon is a huge problem in many societies, and “we” are required to afford it special privileges – it’s still for example a law that that schools should have a mandatory daily act of worship, though as I understand it many ignore it.

Again, reforms depend on political will and popular support. Can you suggest a better process for reform in a Parliamentary democracy?

But “the story” is just that – a story – that’s used to validate beliefs in a beneficent god who sits with arms folded in the face of bad stuff because, it turns out, that bad stuff is all our fault because of “original sin”. Thus emboldened, the religious can blithely carry on with the insistence on special privileges for their faith beliefs. I merely suggest that the story fails on its own terms in any case because it was rigged – or at least it was if you buy the “A&E knew only good” line.

Again I can't help decode that NT concept - in Islam there are 99 attributes to Allah and not all of them are beneficent. As I understand it, the Muslim belief is not to hold it against Allah for the bad stuff we experience but to consider them as tests and to assume it could be worse and therefore there is some divine mercy rather than believe that there is indifference or no purpose to it and that Allah is just a sadistic sod. I suppose it then goes to your idea about experiencing the negative in order to be able to understand abstract concepts. From that idea it is possible to ask whether you need to experience sadness in order to really appreciate or understand the abstract concept of happiness. 

Also, there are studies that suggest that humans are more motivated by negative incentives than positive ones - so that might be a factor in the religious stories, which some people see as a concept of a god that "sits with arms folded through the bad stuff" but other people argue does not include indifference or inactivity but includes mercy.   

https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/to_motivate_better_to_take_away_than_to_give

And you think that particular irrationalism is a good thing?

I'm indifferent. It seems to be working fine for me - I just get on with my day. Whether there was a first cause or purpose or not does not impact on my daily activity.

You’re overreaching. It’s “can comprehend the conjecture “creator” etc”, and I’d have thought an iron-age myth that fails even on its own terms is superfluous for that purpose. “Higher intellectual capabilities” seem to function perfectly well without superstition being a requisite.

I used the word "idea" in place of "conjecture". Not sure why you think "conjecture" is any better than "idea".

So the myth goes. The problem though is that it was a rigged game if A&E had no concept of what “wrong” meant – either experientially or intellectually.

I am assuming one of the premises of the story is that they could intellectually understand the concept of wrong. 

Hate that. Was it so bad for example to “desire something more” in the field of medicine when they already knew about the four humors?

I'm not assuming it to be a blanket injunction against following all desires - I think it just flags that some desires may be problematic and to try and figure out which desires to avoid. No easy answer.

Yes they would – something they could not have known though if they “knew only good”. The point about picking apart the logic of the story is that, for those who would use it to validate their beliefs in the public square, it pulls away one of the planks they think supports their claims.

Ok - I agree it is worth clarifying what "only good" means to the person using the phrase, but it doesn't seem like it is a key plank of their belief as they seem to be comfortable with the idea of obeying a command from someone you trust without needing to have experienced a negative incentive to motivate you.   

Having “a god in the story” is the abnegation of moral responsibility. It’s the enemy of reason (just look up the answer in a book), it atrophies moral thinking to that of the (often primitive) times of the authors, and it denies even the possibility of development and change (because an omniscient god set the rules).

That has not been my experience, having moved from atheist to theist, but I can't speak for other theists. I find I think about the morality a lot more than I did before - but that could be age. And I ponder on various people's interpretations of morality in the various religions and what purpose those interpretations seek to serve. I don't find any easy answers in a book - i find lots of things to think about though.
 

You do know that “personal desire” could include the personal desire to be a lollipop lady or conduct research into cures for cancer right? You know – socially useful things, as opposed to spending time genuflecting in pursuance of superstitious beliefs.

See above. I don't think it's a blanket injunction against personal desires. Also, I find genuflecting and contemplation socially useful. 

No really. What would “wrong”, “sin” etc even mean to someone who’d never experienced such things? How would you explain the concept so as to make the “choice” not a rigged one?

Nothing to be gained by repeating your question - I think "wrong" can mean something intellectually to A&E, you think it can't and A&E would have to experience "wrong". We'll agree to disagree on that point in the story. 

Fair enough. Notice though that Vlad reifies his “walk with god” notion as if either “god” or walking with him (whatever that means) had been established a priori.

I thought he was just explaining his belief rather than trying to establish anything - there is no evidence for any part of this story in order to establish anything.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your idea of morality would collapse. My idea of morality doesn't collapse at all as it bears little relationship to what I presume is the message that we are supposed to take from the Adam and Eve story.

As far as I can see this story is mainly about obeying/not obeying commands given by some entity with enormous power to punish if those commands are not obeyed. Furthermore this entity, according to the story, does punish not only those who disobeyed, but every entirely innocent individual who will be born subsequently. This entity also absolves itself of all responsibility for this process. If I took it seriously, which I don't, then my own moral attitude would be that this particular entity is completely lacking in integrity, compassion and understanding. It also seems to show a rather worrying sadistic tendency to boot.

You can keep it. I certainly don't want anything to do with it, thank you.

Well we all have something to do with the alienation that exists in the world and the suffering associated with the decisions people make as compared with the decisions which could have been made.

The question for anybody's version of morality is does it adequately explain what we experience? Does yours and if so can we have it?

In terms of punishment, this is an old testament story. Which kind of ends with an illustration of what humanity makes of the world after Eden is lost. The writers had no conception of eternal punishment

The commandment you talk about is in fact merely the warning not to bring the fallen world about. The world and the people that inhabit it are, if you like, the punishment for the decision to pursue the course.

Can that world ever be ''innocent?'' after a historical choice to pursue ''good and evil''? The implication of any guilty verdict is that an innocent life is notionally feasible but, I think you'll agree practically extremely rare.

Original sin

I also think you are alluding to original sin. This hasn't been a fixed feast in Christianity and there are different conceptions of this.

One to think about is that we are own Adam or Eve. Another I've alluded to is the question can the world ever be innocent after a route of evil has been plotted?  Yet another has Jesus overturning the work of Adam. That is St Paul's line.

As I've said Gods forgiveness, forbearance and compassion is partially expressed in the OT but fully expressed in Jesus.

If Jesus has as Paul said overturned the deed of Adam then IMHO any alienation any evil any rebellion and disobedience that remains must be down to us.

Finally I see how this story could be interpreted a tale of commandments and celestial dictators, but seeing it that way is IMHO a pretext for wrongly turning evil into some kind of heroism. But it is better to see is as a story an allegory of the breach of trust involved. It is the self inflicted human tragedy of wanting it all and doing stuff just because we can......amongst other things.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

That is a matter for the legislative process to decide upon - people can insist on what they like in a parliamentary democracy but they won't necessarily be allowed what they are insisting on without political support. If there is political will to force multi-national corporations to pay more tax, then similarly all you need is political will to withdraw tax breaks, exemptions etc.

Yes I know. I was merely illustrating though areas in which religious privilege in the public square hangs on – legislature, education, the media etc.     

Again, reforms depend on political will and popular support. Can you suggest a better process for reform in a Parliamentary democracy?

See above. I was just demonstrating the fact – whether and how anything should be done about it is a different matter.

Again I can't help decode that NT concept - in Islam there are 99 attributes to Allah and not all of them are beneficent. As I understand it, the Muslim belief is not to hold it against Allah for the bad stuff we experience but to consider them as tests and to assume it could be worse and therefore there is some divine mercy rather than believe that there is indifference or no purpose to it and that Allah is just a sadistic sod.

That’s a different casuistry to explain away the same problem I suppose – a loving god who does nothing about bad things happening to innocent people. Not sure by the way how “things could be worse” for victims of a tsunami or of the Grenfell Tower fire would work. How much worse could things be exactly?   

I suppose it then goes to your idea about experiencing the negative in order to be able to understand abstract concepts. From that idea it is possible to ask whether you need to experience sadness in order to really appreciate or understand the abstract concept of happiness.

I think you do – or at least to have seen the effect on others (which itself is a kind of experience). Otherwise it’d be like explaining the plot of Casablanca to a labrador. 

Also, there are studies that suggest that humans are more motivated by negative incentives than positive ones - so that might be a factor in the religious stories, which some people see as a concept of a god that "sits with arms folded through the bad stuff" but other people argue does not include indifference or inactivity but includes mercy.

What “mercy” do you see for the victims above? I can see that fear can be a motivator (though again, fear of what when you have no concept of the non-good?) but so is reward. That’s why those speed monitors that give you a smiley face when you’re under the limit are so effective – the dopamine kick.     

I'm indifferent. It seems to be working fine for me - I just get on with my day. Whether there was a first cause or purpose or not does not impact on my daily activity.

But you used it to validate an argument. I was just pointing out that “first cause” is logically a busted flush, so that validation fails.

I used the word "idea" in place of "conjecture". Not sure why you think "conjecture" is any better than "idea".

You seemed to be more definite than that, and besides the point was that superstition isn’t a requisite for intellectual capability – pretty much the opposite I’d have thought. What great invention or discovery has ever come out of religious faith?   

I am assuming one of the premises of the story is that they could intellectually understand the concept of wrong.

Which is fine, but only if you do away with the premise of knowing only good. Even then, if they’d never experienced it how much could they be expected to weigh up a “bad” choice against a “good” one when they’d lived the latter but could only imagine (at best) the former?     

I'm not assuming it to be a blanket injunction against following all desires - I think it just flags that some desires may be problematic and to try and figure out which desires to avoid. No easy answer.

Maybe not, but creating an intellectual curious couple, then telling them not to exercise their curiosity for fear of a consequence that at best they could only imagine, then punishing them when they decided to find out for themselves seems like the work of a sadistic authoritarian to me. What would a god who wasn’t deepy insecure bother with any of it?   

Ok - I agree it is worth clarifying what "only good" means to the person using the phrase, but it doesn't seem like it is a key plank of their belief as they seem to be comfortable with the idea of obeying a command from someone you trust without needing to have experienced a negative incentive to motivate you.

The plank is an argument that explains away bad things happening to good people, thereby leaving the “loving god” notion intact.   

That has not been my experience, having moved from atheist to theist, but I can't speak for other theists. I find I think about the morality a lot more than I did before - but that could be age. And I ponder on various people's interpretations of morality in the various religions and what purpose those interpretations seek to serve. I don't find any easy answers in a book - i find lots of things to think about though.

No doubt, but what if your pondering leads you to a moral conclusion that’s contrary to that of a god you think to be morally unimpeachable, and unarguably so since that belief is a matter of “faith”? When someone hasn’t reasoned his way into a belief, he can’t be reasoned out of it – that’s the problem with “holy” books of moral instruction.   
 

See above. I don't think it's a blanket injunction against personal desires. Also, I find genuflecting and contemplation socially useful.

Again no doubt, but you were making a case against pursuing personal desires in general – ie, it was an undifferentiated injunction. I was merely saying that “personal desire” is precisely what drives a great deal of human development.   

Nothing to be gained by repeating your question - I think "wrong" can mean something intellectually to A&E, you think it can't and A&E would have to experience "wrong". We'll agree to disagree on that point in the story.

Either experience it direct or experience other people experiencing it in order to empathise, yes. Otherwise while it might be intellectually diverting conceptually it’s also a big “so what?”.

Whence then a balanced choice? 

I thought he was just explaining his belief rather than trying to establish anything - there is no evidence for any part of this story in order to establish anything.

He never tries to establish something – he just asserts it to be so. The point though was then when using words like “know” (“know they walk with god” etc) people who write this sort of thing overreach. “Believe” is fine, but they have all their work ahead of them to demonstrate knowledge. 

[Walter]

Blue , why the fuck do you bother ? no, really!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Blue , why the fuck do you bother ? no, really!

Don't Kid yourself on Son......He bloody loves it!!!   That's why he bothers and I guess you do to.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Incoherentist,

Well we all have something to do with the alienation that exists in the world and the suffering associated with the decisions people make as compared with the decisions which could have been made.

The question for anybody's version of morality is does it adequately explain what we experience? Does yours and if so can we have it?

In terms of punishment, this is an old testament story. Which kind of ends with an illustration of what humanity makes of the world after Eden is lost. The writers had no conception of eternal punishment

The commandment you talk about is in fact merely the warning not to bring the fallen world about. The world and the people that inhabit it are, if you like, the punishment for the decision to pursue the course.

Can that world ever be ''innocent?'' after a historical choice to pursue ''good and evil''? The implication of any guilty verdict is that an innocent life is notionally feasible but, I think you'll agree practically extremely rare.

Original sin

I also think you are alluding to original sin. This hasn't been a fixed feast in Christianity and there are different conceptions of this.

One to think about is that we are own Adam or Eve. Another I've alluded to is the question can the world ever be innocent after a route of evil has been plotted?  Yet another has Jesus overturning the work of Adam. That is St Paul's line.

As I've said Gods forgiveness, forbearance and compassion is partially expressed in the OT but fully expressed in Jesus.

If Jesus has as Paul said overturned the deed of Adam then IMHO any alienation any evil any rebellion and disobedience that remains must be down to us.

Finally I see how this story could be interpreted a tale of commandments and celestial dictators, but seeing it that way is IMHO a pretext for wrongly turning evil into some kind of heroism. But it is better to see is as a story an allegory of the breach of trust involved. It is the self inflicted human tragedy of wanting it all and doing stuff just because we can......amongst other things.

Nope...no idea. Possibly some sort of code? If you read every third letter a meaning will emerge or something?

Anyways, do you have anything to say about morality that isn't an argumentum ad consequentiam?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Incoherentist,

Nope...no idea. Possibly some sort of code? If you read every third letter a meaning will emerge or something?

Anyways, do you have anything to say about morality that isn't an argumentum ad consequentiam?

Does a moral irrealist have anything to say about morality?.............................Apart from it isn't real?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Incoherentist,

Nope...no idea. Possibly some sort of code? If you read every third letter a meaning will emerge or something?

Anyways, do you have anything to say about morality that isn't an argumentum ad consequentiam?

So you agree there are consequences then? That's a start.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Incoherentist,

Nope...no idea. Possibly some sort of code? If you read every third letter a meaning will emerge or something?

Anyways, do you have anything to say about morality that isn't an argumentum ad consequentiam?

What have you got?        Ha Ha Ha

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

BHS

Gabriella,

Yes I know. I was merely illustrating though areas in which religious privilege in the public square hangs on – legislature, education, the media etc.     

See above. I was just demonstrating the fact – whether and how anything should be done about it is a different matter.

Yes I agree it's a fact that religious privilege exists but if if it exists due to public political will , then presumably it is not a problem for all its supporters and when they become in the minority the privilege will presumably be withdrawn. In that case I don't see it as being any more problematic or different to any other privilege such as the monarchy or charity status for private schools or lenient sentences for women with children who are convicted of a crime.

That’s a different casuistry to explain away the same problem I suppose – a loving god who does nothing about bad things happening to innocent people. Not sure by the way how “things could be worse” for victims of a tsunami or of the Grenfell Tower fire would work. How much worse could things be exactly?

I think the explanation of patience is for those who are alive and it would extend to not just what could be worse for the individual but what could be worse for their loved ones. Also I am not sure what you mean by a loving god - I don't think feeling constantly loved features heavily in Muslim thought if that's what you meant by a loving god, so that part is one for the Christians to respond to.

I think you do – or at least to have seen the effect on others (which itself is a kind of experience). Otherwise it’d be like explaining the plot of Casablanca to a labrador.

That comparison doesn't really work - the story does not indicate that A&E only have the intellectual capabilities of a labrador. As I said, this is impossible to test so we're both just guessing.

What “mercy” do you see for the victims above?

I can't answer that as it's their story, not mine. I would have to experience something myself and then see if I could find any mercy in it. The Muslim standard response to adversity is that it is a test - I don't think we really try and tell people that they experienced mercy - we tend to remind ourselves that life and death are unpredictable.

But you used it to validate an argument. I was just pointing out that “first cause” is logically a busted flush, so that validation fails.

I am not aware of using it to validate an argument - I thought i was explaining a story and that one of the premises of the story and of Muslim belief is the idea of a first cause/ creator.

besides the point was that superstition isn’t a requisite for intellectual capability – pretty much the opposite I’d have thought. What great invention or discovery has ever come out of religious faith?

I wasn't trying to argue that superstition was a requisite for intellectual capability. I was trying to say that that as we have intellectually capability we are capable of discussing/ pondering abstract ideas such as whether there is a purpose to our existence and explore abstract superstitious ideas.   

Maybe not, but creating an intellectual curious couple, then telling them not to exercise their curiosity for fear of a consequence that at best they could only imagine, then punishing them when they decided to find out for themselves seems like the work of a sadistic authoritarian to me. What would a god who wasn’t deepy insecure bother with any of it?

    We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think that just because someone has a capability, it is unfair to expect them to undertake not to exercise that capability.

I think we just have different ideas on how fair and unfair it is to expect A&E to exercise self-control and there is no objective line to take for this.

No doubt, but what if your pondering leads you to a moral conclusion that’s contrary to that of a god you think to be morally unimpeachable, and unarguably so since that belief is a matter of “faith”? When someone hasn’t reasoned his way into a belief, he can’t be reasoned out of it – that’s the problem with “holy” books of moral instruction.

Not sure how that situation can come up - I don't know what god's moral conclusion is in any given situation - I might think the conclusion I came up with is close to the morals I interpret from the religion, but it's still only my best guess based on my interpretation of the words, stories and contexts. Or I might think that it is contrary to my best guess of god's moral conclusion - in which case,  like A&E I might follow my own conclusions or I may not or I may do nothing and think about it some more - it would really depend on how serious I thought the consequences of my choices would be.
 

Again no doubt, but you were making a case against pursuing personal desires in general – ie, it was an undifferentiated injunction. I was merely saying that “personal desire” is precisely what drives a great deal of human development.

No, I agree with you - I am not making a case against pursuing personal desires in general.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Redefinitonist,

Does a moral irrealist have anything to say about morality?.............................Apart from it isn't real?

Moral irrealism does not posit morality being not "real" - just not independent of mind.

When you don't understand the terms you attempt (which is often) you can't expect to be able to discuss them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Redefinitonist,

Moral irrealism does not entail morality being not "real" - just not independent of mind.

When you don't understand the terms you attempt (which is often) you can't expect to be able to discuss them.

Is that the free floating mind in which to quote the Beatles ''Nothing is real'' or the evolved neural assembly generating the unreal, or the unreality that notionally cannot exist in a physicalist model of reality?

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Redefinitonist,

Moral irrealism does not posit morality being not "real" -

So morality is real then?

Moral irreality really is a non starter isn't it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Is that the free floating mind in which to quote the Beatles ''Nothing is real'' or the evolved neural assembly generating the unreal, or the unreality that notionally cannot exist in a physicalist model of reality?

There are various online resources that will give you the meaning of the term “mind”. You should try them.

So morality is real then?

Of course it’s “real”, just as aesthetcis and language are “real”.

Moral irreality really is a non starter isn't it?

No. You just don’t understand the term is all. Try looking it up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course it’s “real”, just as aesthetcis and language are “real”.

Which tidily brings us back to a couple of Hillside on morality tropes.

Morality is just a question of taste.

Morality is just behaviour arbitrarily labelled Good or Bad (see. Hillside on Matricide)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Redefinitonist,

Moral irrealism does not posit morality being not "real" - just not independent of mind.

Oh dear,

I fear talk of ''illusion'' can't be far away.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Mendacious,

Which tidily brings us back to a couple of Hillside on morality tropes.

Morality is just a question of taste.

Why do you think your lying here is acceptable?

Morality is just behaviour arbitrarily labelled Good or Bad (see. Hillside on Matricide)

See above. Who said anything about “arbitrarily”?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Confusionist,

Oh dear,

I fear talk of ''illusion'' can't be far away.

So you still haven't looked it up then.

Why not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Mendacious,

Why do you think your lying here is acceptable?

I recall many happy discussions with you where morality and liking or hating marmite were mentioned. Don't you remember those halcyon days.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrelevantist,

I recall many happy discussions with you where morality and liking or hating marmite were mentioned. Don't you remember those halcyon days.

Bother to look up the meanings of the terms you attempt and don't lie about them afterwards and there'll be something to talk about. Until then though, you're on your own.

[ippy]

Blue , why the fuck do you bother ? no, really!

I would imagine that Blue would be in a similar position to most Secular humanists insomuch as when we've managed to rid ourselves of all the privileges, (specifically the privileges), the various religions have, then we can ignore all of the present day superstition based religions, consign them to the bin of history and ignore them in an exactly similar to the way we ignore Thor, Zeus, Minerva Mercury etc and once we've done that we really can forget having to bother with special favours for any of them any more.

I think that the above might be a part of why Blue bothers Walter.

ippy

[ippy]

I recall many happy discussions with you where morality and liking or hating marmite were mentioned. Don't you remember those halcyon days.

Italian?

ippy