Morality or Obedience?

[JimL]

No, it was about impugning the motives of Paul. There was no call for that.

Why not? If I don't believe any of it, then I obviously believe Paul was a fraud and a liar.

[seer]

Why not? If I don't believe any of it, then I obviously believe Paul was a fraud and a liar.

But you can't show that Jim, you are just assuming.

[shunyadragon]

Since we both believe that God created this universe, it is obvious that matter and energy did not organize themselves in this fashion.

Yes, we both believe this, matter and energy organized themselves by Natural Laws regardless of what we 'believe.'

We have been over this Shuny, it completely depends on how compatibilism defines free will.

Yes we have been over this before, and different philosophers define compatibilism differently and at its fundamental basics compatibilism believes determinism and free will are compatible.

[JimL]

But you can't show that Jim, you are just assuming.

I can't show many things. i can't show that jesus didn't walk on water, I can't show that he didn't raise the dead, that he didn't cast out demons into a heard of swine, that long dead saints didn't climb out of their tombs fully intact, I can't show that an invisible immaterial god doesn't exist, and I can't show any mere claim to be false, but I can ridicule them when I believe them to be ridiculous.

[element771]

Right element, depart to BE WITH CHRIST. .

depart = die

After we die, we will be with Christ.

But you are assuming that you have control, you could be doing the exactly same thing as the result of deterministic antecedent conditions.

Why should I not trust my own conscious experience?

[carpedm9587]

What do you do with the human spirit/soul?

I'm not sure where freedom comes in here...

You seem to be of the opinion that "materialism" means the universe is a large collection of pool balls that operate according to the laws of physics and cannot act otherwise - so their paths are strictly deterministic. That kind of mentality complete ignores things like quantum mechanics, chaos theory, emergent properties, and the wide array of way in which we are learning how highly complex systems, and extremely small systems, exhibit properties that transcend strict determinism. We're even encountering this in the world of computers, where the extremely small scale of our systems is creating opportunities for the phenomenon of electron tunneling, which appears to be highly unpredictable and nondeterministic.

[element771]

Why not? If I don't believe any of it, then I obviously believe Paul was a fraud and a liar.

Liars don't become martyrs for their lies.

[carpedm9587]

Ah, there are generic "bests" concerning moral behavior in society. It is "best" that murder is immoral, it is "best" that theft is immoral, it is "best" that lying is immoral etc etc etc. and these are "bests" because they serve our interests as a people living in community, they serve to improve the conditions under which we live.

And I am saying that these "generic bests" you are trying to assert exist independently actually exist because we tend to subjectively value them.

No, again, it isn't subjective. That murder is a behavior that is contrary to the best interests of human society is an objective fact. It's not objective in the sense that as a law, it exists somewhere out there in Plato's heaven, but it's objective in the sense of its utility. Murder as an "ought not to do" is a rule of behavior that best serves the interests of human society, and so the individuals therein. It does work.

"Murder is wrong" is a tautology. Look up "murder" and you will find it defined as "an illicit killing," so you are basically saying, "illicit killing is illicit." It sounds absolute/objective because it IS - because it is a tautology.

No, there are behaviors that are objectively best behaviors, i.e. moral behaviors, in that obeying them, not murdering, not stealing, not lying, etc etc., they serve the best interests of people living in community together, and there are objectively worse behaviors, i.e. immoral behaviors, in that acting upon them they are objectively injurious to the best interests of people living together in community.

No. Stealing is not "objectively wrong." It requires a society that values "personal property" to see it as "objectively wrong." There are some cultures (they tend to be tribal cultures) that do not have the concept of "personal property." In such a culture, there is not even a word for "stealing" because you can't steal something when everything is communally held. You continue to cling to this concept of moral objectivity/universality, but it is not a case you can make.

You CAN say that most people value life, so moral codes protecting life are common. You can say that most people value liberty, so moral codes protecting liberty are common. But there are exceptions to pretty much all of these. There are cultures that put their elderly out to be killed. There are cultures that kill children who are born unable to support the tribe. For them, this is moral because the survival of the tribe takes precedence over the survival of the individual.

You're trying to create absolutes/universals/objectives where they simply do not exist. I suspect you are clinging to religiously-driven inclinations. Our species has been mostly religious for a long, long time. It will take time for that deep indoctrination to release its hold.

[carpedm9587]

Sheesh Element, Philippians 1:

But if I go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. So what shall I choose? I do not know. I am torn between the two. I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better indeed. But it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body...

I still don't see how complexity endows us with free will. Complexity can be just as deterministic as anything else.

"Can be," yes. "Must be," no. Element is right - the evidence is that highly complex systems exhibit properties that transcend the component parts, yet remain associated with them. We know this from decades of observation. We do not know how these emergent properties manifest - but we know that they do. Likewise, we have no clue how gravity works - but we know that it does. It is not clear to me why you seem to need emergent propoerties (i.e., life, consciousness, etc.) to be "god-driven" but you aren't making a similar argument for other things we do not know about (e.g., gravity).

[carpedm9587]

Liars don't become martyrs for their lies.

Hmm...I wonder. I have no idea what was in Paul's mind, so I pass no judgment. But our knowledge of the human brain is expanding, and we are rapidly learning just how malleable it is, and how completely flawed memory is. Experiment after experiment has shown us how easily people can come to believe their own lies if they repeat them often enough. How people can incorporate stories they have heard into their own memories, with no knowledge they had done so. I actually had that experience myself, recently. We were at a family gathering, reminiscing about my Dad (he died 3 years ago), and telling stories. I related a story from my youth (teenager) that involved an encounter with my Dad. When I finished, my Mom and my brother looked at each other, then looked at me, and then Mom said, "that story was right on - except it happened to your brother. You weren't even there at the time." I had (and have) vivid memories of the encounter - except the enounter never happened. Apparently, a story I had heard several times from my brother somehow got mixed into my memories as "my" story. How that happened, I have no idea. Were it not for the fact that three family members remember it differently, I would continue to insist it WAS me.

So did the martyrs die for the truth - or merely for something they believed to be true?

My experience suggests the latter. But then again...who knows

[element771]

HSo did the martyrs die for the truth - or merely for something they believed to be true?

Which would make him wrong, not a liar.

[seer]

I can't show many things. i can't show that jesus didn't walk on water, I can't show that he didn't raise the dead, that he didn't cast out demons into a heard of swine, that long dead saints didn't climb out of their tombs fully intact, I can't show that an invisible immaterial god doesn't exist, and I can't show any mere claim to be false, but I can ridicule them when I believe them to be ridiculous.

So you would equally call Muhammad a liar and a fraud - correct?

[seer]

depart = die

After we die, we will be with Christ.

Weak brother, but I suspect that you already know that.

Why should I not trust my own conscious experience?

Your experience tells you that you make choices, not that those choices are free from antecedent causes.

[JimL]

Which would make him wrong, not a liar.

The Bible is not History, you don't know that Paul was martyred, anymore than you know that jesus walked on water.

[JimL]

So you would equally call Muhammad a liar and a fraud - correct?

Absolutely!