If There Is No God

[David Sklansky]

"You make no mention of pity. Unlike animals, human being have developed the capacity to take pity on other living things. This is neither pleasure nor disgust.

I think you're ok if you substitute "pain" for "disgust". I am of the belief that ALL motivation is derived either from the desire to gain some sort of pleasure, or the need to avoid some type of pain. Either real or perceived."

Cmon guys. Why do you do this stuff to me? Obviously the word "disgust" was used simply as a placeholder for any emotion that evolved, had survival benefits, and was apt to reduce murders. Pain, pity, empathy, even love.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"You make no mention of pity. Unlike animals, human being have developed the capacity to take pity on other living things. This is neither pleasure nor disgust.

I think you're ok if you substitute "pain" for "disgust". I am of the belief that ALL motivation is derived either from the desire to gain some sort of pleasure, or the need to avoid some type of pain. Either real or perceived."

Cmon guys. Why do you do this stuff to me? Obviously the word "disgust" was used simply as a placeholder for any emotion that evolved, had survival benefits, and was apt to reduce murders. Pain, pity, empathy, even love.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a reason, its not just to annoy you [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I understand your view to be that:

Desires (non-moral) are sometimes turned down for reasons (moral).

That's just plain wrong imo, for the reasons I've already given.

Maybe its not what you meant. Go on, I know you're just dieing to explain what you really meant.


chez

[Peter666]

I think the number of suicides compared to the number of people suffering gravely for a period of time is disproportionate. If a person was convinced there was no God, surely the reasonable thing to do would be to kill himself in time of grave suffering.

Anyone espousing any religion can kill themselves, but only an Atheist a good reason to do so.

As for higher powers, surely the fact that so much is unexplained would lead one to believe that there is something out there worth knowing, even if it is just static electricity. The man who thinks he is the centre of the Universe and the whole meaning of his life was the attainment of temporary pleasure and avoiding temporary pain is unnatural. The consequences of mortality convinces him of that.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]

As for higher powers, surely the fact that so much is unexplained would lead one to believe that there is something out there worth knowing, even if it is just static electricity. The man who thinks he is the centre of the Universe and the whole meaning of his life was the attainment of temporary pleasure and avoiding temporary pain is unnatural. The consequences of mortality convinces him of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this address the point I made? You stated the argument that it is reasonable to believe in a higher power since you cannot explain how you came to exist. I made an analogous argument by pointing out that not so long ago men ascribed the existence of lightning to a higher power, yet we came to learn that we could indeed understand where lighting came from.

Point being, leave the book open as it is quite possible that man will be able to explain his own existence in the future if we continue to search. Your position appears to be to close the book now as it is clear that a higher power created us, just as a higher power created lightning in previous times.

[andyfox]

"Or there is God. An unlikely but not out of the question alternative."

Why is it either/or? I don't understand why your first two paragraphs cannot be true even if there is a god.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Cmon guys. Why do you do this stuff to me? Obviously the word "disgust" was used simply as a placeholder for any emotion that evolved, had survival benefits, and was apt to reduce murders. Pain, pity, empathy, even love.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, the word was a placeholder.

With the above statement, though, you define the origins of, and limit the listed emotions. I'm not convinced that that is ALL there is to those emotions. Nor am I fully convinced that survival benefits/evolution are the ONLY reason we have those emotions in the first place. And even if survival benefits/evolution are the only reason for the initial origins of those emotions, it does not follow that developed humans must have those emotions only in such limited original capacity--put another way, the capacity for empathy can grow in some humans, and develop into more than it was originally.

Also, empathy can be more than merely an emotion--it can also be an intellectual awareness that others have feelings just like you do. That being the case it would seem best to not frivolously cause pain or harm to others--even if there would be no repercussions to one's self.

In some (relatively few) humans this capacity for empathy grows to such an extent that the entire world seems an extension of one's self, or in the phrasing of a Zen practitioner, "...from that time on, whenever I looked at something, it seemed as if I were looking at a reflection of my own face." Ths may tie in with a feeling or the awareness of inseparability from the world and the universe, and that the notion of individuality is but a brief and limited perspective. And considering that we in fact do "come from" the universe, and eventually "return to" the universe, this very well might be a valid perspective supported by reality.

The human infant's worldview, once it starts to develop, is entirely "I"-centered. As most humans mature, they increasingly gain an appreciation that the world does not revolve around themselves, and that others' feelings matter too. This may not entirely be due to survival/evolutionary reasons; it may also be that humans develop an awareness in that direction because it actually reflects a truth of existence and the universe. Nobody exists externally from the universe, so an awareness of this greater and encompassing set (as in set theory) may actually support empathy as being part of an accurate reflection of reality.

I'm not taking a firm stance that these things are so; rather, I'm leery of limiting things too much. So I'm not too keen on hastily and narrowly defining the origins or current form or purposes of emotions such as empathy.

[David Sklansky]

"Or there is God. An unlikely but not out of the question alternative."

Why is it either/or? I don't understand why your first two paragraphs cannot be true even if there is a god."

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. My statement does not preclude this possibility. Me and Not Ready say that if there are absolute morals then there must be a God. We don't say that if there is a God there must be absolute morals. Although I think I make that third possibility a lot more likely than he does.

[Peter666]

Why would a man care for the answer of why he exists if he believes that after death it will be turned into nothingess?

People can discover whatever they will in the future, but that does not change the final scenario that death presents.

Why does a man want to continue to live even in the state of grave pain if death can take it all away and will eventually happen anyway, perhaps at a worse time?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does a man want to continue to live even in the state of grave pain if death can take it all away and will eventually happen anyway, perhaps at a worse time?


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps bcause he feels he might have some works yet to do; or for learning; or to make things better for others.

[Peter666]

I believe those feelings are obliterated when a person is in great pain. In fact, in that situation, people can't stop thinking about themselves! All they want is the pain to end.