Kids Raised With Religion Do Much Better

[Leonhard]

As I understand it, teleos (is that the right word?) is a principle that springs from the concept of "design" or "purpose" or "intent."

I'm using that word because seer used it, and I didn't want to further confuse the conversation. I prefer the term, final cause. I think its a better fitting concept.

And yes, you're right, though I'd cash it more in terms of the state of matters an object is oriented towards. As you say, a wooden beam made to provide leverage. But I would also use it for other things that weren't designed, like the human heart. Its there to provide blood circulation. Think about that sentence and what it means. In principle, in modern completely mechanistic language, that sentence would be nonsense. A modern reductionionist would tend to say 'blood happens to be pumped by the heart'. Since Descartes and others removed final causes from metaphysics, talking about what something is for has become impossible.

While I understand why Descartes and Kant were motivated to remove final causes, usually because of the rather byzantine and presumptous metaphysics that had grown up in those and their interest in a pursuit of a mathematical understanding of the world, but I think it just introduced more problems than it solved to shave this away.

Intentions have final causes, they point to states of affairs; what you intend to happen. Purpose has final cause, the ultimate end that some history, or process, or action is supposed to lead to. Design has final cause, basically the form, function, look, feel, behaviour of some artifact that is being made. But also a falling rock has a final cause. In that case it would simply be the direction its heading. A thought has a final cause, what it is 'about'. Etc...

By this sense, a human person (like any other "object") has a teleos. So, living in recognition of that is likely to result in more happiness.

Yes, in fact you can define happiness as the final cause of humans. That's the state of affairs we seek towards. That's the starting step of virtue ethics - the happy middle ground between deontological ethics and consequentialism - where we figure out how we ought to live based on what we are and what we are doing.

I'm not an expert on virtue ethics, so please don't ask me to give a full defense of it. I'm only an amateur philosopher.

But Seer is speaking about a "god-given purpose" for a god he cannot even show actually exists. So, ultimately, Seer is trying to impose his definition of our "purpose" on those around him, and label anyone who does not conform as "blind" or "deluded."

It's not really a position with which a rational discussion can be had.

I won't speak to what seer believes or not. Maybe you're right. But I would say that the supernatural telos, is utterly beyond natural reason. I don't think any studies of humans would ever lead you to conclude that we have a home in a world beyond that. I do believe a rational discussion could be had about it, but it would be a rational discussion with a starting point of faith and revelation, and what those entail. Without faith or the mystical stirrings of it, I agree a discussion of a destiny a person might have in Heaven would be pointless.

As for whether God can be shown to exist or not. I do believe we can demonstrate God's existence from natural fact.

[Leonhard]

I just like Leon - he's good people.

I love you too Cow Poke.

[Tassman]

Imagine that...

This is probably true but it has nothing to do with whether or not the religious beliefs are true, or which religions are involved. No doubt those who conform to Islam or the Pagan religions would exhibit the same levels of "well-being", if only because they are conforming to the social expectations of their community. Just as those in predominately secular countries conform to the secular expectations of their community. The only alternative to such conformity would be to rebel against them and social misfits are less likely to be happy.

[seer]

Yes, in fact you can define happiness as the final cause of humans. That's the state of affairs we seek towards. That's the starting step of virtue ethics - the happy middle ground between deontological ethics and consequentialism - where we figure out how we ought to live based on what we are and what we are doing.

But that is the rub isn't it. What makes a man happy can vary from person to person, because of genetics or upbringing. If the evolutionary process alone created us, then there is no final cause for human being besides death, there is no other goal - happiness or otherwise.

[Leonhard]

But that is the rub isn't it. What makes a man happy can vary from person to person, because of genetics or upbringing.

True, to an extent, but you're not going to convince me that humans are so different from one another that we might as well be complete aliens with no moral commonality.

Virtue ethics can actually deal with variations existing. The ultimate state that Aristotle proposed was one where humans were free to pursue what made them happy, and the laws existing should be such that they enable that as much as possible, while keeping order and recognising the intrinsic human nature of each person. This is actually the foundation of your own country, and Europe for that matter.

If the evolutionary process alone created us, then there is no final cause for human being besides death, there is no other goal - happiness or otherwise.

I agree, if there are final causes it implies a Creator. Which actually forms the basis of one of the strongest arguments for God's existence rooted in natural reason.

However seer, you seem to think that purpose, or happiness, or fulfillment ceases to exist for an atheist, if they don't believe in God? That wouldn't make sense. They have it regardless of whether they recognise Him or not. Whether its coherent with what they believe or not. They still have happiness, they still seek it. It is still their final cause.

Atheism does not erase the basic humanity of a person. Carpedm9587 isn't an alien compared to you seer. I'm not either. Humans are humans, we're far more alike than we are different.

[seer]

True, to an extent, but you're not going to convince me that humans are so different from one another that we might as well be complete aliens with no moral commonality. Virtue ethics can actually deal with variations existing though. Which is why the ultimate state that Aristotle proposed was one where humans were free to pursue what made them happy, and the laws existing should be such that they enable that as much as possible, while recognising the intrinsic human nature of each person, which is actually the foundation of your own country.. Virtue ethics also isn't a carte blanche to do anything you want, but seer, I'm not going to defend all of a philosophy branch for you. Read Ed Feser and Aristotle.

OK, but actually in my country we tie our rights and human nature to God, to a Creator.

I agree, if there are final causes it implies a Creator. Which actually forms the basis of one of the strongest arguments for God's existence rooted in natural reason.

And that is all I'm saying, I see no real basis for human teleology apart from God.

However seer, you seem to think that purpose, or happiness ceases, or fulfillment to exist for an atheist, if they don't believe in God? That wouldn't make sense. They have it regardless of whether they recognise Him or not. Whether its coherent with what they believe or not. They still have happiness, they still seek it. It is still their final cause.

Back to what I said, I did not say that an atheist could not be happy or content, to a degree. Yet if there is no God directed purpose or overriding goal then what makes the individual happy or fulfilled is completely subjective. Yes there may be commonality, but as history has shown us there is a good deal of disagreement. For instance I linked a study a while back showing that the desire to rape is genetic. For that man the act of rape is what satisfies him. It is probably the same with homosexual desires.

Atheism does not erase the basic humanity of a person. Carpedm9587 isn't an alien compared to you seer. I'm not either. Humans are humans, we're far more alike than we are different.

Yet I believe our goal is to love and know God and if a man is not reaching that end, or attempting to, he is not doing what he was created for. How can that man be happy or fulfilled in any real sense if he is completely missing his goal or purpose?

[carpedm9587]

I'm using that word because seer used it, and I didn't want to further confuse the conversation. I prefer the term, final cause. I think its a better fitting concept.

And yes, you're right, though I'd cash it more in terms of the state of matters an object is oriented towards. As you say, a wooden beam made to provide leverage. But I would also use it for other things that weren't designed, like the human heart. Its there to provide blood circulation. Think about that sentence and what it means. In principle, in modern completely mechanistic language, that sentence would be nonsense. A modern reductionionist would tend to say 'blood happens to be pumped by the heart'. Since Descartes and others removed final causes from metaphysics, talking about what something is for has become impossible.

I think we need to distinguish between roles a thing is suited for due to some aspects of its characteristics, and the role a thing was intended to play. "The purpose of the heart is to pump blood" is a sentence that makes sense to me, if I understand "purpose" to be "the role the thing plays" (i.e., function). Purpose can also be "the role a thing was intended to play," but that only makes sense if there is an intender. For the atheist, "purpose" statements of the last type are meaningless when applied to nature in general.

While I understand why Descartes and Kant were motivated to remove final causes, usually because of the rather byzantine and presumptous metaphysics that had grown up in those and their interest in a pursuit of a mathematical understanding of the world, but I think it just introduced more problems than it solved to shave this away.

Intentions have final causes, they point to states of affairs; what you intend to happen. Purpose has final cause, the ultimate end that some history, or process, or action is supposed to lead to. Design has final cause, basically the form, function, look, feel, behaviour of some artifact that is being made. But also a falling rock has a final cause. In that case it would simply be the direction its heading. A thought has a final cause, what it is 'about'. Etc...

I have always thought the term "final cause" to be an odd one. I understand it's use, philosophically, but it is a marvelous example of why I think philosophers sometimes spend an enormous amount of time confusing everything with very poorly chosen (or arcane) language. To me, "final cause" would better describe "the last force acting." This is what determines where the rock is going. Except, of course, in nature, force is always acting and the rock is never free of it. There are multiple simultaneous forces on the rock, and its motion is, at any moment, determined by the sum of their effects, even when the rock is at rest.

Yes, in fact you can define happiness as the final cause of humans. That's the state of affairs we seek towards. That's the starting step of virtue ethics - the happy middle ground between deontological ethics and consequentialism - where we figure out how we ought to live based on what we are and what we are doing.

I'm not an expert on virtue ethics, so please don't ask me to give a full defense of it. I'm only an amateur philosopher.

If you're an amateur, then I am an amateur amateur.

I won't speak to what seer believes or not. Maybe you're right. But I would say that the supernatural telos, is utterly beyond natural reason. I don't think any studies of humans would ever lead you to conclude that we have a home in a world beyond that. I do believe a rational discussion could be had about it, but it would be a rational discussion with a starting point of faith and revelation, and what those entail. Without faith or the mystical stirrings of it, I agree a discussion of a destiny a person might have in Heaven would be pointless.

Agreed. And an atheist is not without faith. After all, we can no more disprove the existence of god than god's existence can be proven - at least not definitively.

As for whether God can be shown to exist or not. I do believe we can demonstrate God's existence from natural fact.

I would be interested in that attempt. I have yet to find such an attempt to actually succeed without a huge body of assumptions. But you have always impressed me a rational and respectful. Should you choose to share it, I would examine that argument.

[carpedm9587]

What does that mean? Weren't you telling me that a hammer had no teleology?

Again, it depends on how you use the word. In philosophy the common definition is: "the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes." Philosopphically, a hammer has a teleology, and the purpose of hammering nails, prying nails, "adjusting" stubborn framing, locating electrical boxes, and holding down paper would all be valid teleologies for the hammer - because they are all (possible) purposes or functions of a hammer.

In theology the term means, "the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world." Here the implication is a designer/purposer (who is god). If one doe snot believe such a being exists, then the theological definition of "teleos" is practically useless. The meaning can be understood - but it has no application to reality.

On certain subjects Carp, like theology or ethics, we begin with presuppositions that can not be reconciled. And you are constantly trying to get me to accept your presuppositions or worldview and argue from your position, what you find reasonable, what you find compelling or acceptable.

Actually, I'm not. That may be the problem. I am fine with you believing as you do. When you make definitive statements, however, with universal application, I'm going to let you know when I think your statements are over-broad and based on assumptions you cannot defend.

There is a dynamic at work here, Seer, that fascinates me. The impression I have, listening to you make your cases and respond to my points, is not that you are a Christian with concern for your fellow man and has a desire for all people to find god. My impression is that you are a Christian who is proud of your faith and condescendingly sneering to anyone who has not "found the path."

Now, I cannot know if that impression is a correct one or not. Only you know that. I can only relate the impression left by the way you present your beliefs. You're not alone here. There are many that leave that impression. Perhaps it's because so many atheists seem to come here with a similar disrespectful tone. Perhaps it is because the very nature of atheism is to deny that what you hold most precious actually exists - which I have to believe would seem pretty insulting. Maybe that's the problem: atheism is intrinsically insulting to theists.

If that is the case, perhaps I should rethink my involvement here?

[seer]

Again, it depends on how you use the word. In philosophy the common definition is: "the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes." Philosopphically, a hammer has a teleology, and the purpose of hammering nails, prying nails, "adjusting" stubborn framing, locating electrical boxes, and holding down paper would all be valid teleologies for the hammer - because they are all (possible) purposes or functions of a hammer.

I don't think we can have differing end goals. Like the hammer has the goal to hammer nails and beat someone to death. Best not to apply teleology to a hammer in the fist place.

Actually, I'm not. That may be the problem. I am fine with you believing as you do. When you make definitive statements, however, with universal application, I'm going to let you know when I think your statements are over-broad and based on assumptions you cannot defend.

You mean like the claim all morality is relative?

There is a dynamic at work here, Seer, that fascinates me. The impression I have, listening to you make your cases and respond to my points, is not that you are a Christian with concern for your fellow man and has a desire for all people to find god. My impression is that you are a Christian who is proud of your faith and condescendingly sneering to anyone who has not "found the path."

Carp, I have told you in the past that I would be elated to see you saved, but I do believe that your worldview is horrible. And I'm often not as gentle as I should be - getting cranky in my old age...

[carpedm9587]

I don't think we can have differing end goals. Like the hammer has the goal to hammer nails and beat someone to death. Best not to apply teleology to a hammer in the fist place.

Anything can have a different purpose to different people in different places at different times.

You mean like the claim all morality is relative?

This discussion began weeks ago when you asked how relative/subjective moralists (and/or atheists) can frame a rational moral position. I did so, and you've been objecting to it ever since. And I have made the case for moral relativity/subjectivity, pointing out how it aligns with all moral behavior throughout history. You still have the same objection: it can't be relative/subjective because then it's not absolute/objective - which I have repeatedly noted is not actually an argument.

Carp, I have told you in the past that I would be elated to see you saved, but I do believe that your worldview is horrible. And I'm often not as gentle as I should be - getting cranky in my old age...

Yes, you have said that. Occasionally. But it is not the general tenor of your posts. But thanks for the acknowledgement. I too am getting up there - and sometimes am crankier than I want to be.

[seer]

Anything can have a different purpose to different people in different places at different times.

Then there is no intrinsic goal or end for the hammer.

This discussion began weeks ago when you asked how relative/subjective moralists (and/or atheists) can frame a rational moral position. I did so, and you've been objecting to it ever since. And I have made the case for moral relativity/subjectivity, pointing out how it aligns with all moral behavior throughout history. You still have the same objection: it can't be relative/subjective because then it's not absolute/objective - which I have repeatedly noted is not actually an argument.

What do you mean aligns with all moral behavior? We see moral agreement (quite a lot actually) and moral disagreement. If universal moral truths did exist how would what we see in the world look any different?

Yes, you have said that. Occasionally. But it is not the general tenor of your posts. But thanks for the acknowledgement. I too am getting up there - and sometimes am crankier than I want to be.

I'm actually a lot nicer in person, still as stubborn, but nicer...

[carpedm9587]

Then there is no intrinsic goal or end for the hammer.

A hammer is a non-sentient thing, Seer. It cannot have its own goal or purpose. It can't think so as to have one. The only way that purpose or function can be "intrinsic" to a nonsentient thing is by virtue of the match between characteristic and utility. But even that requires a sentient mind with intent.

What do you mean aligns with all moral behavior?

It aligns with all of the behavior we see relative to morality. I know people have been claiming "absolute/objective" forever. They don't act that way, in my experience. Indeed, I have NEVER seen them act that way.

We see moral agreement (quite a lot actually) and moral disagreement.

Yes, we do. Relative/subjective morality predicts that and explains it.

If universal moral truths did exist how would what we see in the world look any different?

I have no idea. The problems you have, Seer, are multiple. Relative/subjective morality predicts and explains both moral agreement and the existence of disagreement. Absolute/objective morality has to excuse those differences by citing "sin." Relative/subjective morality can easily show how morality sources. Absolute/objective has to source to an entity it cannot even show actually exists. Finally, absolute/objective morality that is sourced on god cannot even explain how their framework is not relative/subjective to this being in a way that is different from any other sentient being. Relative/subjective morality can include a god as well as other sentient beings.

I'm actually a lot nicer in person, still as stubborn, but nicer...

Unless we eventually get together, I'll have to take your word for it. Didn't you say you were somewhere in New England?

[seer]

A hammer is a non-sentient thing, Seer. It cannot have a goal.

But that is exactly what teleology means - an end or a goal. And you said that a hammer had a teleology.

It aligns with all of the behavior we see relative to morality. I know people have been claiming "absolute/objective" forever. They don't act that way, in my experience. Indeed, I have NEVER seen them act that way.

I have no idea what that means. If men have freedom what would you expect to see?

Yes, we do. Relative/subjective morality predicts that and explains it.

Relativism doesn't predict anything, you are reading your assumptions back into it.

I have no idea. The problems you have, Seer, are multiple. Relative/subjective morality predicts and explains both moral agreement and the existence of disagreement. Absolute/objective morality has to excuse those differences by citing "sin." Relative/subjective morality can easily show how morality sources. Absolute/objective has to source to an entity it cannot even show actually exists. Finally, absolute/objective morality that is sourced on god cannot even explain how their framework is not relative/subjective to this being in a way that is different from any other sentient being. Relative/subjective morality can include a god as well as other sentient beings.

So you have no idea what ethics would look like if universal truths did exist, yet you assume that moral relativism is true. On every point here you are no more than asserting. And God's moral laws certainly could be subjective to Him and universal. They however (largely) would not be relative.

Unless we eventually get together, I'll have to take your word for it. Didn't you say you were somewhere in New England?

Connecticut...

[carpedm9587]

But that is exactly what teleology means - an end or a goal. And you said that a hammer had teleology.

I think you were the one who said the hammer had a goal to hammer nails. The inventor/maker of the hammer can have that goal. The buyer of the hammer may have that goal. And later they may find other uses for the hammer. The goal/purpose is whatever the intended has - not the hammer. "Goal" or "purpose" is not an attribute of a hammer like "weight" and "length." It is a concept in the mind of the designer/user.

I have no idea what that means. If men have freedom what you expect to see?

To be quite honest, I don't really know. The idea of an "absolute/objective" morality is so preposterous to me, it's somewhat like asking, "but if weight had color, what would it look like." I can't even begin to answer the question. The entire concept of "absolute/objective" morality is nonsensical to me.

Relativism doesn't predict anything, you are reading your assumptions back into it.

I have outlined this several times, so I'll point you to my past posts.

So you have no idea what ethics would look like if universal truths did exist, yet you assume that moral relativism is true.

First, you're mixing concepts. I said nothing about "truths" generally. I have been discussing "moral concepts." And I don't "assume" moral relativism is true - I conclude it on the basis of what I observe around me, how I function internally, what others tell me about how THEY function, and the nonsensical nature of the concept of "absolute" and "objective" moral concepts.

On every point here you are no more than asserting.

You like to make this observation. So, first, every statement uttered by a person is an assertion. To assert is to "state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully." We all do that, with varying degrees of forcefullness. I think you mean "unsupported assertion." However, I have outlined the basis for all of these beliefs, so I don't see how "unsupported assertion" applies.

[QUOTE=seer;577092]God's moral law certainly could be subjective to Him and universal. They however (largely) would not be relative.

Well, first you have the problem of showing there IS a god. If this god did exist, then he/she/it would have their own moral framework that would be subjective and relative to he/she/it. You then have to make the case that this being's moral framework is binding on me in any way different from how any other being's moral framework might be binding on me. The closest you have come is to point to this being's all-knowing nature which would presumably give it a "better" moral framework than mine. Except that morality is based in what is valued, so if I do not value what this god values, we're not going to have the same moral framework. So then you have to make the case that I ought to value what this god values, but this theoretical god and I are different on multiple dimensions.

I don't see how you're going to get where you are trying to go.

Indeed, I personally think that the concept of absolute/objective moral frameworks is a side effect of theism, and has just become a bad habit of the human species - and leads to a lot of "not thinking" about morality at all. It's just "follow the recipe" kind of thinking.

Connecticut...

Too bad - I'll be going through there on 10/13, and it's my birthday! But I have to make a beeline for my sister's place in Vermont because they are throwing me a 60th party.

[seer]

I think you were the one who said the hammer had a goal to hammer nails. The inventor/maker of the hammer can have that goal. The buyer of the hammer may have that goal. And later they may find other uses for the hammer. The goal/purpose is whatever the intended has - not the hammer. "Goal" or "purpose" is not an attribute of a hammer like "weight" and "length." It is a concept in the mind of the designer/user.

You said:

Philosopphically, a hammer has a teleology, and the purpose of hammering nails, prying nails, "adjusting" stubborn framing, locating electrical boxes, and holding down paper would all be valid teleologies for the hammer - because they are all (possible) purposes or functions of a hammer.

So I'm not sure where you stand on this.

To be quite honest, I don't really know. The idea of an "absolute/objective" morality is so preposterous to me, it's somewhat like asking, "but if weight had color, what would it look like." I can't even begin to answer the question. The entire concept of "absolute/objective" morality is nonsensical to me.

That makes no sense Carp, the law of God would not be any more preposterous than any other law, except it would be universal, and could be universally enforced.

I have outlined this several times, so I'll point you to my past posts.

Again, there is no "prediction" here, just an assumption read into the world are you see it.

First, you're mixing concepts. I said nothing about "truths" generally. I have been discussing "moral concepts." And I don't "assume" moral relativism is true - I conclude it on the basis of what I observe around me, how I function internally, what others tell me about how THEY function, and the nonsensical nature of the concept of "absolute" and "objective" moral concepts.

I should have said universal moral truths. And how must people function as if there are universal moral truths, so I'm not sure what your point is. And I still don't get why we would function any differently with universal moral truths being a reality. What would you expect to actually see? How would the change our behavior or function?

You like to make this observation. So, first, every statement uttered by a person is an assertion. To assert is to "state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully." We all do that, with varying degrees of forcefullness. I think you mean "unsupported assertion." However, I have outlined the basis for all of these beliefs, so I don't see how "unsupported assertion" applies.

That is the point, you literally have no idea if all ethics are relative. You can not demonstrate that by experience because you don't know how we would act or function if ethics were universal. You have nothing to compare.

Well, first you have the problem of showing there IS a god. If this god did exist, then he/she/it would have their own moral framework that would be subjective and relative to he/she/it. You then have to make the case that this being's moral framework is binding on me in any way different from how any other being's moral framework might be binding on me. The closest you have come is to point to this being's all-knowing nature which would presumably give it a "better" moral framework than mine. Except that morality is based in what is valued, so if I do not value what this god values, we're not going to have the same moral framework. So then you have to make the case that I ought to value what this god values, but this theoretical god and I are different on multiple dimensions.

Again your unbelief has no bearing. And like with a specific culture you live in, you may not value what they do, and you may in fact violate their laws, but there also may be a penalty. You do not have to accept the law of God, but His laws are still universal and enforceable.

Indeed, I personally think that the concept of absolute/objective moral frameworks is a side effect of theism, and has just become a bad habit of the human species - and leads to a lot of "not thinking" about morality at all. It's just "follow the recipe" kind of thinking

.

I think about morality all the time and long before I became a Christian. And I am convinced that shoving children into ovens, or child rape, are universally wrong. But I'm funny that way.

Too bad - I'll be going through there on 10/13, and it's my birthday! But I have to make a beeline for my sister's place in Vermont because they are throwing me a 60th party.

So you are willing to miss one of the highlights of your life! In any case happy birthday old man!