Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know if anyone looked at the other video of Sam Harris that I posted, but if not, you might at least try this one. It's funny (as you might expect from Comedy Central) but it also hits some of the main points that I've been trying to make.
I'd still like to hear someone directly address the points that Sam Harris is making. Here is a link:
I think I need to find a deeper ontological basis for objective morality, but I'm not sure how to proceed from here.
You need to abandon the absurd notion that our existence is an accident without purpose . . . otherwise you are simply "flatulating in the wind." Accidents have no purpose and no objective basis for anything they do. You and your mentor Sam Harris do not fundamentally believe (not a choice) that we are accidents . . . or it would not trouble you not to have a morality. Certain acts and actions are intrinsically abhorrent to your inner sense of morality that comes from an awareness that there is value and purpose to human existence . . . despite your protestations to the contrary . . and your attempts to cobble up some pseudo-objective basis for it.
I'm not sure that I've ever claimed that our existence is an "accident," but I might accept it in the following sense: On your view of God, is God's existence an "accident"? However would you address the ontological basis of God's existence? However you do it, I would apply that same basis to existence itself. So, if God does not need a creator in order to exist, then existence itself does not need a creator in order to exist. If God is simply eternal, then existence can simply be eternal. And so on.
I would say this: If there is a God, then God must be an existentialist. God can find no higher meaning or purpose for Its own existence. I'm happy to call the ultimate principle of existence "God" if you want (tho I would prefer "Goddess" for assorted reasons I won't bother to explain here). What I don't see is why this principle of existence has to be understood as any sort of personal intelligence who designs/creates the physical universe. I'd say it's just as logically sound to think of the Ultimate Principle of Existence as Self-Creating, and what I'm suggesting is that we may already have the basic tools for investigating the nature of essentially self-creating systems. We don't need any sort of pre-existing designer/creator in order to do this.
I'm not sure that I've ever claimed that our existence is an "accident," but I might accept it in the following sense: On your view of God, is God's existence an "accident"? However would you address the ontological basis of God's existence? However you do it, I would apply that same basis to existence itself. So, if God does not need a creator in order to exist, then existence itself does not need a creator in order to exist. If God is simply eternal, then existence can simply be eternal. And so on.
Those are interesting issues that we could debate separately . . . but they are not the central issue of a purposive existence. Purpose can only exist within sentience . . . so if there is no sentience behind our existence itself . . . there is no purpose and no basis for distinguishing among behaviors. I find it completely untenable that we (our puny species in a puny solar system in a remote arm of our puny galaxy, etc.etc.) are the only inheritors (or perhaps one of several) of a cosmic fluke of sentience in a completely non-sentient universe.
Quote:
I would say this: If there is a God, then God must be an existentialist. God can find no higher meaning or purpose for Its own existence. I'm happy to call the ultimate principle of existence "God" if you want (tho I would prefer "Goddess" for assorted reasons I won't bother to explain here). What I don't see is why this principle of existence has to be understood as any sort of personal intelligence who designs/creates the physical universe. I'd say it's just as logically sound to think of the Ultimate Principle of Existence as Self-Creating, and what I'm suggesting is that we may already have the basic tools for investigating the nature of essentially self-creating systems. We don't need any sort of pre-existing designer/creator in order to do this.
More of your euphemistic "self-creating" nonsense. Simple procreation of the consciousness (sentience) that establishes the universal field in which our reality manifests is sufficient purpose for our existence . . . without any need to visit any of the "turtles all the way down" nonsense.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 10-05-2010 at 01:05 PM..
Hey Mystic, as I recall from reading the long post that you directed me to a week or so ago, you and I are actually very similar insofar as we both see experience as being fundamental to existence. I see the World Itself as intrinsically subjective and experiential, but I allow for this to be unconscious at its most fundamental levels. My objection to theism is mostly my belief that we don't need to explain the evolution of life/order in the physical universe as the purposeful creation of an intelligent designer/creator.
BTW, I do not see Sam Harris as a "mentor" - I like a lot of what he says, but I suspect that I was thinking, and probably even writing, about some of these ideas before he was even born. The difference is, he's famous and I am not.
As for the subject of objective moral facts, I see no reason why they couldn't be grounded in the world as I see it just as well as (or maybe even better than) they can be grounded in a theist's notion of God. I'm mostly trying to identify the best tools for grounding and investigating them. That's why I'm TRYING to get someone who rejects the objectivity of moral facts to address the specific insights offered by Harris. I guess I could try to outline the arguments by typing them here, but the videos are so much more entertaining that I would recommend watching them instead (especially the Comedy Central clip with Jon Stewart).
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 10-05-2010 at 12:23 PM..
Reason: typos
You need to abandon the absurd notion that our existence is an accident without purpose . . . otherwise you are simply "flatulating in the wind." Accidents have no purpose and no objective basis for anything they do. You and your mentor Sam Harris do not fundamentally believe (not a choice) that we are accidents . . . or it would not trouble you not to have a morality. Certain acts and actions are intrinsically abhorrent to your inner sense of morality that comes from an awareness that there is value and purpose to human existence . . . despite your protestations to the contrary . . and your attempts to cobble up some pseudo-objective basis for it.
If we take a look around at the world we have made for ourselves, I have a hard time believing that we aren't an accident. What makes the notion of us being planned out and purposeful any less absurd?
If we take a look around at the world we have made for ourselves, I have a hard time believing that we aren't an accident. What makes the notion of us being planned out and purposeful any less absurd?
Just because the designs and templates hard coded into our DNA arise in ways we cannot educe scientifically in our ignorance (and assign euphemisms like randomness and "natural" selection to cover our ignorance with a scientific imprimatur) . . . does NOT remove the reality that they are hard coded to specific DNA and RNA interactions. There is nothing accidental about the existence of those codes nor the "laws" that govern the processes that evoke them.
Just because the designs and templates hard coded into our DNA arise in ways we cannot educe scientifically in our ignorance (and assign euphemisms like randomness and "natural" selection to cover our ignorance with a scientific imprimatur) . . . does NOT remove the reality that they are hard coded to specific DNA and RNA interactions. There is nothing accidental about the existence of those codes nor the "laws" that govern the processes that evoke them.
Just because the designs and templates hard coded into our DNA arise in ways we cannot educe scientifically in our ignorance (and assign euphemisms like randomness and "natural" selection to cover our ignorance with a scientific imprimatur) . . . does NOT remove the reality that they are hard coded to specific DNA and RNA interactions. There is nothing accidental about the existence of those codes nor the "laws" that govern the processes that evoke them.
Nah . . . just trying to get all you fundies on both sides (like you and your buds) to open up their minds to the reality. The existence of our intelligence, codes and designs in life, period . . . (irrespective of how you prefer to believe they manifest) . . . is more than sufficient evidence of an intelligent universe . . . in preference to an unintelligent and chaotic one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
