Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

God is the name of personification of perfect goodness.

Religions are man's attempts at getting people to be good, or at least obey the rules.

Sorry, but the very opposite is true as recorded in history.

Obeying rules is separate from goodness and badness, as you pointed out. But it is not inherently the opposite of good.

The point at which obeying rules is the opposite of good is the same as the point at which one prostitutes one's moral honesty to emotionalism, nationalism, laziness, apathy, pleasures, and greed.

The trouble isn't in the rule following, it is with how you treat those who don't believe in your rules.

[Belindi]

Sorry, but the very opposite is true as recorded in history.

Obeying rules is separate from goodness and badness, as you pointed out. But it is not inherently the opposite of good.

The point at which obeying rules is the opposite of good is the same as the point at which one prostitutes one's moral honesty to emotionalism, nationalism, laziness, apathy, pleasures, and greed.

The trouble isn't in the rule following, it is with how you treat those who don't believe in your rules.

But if the rules are cruel you will treat people cruelly if you obey the rules.

[LuckyR]

Obeying rules is separate from goodness and badness, as you pointed out. But it is not inherently the opposite of good.

The point at which obeying rules is the opposite of good is the same as the point at which one prostitutes one's moral honesty to emotionalism, nationalism, laziness, apathy, pleasures, and greed.

The trouble isn't in the rule following, it is with how you treat those who don't believe in your rules.

But if the rules are cruel you will treat people cruelly if you obey the rules.

True enough, but my above issue is a concern, independent of the quality of the rules.

[Tegularius]

Logic itself is incapable of reaching any valid conclusions; it's simply impossible for it as a discipline to penetrate beyond its parameters to make god verifiable.

How do you know this? Because it has not yet been accomplished, does it mean that it cannot be accomplished?

How is it possible for logic ever to validate the existence or non-existence of god and how many times has it been tried without purposely preconceiving its premises to create the wished-for conclusion? Without fact or an enhanced probability supplying actual conditions, logic has nothing to work with. The only thing it can do is remain totally silent on the matter. What's known for certain is that no god ever showed up and science does not require any such entity as an explanation. God remains a perennial philosophical To be or not To be question.

Psychologically and by extension philosophically the god concept can never by wholly uprooted from the human psyche. But we also know that the interior world of the psyche often corresponds very badly with the external world of reality.

I wouldn't argue that you're wrong in saying this. But I cannot bring myself to claim that every reported religious experience that has ever been reported, is purely in the minds of people.

I wouldn't mind being informed as to where else such an experience could reveal itself.

[Fellowmater]

God determines everything that has happened or will ever happen. So that men could choose to obey God, or not as the case may be, God gave men Free Will by special dispensation so that men apart from all other created things could choose to obey God and not have to act from necessity like plants and cows and things.

[Belindi]

The point at which obeying rules is the opposite of good is the same as the point at which one prostitutes one's moral honesty to emotionalism, nationalism, laziness, apathy, pleasures, and greed.

The trouble isn't in the rule following, it is with how you treat those who don't believe in your rules.

But if the rules are cruel you will treat people cruelly if you obey the rules.

True enough, but my above issue is a concern, independent of the quality of the rules.

If the cause of cruel behaviour lies with individuals I blame them. If the cause is ideologies I blame the ideologies.

[Fanman]

Tegularius,

How is it possible for logic ever to validate the existence or non-existence of god and how many times has it been tried without purposely preconceiving its premises to create the wished-for conclusion? Without fact or an enhanced probability supplying actual conditions, logic has nothing to work with. The only thing it can do is remain totally silent on the matter. What's known for certain is that no god ever showed up and science does not require any such entity as an explanation. God remains a perennial philosophical To be or not To be question.

You are correct in what you say. And you make things very clear. What I have to say about God or a creator (not necessarily an anthropomorphic entity), even though it is speculative, is that without the whole truth on the table, how can we make a logical conclusion? In the sense that – the universe is massive. And that is just on a macro scale. There is also the microscale to consider. We cannot draw absolute conclusions about the existence of God, given our limited purview. Logic is an excellent tool, but its effectiveness is based; upon information and knowledge - making definite logical conclusions regarding universal scale - requires universal knowledge. I think you pretty much said the same thing regarding logic. Science doesn't need God, but it doesn't preclude it either. Science has progressively made the concept of God not meaningful. But religions are so interwoven into cultures that they may never disappear.

I wouldn't mind being informed as to where else such an experience could reveal itself.

I see your point. The experiences took place in people’s minds. What I mean is that they could have been genuine. Their minds were the platform. Their experiences were not necessarily imaginary.

[Belindi]

The trouble isn't in the rule following, it is with how you treat those who don't believe in your rules.

But if the rules are cruel you will treat people cruelly if you obey the rules.

True enough, but my above issue is a concern, independent of the quality of the rules.

If the cause of cruel behaviour lies with individuals I blame them. If the cause is ideologies I blame the ideologies.

To be practical and to try to control crime we have to blame individuals, and the more knowledgeable we are the more we make excuses for individuals behaving badly. If we were all-knowing like God we would not blame anyone as we'd know what causes anyone to be bad.There are always causes for evil. Free Will is a legal and religiously legitimated means to social control, of apportioning blame so people can be punished, restrained, blamed, or forced to change their behaviour.

On the other hand praising people for good behaviour is fair because as means of social control praise for good behaviour harms nobody.

[LuckyR]

In philosophical discussions it is common to banter about the relative value of individual freedom and societal cooperation, though many of these discussion points are not born out in real life.

[Belindi]

In philosophical discussions it is common to banter about the relative value of individual freedom and societal cooperation, though many of these discussion points are not born out in real life.

Yes I agree, but individual freedom is not the same as the Doctrine of Free Will.

[LuckyR]

In philosophical discussions it is common to banter about the relative value of individual freedom and societal cooperation, though many of these discussion points are not born out in real life.

Yes I agree, but individual freedom is not the same as the Doctrine of Free Will.

Very true, though the preceding post referenced: "Free Will is a legal and religiously legitimated means to social control". (not my definition).

[Belindi]

In philosophical discussions it is common to banter about the relative value of individual freedom and societal cooperation, though many of these discussion points are not born out in real life.

Yes I agree, but individual freedom is not the same as the Doctrine of Free Will.

Very true, though the preceding post referenced: "Free Will is a legal and religiously legitimated means to social control". (not my definition).

Whatever original religious thinkers intended, the Doctrine of Free Will has the effect of legitimating a punitive moral code. I am not nearly expert enough to include a critique of theories of Free Will among learned theologians.

[Sy Borg]

In philosophical discussions it is common to banter about the relative value of individual freedom and societal cooperation, though many of these discussion points are not born out in real life.

Yes I agree, but individual freedom is not the same as the Doctrine of Free Will.

Very true, though the preceding post referenced: "Free Will is a legal and religiously legitimated means to social control". (not my definition).

Whatever original religious thinkers intended, the Doctrine of Free Will has the effect of legitimating a punitive moral code. I am not nearly expert enough to include a critique of theories of Free Will among learned theologians.

Yes, the Inquisition was not big on mitigating circumstances. They seemed to have forgotten most of the lessons provided by ancient Romans and Greeks in much the same way as their missionaries ignored the knowledge of indigenous peoples, whose beliefs they co-opted with gifts and displays of technological empowerment. It's ironic that technological prowess was used to impress and convert tribal peoples back then, but now the findings of science are largely rejected by many modern evangelical Christians.

If God is all-knowing, then Its mind must be fragmented. There are countless islands of knowledge that are obviously not connected, at least at this time, 14 billion years into the universe's projected trillion-year star-producing life.

People are in a hurry for God to exist because life so often sucks, so respite from the torments with a posthumous reward is naturally an enticing thought. But perhaps it's not our own death that brings us closer to God, but the death of our species and culture in much the same way as we are bringing about the death of other species?

These large dynamics flow on, in which we are just passengers exerting our tiny wills over the limited areas of our lives that are not coerced by larger environmental and social factors.

[Sculptor1]

In philosophical discussions it is common to banter about the relative value of individual freedom and societal cooperation, though many of these discussion points are not born out in real life.

Yes I agree, but individual freedom is not the same as the Doctrine of Free Will.

Very true, though the preceding post referenced: "Free Will is a legal and religiously legitimated means to social control". (not my definition).

Whatever original religious thinkers intended, the Doctrine of Free Will has the effect of legitimating a punitive moral code. I am not nearly expert enough to include a critique of theories of Free Will among learned theologians.

The Doctrine of Determinism legitimises a far better punitive moral system, since determinism recognises the cause and effect of crime, and the cause and effects of rehabilitation.
On the other hand if we can ignore deterministic effects and act willfully despite determinism then that means puitive measures such as deterence, and effective measures such as imprisonment and reform is null and void.
If people have ultimate free will then the only penal system that works is capital punishment.

[Belindi]

Yes I agree, but individual freedom is not the same as the Doctrine of Free Will.

Very true, though the preceding post referenced: "Free Will is a legal and religiously legitimated means to social control". (not my definition).

Whatever original religious thinkers intended, the Doctrine of Free Will has the effect of legitimating a punitive moral code. I am not nearly expert enough to include a critique of theories of Free Will among learned theologians.

The Doctrine of Determinism legitimises a far better punitive moral system, since determinism recognises the cause and effect of crime, and the cause and effects of rehabilitation.
On the other hand if we can ignore deterministic effects and act willfully despite determinism then that means puitive measures such as deterence, and effective measures such as imprisonment and reform is null and void.
If people have ultimate free will then the only penal system that works is capital punishment.

There is no "Doctrine of Determinism". I agree about determinism which is expressed by Jesus on the Cross when he said of the Roman soldiers

And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. 34Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. 35And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God. 36And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, 37And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself. 38And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Matthew.

This from Jesus departs from the much older punitive tradition expressed in the earlier OT regarding Jahweh the tribal deity. Obviously Jesus considers peoples' intentions and makes it possible to actually feel forgiveness.