Secular Morality?

[JimL]

Jim your objection is immaterial to the point. If Christianity or Islam is true it is not simply something that exists inside the mind. Of course, in reality, everything we know, in one sense only exists inside our particular minds.

If religious beliefs are true then those beliefs have a reality of their own outside of the mind, but since there is no empirical evidence of religious claims, then as far as you know they exist only as ideas in your mind. Everything we know does not exist only inside of our particular minds, if there were no external reality, then there would be no internal reality, no minds with which to observe it. Besides that, if everything existed only in our particular minds, if there were no external reality, then we wouldn't all have the same imagined observations of the same environment. The reason that we both agree on what a tree is, is because it exists externally as well its image or idea exists internally. You can't say that when it comes to the claimed existence of immaterial things such as the claimed existence of souls or Gods.

Again Jim, why is your limited understanding or experience the standard for what is real or possible? The soul by it very nature would not be something that could be empirically shown since it is not material. That fact however does not disprove it.

Well of course the claim of the the existence of the immaterial can not be disproved, but as I said before, it is not my job to disprove your claim, it is your job to prove it, otherwise you give me no "reason" to believe it. Now of course people can believe that their imaginations have a reality of their own if they are so inclined, but they can't show to others that what they believe to be real is anything other than their imaginings.

Nonsense Jim, your rationality is just as much an illusion as your freedom of the will. How could it logically be any other way? Your whole mental structure was created by the laws of nature and predetermined - and these laws are not rational.

Rationality of the will can be measured, freedom of the will can not. Freedom of the will is defining the nature of the will itself, rationality is not a defining the nature of the will, it is describing the wills comportment or lack thereof with the particulars of the external reality.

It is like saying that a tornado cobbled together a working calculator after blowing through a junk yard. The fact that you act as if you are rational and can even process empirical evidence just again shows that you do secretly believe in freedom of thought. Therefore the human soul.

We don't act as if we are rational, rationality is just a description of our particular state of mind, our minds either comport with the particulars of the external reality or they don't. To believe that one can walk on water is a description of a mind that is in an irrational state because it doesn't comport with the external physical reality.

[seer]

If religious beliefs are true then those beliefs have a reality of their own outside of the mind, but since there is no empirical evidence of religious claims, then as far as you know they exist only as ideas in your mind.

Well no Jim, there historical accounts of these encounters.

Everything we know does not exist only inside of our particular minds, if there were no external reality, then there would be no internal reality, no minds with which to observe it. Besides that, if everything existed only in our particular minds, if there were no external reality, then we wouldn't all have the same imagined observations of the same environment.

No Jim, your experience of the world only exists in your mind, that is all you have - nothing but personal experience. Put a bullet in your brain and the external world no longer exists - for you. And Jim you can not prove deductively or empirically that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality without begging the question which is irrational.

The reason that we both agree on what a tree is, is because it exists externally as well its image or idea exists internally. You can't say that when it comes to the claimed existence of immaterial things such as the claimed existence of souls or Gods.

Really Jim, when I look at green leaves how do you know what color I actually see?

Well of course the claim of the the existence of the immaterial can not be disproved, but as I said before, it is not my job to disprove your claim, it is your job to prove it, otherwise you give me no "reason" to believe it. Now of course people can believe that their imaginations have a reality of their own if they are so inclined, but they can't show to others that what they believe to be real is anything other than their imaginings.

No Jim, I asked why should your limited understanding or knowledge be the standard for what is real or possible?

Rationality of the will can be measured, freedom of the will can not. Freedom of the will is defining the nature of the will itself, rationality is not a defining the nature of the will, it is describing the wills comportment or lack thereof with the particulars of the external reality.

And that is the point Jim, the only reason that we can think and act rationality is because we have freedom of thought. Tell me Jim, how can rationality exist in a world where all your thoughts are predetermined by the laws of nature, laws which themselves are NOT RATIONAL. If the very laws of nature that predetermined and created our minds were not rational, then where did rationality enter in? What made us rational?

[firstfloor]

Nature forces rational behaviour and thought. We have freedom of imagination but our beliefs are restricted by nature’s laws. That is why gods are invisible. Nature abhors a god like it abhors a vacuum.

[Truthseeker]

Seer, I am not sure what you mean by rationality, especially when you say that the laws of nature are not rational.

[shunyadragon]

Seer, I am not sure what you mean by rationality, especially when you say that the laws of nature are not rational.

The Laws of Nature exist independently of our rationality. In science we develop Laws of Nature that are rational approximations of the Laws that ultimately determine the nature of our physical existence.

[JimL]

Well no Jim, there historical accounts of these encounters.

There are historical accounts of many things that are false. You for instance do not believe in the truth of the so called historical accounts of the Koran.

No Jim, your experience of the world only exists in your mind, that is all you have - nothing but personal experience. Put a bullet in your brain and the external world no longer exists - for you.

Put a bullet in my brain and I would no longer exist, but the external world would continue to exist. The world goes on even though billions of once existing individuals no longer exist.

And Jim you can not prove deductively or empirically that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality without begging the question which is irrational.

Sure I can, there is a consensus of normal minds that are all in agreement with the nature of the external world of their empirical observations.

Really Jim, when I look at green leaves how do you know what color I actually see?

No I don't, but I know that what you see is the same "thing" that I see regardless of whether its color is percieved differently.

No Jim, I asked why should your limited understanding or knowledge be the standard for what is real or possible?

It isn't, empirical evidence isn't mine, but it is up to you to prove the reality of your non-empirical claims.

And that is the point Jim, the only reason that we can think and act rationality is because we have freedom of thought. Tell me Jim, how can rationality exist in a world where all your thoughts are predetermined by the laws of nature, laws which themselves are NOT RATIONAL. If the very laws of nature that predetermined and created our minds were not rational, then where did rationality enter in? What made us rational?

Laws are neither rational nor irrational, they are laws, and rational and irrational are just terms defining the minds comportment with the external reality established by those laws. Being in harmony or not being in harmony with reality, and acting accordingly, doesn't require freedom of thought.

[seer]

Seer, I am not sure what you mean by rationality, especially when you say that the laws of nature are not rational.

"Endowed with the capacity to reason" or to judge or evaluate or think.

[JimL]

"Endowed with the capacity to reason" or to judge or evaluate or think.

Nobody is questioning whether or not the mind has the capacity to do these things, the question is whether or not these actions are free. Physical law as we know it says no.

[seer]

Nobody is questioning whether or not the mind has the capacity to do these things, the question is whether or not these actions are free. Physical law as we know it says no.

No Jim, the question is can non rational forces create rational minds. In other words, why should we believe that non rational forces of nature could create reliable, rational abilities. And without freedom of thought then what exactly is rational in this picture? Not us, because we are predetermined to think as we do by the laws of nature. But the law of nature themselves are decidedly not rational. So what is left?

[Truthseeker]

No Jim, the question is can non rational forces create rational minds. In other words, why should we believe that non rational forces of nature could create reliable, rational abilities. And without freedom of thought then what exactly is rational in this picture? Not us, because we are predetermined to think as we do by the laws of nature. But the law of nature themselves are decidedly not rational. So what is left?

Ah, I think I understand. Most of the universe does not have the ability to judge, reason, infer, evaluate, think.

Perhaps for most of the universe's "life," there were no sentient beings. Then, suddenly Adam and Eve, and Satan. Miracle? Would JimL and Tassman care to show how Adam and Eve came into being as sentient beings?

[JimL]

No Jim, the question is can non rational forces create rational minds. In other words, why should we believe that non rational forces of nature could create reliable, rational abilities. And without freedom of thought then what exactly is rational in this picture? Not us, because we are predetermined to think as we do by the laws of nature. But the law of nature themselves are decidedly not rational. So what is left?

Yes, minds are an emergent property of the non rational forces of nature, and the reason you should believe that is because that is what is observed through billions of years of evolution. Your problem is in the assumption that determined minds can not be rational minds. You assume that your thoughts need be free in order for them to be rational. But if your thoughts are rational, if they comport with reality, it makes no difference whether they are free thoughts or determined thoughts, they are rational thoughts strictly based on the fact that they comport with the reality of the world they find themselves in.

[JimL]

Ah, I think I understand. Most of the universe does not have the ability to judge, reason, infer, evaluate, think.

Perhaps for most of the universe's "life," there were no sentient beings. Then, suddenly Adam and Eve, and Satan. Miracle? Would JimL and Tassman care to show how Adam and Eve came into being as sentient beings?

Human beings evolved like everything else in the universe, including the universe itself. At one time there were no stars, no planets, no galaxies, at one time the universe was nothing but a hot dense ball of gas, but through the determined laws of physics the universe evolved and these things came into being within it, and through them life came into being, and through life sentience came into being.

[Tassman]

Tass, it is not a childish insult. If determinism is true

Determinism is the view that every event is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs and this includes human decisions and actions. Why is this not true?

then your rantings are no more meaningful than the grunts of an ape. An ape has no control over what he thinks or spits out and neither do you.

But you know this not true. Again: in a determined universe we have the illusion of free-will, rather than actual free-will. The same applies to a chimpanzee choosing a banana from a tree. We and our fellow creatures think we have control over what we believe and do - we make choices and act accordingly. This is all that can be said with certainty. If you dispute this you must support your belief with substantive evidence. Otherwise why would anyone believe you?

[Tassman]

No Jim, God exists outside of the mind

and can be known.

That is the story of Scripture, God communicating with man. Person to person, like any other inter personal relationship

Really? There is no such thing as a soul? Can you prove that?

Can you prove that the celestial teapot doesn't exist? Does that mean it does?

If an immaterial soul exists how does it connect with the material body?

Then human rationality, your rationality, is also an illusion if determinism is true (for the reasons I already explained). Are you willing to admit that your rationality is an illusion Jim?

[Tassman]

Ah, I think I understand. Most of the universe does not have the ability to judge, reason, infer, evaluate, think.

Perhaps for most of the universe's "life," there were no sentient beings. Then, suddenly Adam and Eve, and Satan. Miracle? Would JimL and Tassman care to show how Adam and Eve came into being as sentient beings?

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957...f-adam-and-eve

To preach a literal Adam and Eve is to knowingly and wantonly promote ignorance.