What's More Logical

[Duder]

I think that it is interesting to note that in the last few months, Daniel Dennett has adopted Cartesian Dualism.

You didn't by any chance get that piece of news via David Chalmers blog, did you?

Pssssst! Read the fine print!

(In small font at the bottom of the blog it says "ok, not really")

When I read that Dennett had adopted the Ghost in the Machine, I didn't know what to make of it. My only experience with him is his contribition to The Mind's I - but Cartesian dualism just didn't seem to fit the guy.

I'm not a dualist, either, by the way.

[Philosophickle]

You didn't by any chance get that piece of news via David Chalmers blog, did you?

Chalmers is trying to spread a conversion story, much like Dennett did of Chalmers.

Shhhhhhh!

Oh, and technically, I found out from Chalmers himself sans blog

[Philosophickle]

I'm not a dualist, either, by the way.

Much like the sole defender (exaggeration) of Idealism today, John Foster, I am a dualist insofar as it points out various problems with the varying breeds of materialism. Consider a second-option.

Note: I think that Cartesian Dualism is probably too problematic for serious consideration anymore. But that leaves Emergent and Thomistic Dualism to carry the fight.

[C. D. Ward]

Chalmers is trying to spread a conversion story, much like Dennett did of Chalmers.

Yes, I read that on his blog as well, and that was dirty, dirty, pool (what Dennett did, that is)... I found Chalmer's reponse quite amusing...

Oh, and technically, I found out from Chalmers himself sans blog

Ooooooh! Touch you!

I think David Chalmers is one of the most interesting & engaging individuals currently working in the field of philosophy of mind. I find something to agree with and disagree with in almost everything he writes (although I usually find myself agreeing more often).

[Philosophickle]

Yes, I read that on his blog as well, and that was dirty, dirty, pool (what Dennett did, that is)... I found Chalmer's reponse quite amusing...

Dennett is a smart person. His early work was provocative and novel. Unfortunately, I think he was taken in by the Dawkins-esque people. See his latest book for more on that. Have you read his exchange with Michael Ruse?

Ooooooh! Touch you!

I think David Chalmers is one of the most interesting & engaging individuals currently working in the field of philosophy of mind. I find something to agree with and disagree with in almost everything he writes (although I usually find myself agreeing more often).

Agreed. Whether or not you think them successful, his infamous "Zombie" experiments are absolutely stimulating. Of course, when one mentions the undead following Chalmers, I usually think that they are arguing by caricature .

Perhaps we should start a thread on Chalmers thoughts? A sort of critical tribute.

[lilpixieofterror]

Nice to know you’re not some meek little sheep.

Nice to see that you still misunderstand and misrep every verse you get a hold of. As we'll see below, your points are still invalid.

So here goes. There is an enormous difference between human parents and the concept of an all-powerful god. With me so far?

Trying to treat me like a child little one? I don't think you want to go down this road.

Human parents are not all-powerful. Still with me?

That's nice, what is your point?

The world can be an unfriendly place. Not disciplining children sets them up for failure.

Very good, disciplining children helps them to build character for starters. Did you ever stop to think that this is the same reason God allows suffering? To build character?

No one gets to do what they want when they want it. And yes, parents need to teach their children this. And it will create discomfort (suffering, if you will) for their children.

You were not specific on what you met by suffering. So I took the defination that suffering is not getting your way or what you want. Care to eleborate on what you think of as suffering?

And this is a perfectly loving thing for parents to do.

So why can't a loving God allow his children to go though some?

Christianity blames humans for all suffering.

Even if I wasn't a Christian, I would. Most suffering IS caused by us.

It is the only way to have a loving god. God must be accepted as the unchallenged authority. Rather scary stuff.

That's nice, that proves that God is unloving.. why?

God must always be right. So humans get all the blame.

Rightfuly so, just watch your local news if you don't think humans cause most suffering.

God cannot be challenged. Well, the idea of god can survive if it is not challenged. But that’s no way to live life. So let’s examine the other side of the argument.

I see your argument so far as invalid and not answering a single point I made... I enjoy every day of my life, do you?

God makes all the rules. He could easily (if he existed) create a universe with no suffering.

Sure he could of, suppose he does today, think he should start with you?

If I had that kind of power that’s what I would do.

That's nice, inserting your personal opinion into that. Sorry, forced love is not love at all and as you ADMITTED some displine is needed for character building. Why do parents displine their children? Is it because a few hours or days of displine are nothing compaired to a life time? Let me ask you this question, what is a life-time of suffering compaired to eternity? Suffering and displine are needed to build character, this world may very well BE the best way to get a perfect world. You are not all powerful are you? So how do you know this is not the best option?

What we see is exactly what you would expect from an indifferent universe. There is a lot of suffering and death.

What is your point? As I said before, what is a life time of suffering compaired to eternity?

Really all you have left are strands of pretend, Crystal.

Nope, as you have seen, your argument is invalid and ASSUMES there is no point to suffering. I disagree, you are more than welcome to prove me wrong. I'd enjoy the challange.

You can pretend suffering is somehow necessary for some greater good.

You can offer up evidence to prove otherwise.

But the easy truth is that an omnipotent god wouldn’t have to depend on suffering to achieve the greatest good.

Why not? Because you said so?

He’d just make it happen.

I see... you want God to do what you want. Am I right? Give me one good reason why he should.

So let’s accept science.

I do, sorry, since says NOTHING about suffering or how a loving God can't allow suffering. Now prove otherwise

Let’s accept evolution.

Even when you can't answer my questions

And make the most of it.

I enjoy life, do you?

Atheism offers freedom that Christians will never have.

That freedom is?

And it’s free.

So I should accept your world view that life is meaningless? Care to offer proof?

False afterlife promises have no value.

Prove there is no heaven and hell if that claim is 'false'.

Oh yeah, and you get to win all your discussions on TWeb.

Against an oppent such as yourself who can't debate his way out of a paper bag, you are right, I do

Crystal

[DurAlvar]

So why can't a loving God allow his children to go though some?

Because a loving, omnipotent god wouldn't have created us flawed in the first place. Parents need to disipline children because they need to prepare them for an unfair, imperfect world. If heaven is perfect, and God created the world, what is he preparing us for?

[Carpedm9587]

Very good, disciplining children helps them to build character for starters. Did you ever stop to think that this is the same reason God allows suffering? To build character?

Out of curiosity - the small children who slowly drowned in their attics in New Orleans last year, or the vast number who died in the tsunami in south east Asia the year before - how did their traumatic deaths "build character?" Are you suggesting they gained wisdom from this for their eternity in heaven? Seems rather extreme, don't you think? Or perhaps their tortorous deaths built the character of other people? If so, doesn't it seem odd that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god can't find a better way to "build character" than to permit and/or cause small children to be traumatized and killed?

Or is there a different interpretation, in your worldview?

Just curious.

Michel

[C. D. Ward]

Dennett is a smart person. His early work was provocative and novel. Unfortunately, I think he was taken in by the Dawkins-esque people. See his latest book for more on that. Have you read his exchange with Michael Ruse?

The one that was posted on the UD blog? Yes, although it was mostly Ruse and not so much Dennett. I must say that I have more than a little sympathy for the sentiments Ruse expresses, although I have a little less sympathy for Ruse himself.

Agreed. Whether or not you think them successful, his infamous "Zombie" experiments are absolutely stimulating. Of course, when one mentions the undead following Chalmers, I usually think that they are arguing by caricature .

"Chalmer's Zombie Army"

I wonder, though. I'm not widely read in the literature, but I've seen a couple of attempts to engage Chalmer's "zombies". I've not seen, however, any physicalist simply deny the possibility of their existence. But from a strictly physical outlook, wouldn't that be the most logical response? If mental states supervene upon physical ones and "mind" is "something the brain does", then how could it even be possible for there to exist a properly functioning human brain that isn't conscious? Are you aware of any critiques along this line?

Perhaps we should start a thread on Chalmers thoughts? A sort of critical tribute.

It might not be a bad idea for the Philosophy thread to have a "sticky" with links to Phil. Mind websites and papers. It is, after all, one area where reductionists are currently being stubbornly held at bay.

As I noted, I'm not widely read in the field (although Dennett, Kim, and Hasker's last books are all on my reading list). If you, or anyone else, would like to start a Phil. Mind thread with specific reference to Chalmer's work, I'd be more than happy to contribute to the discussion!

[lilpixieofterror]

Because a loving, omnipotent god wouldn't have created us flawed in the first place.

Actually, he didn't. He created us with a will to choose our own path. Did God ever tell you to lie, for example?

Parents need to disipline children because they need to prepare them for an unfair, imperfect world.

God needs to prepair us too. Eternity is a long time, if you do not have a strong ethical system, values temptered by temptation, how can you truly know you truly reach perfection? As far as we know, this is the only logical way to reach a perfect world.

If heaven is perfect, and God created the world, what is he preparing us for?

Well, maybe that's how heaven is perfect. People who choose under their own free will to be there. Forced love is not love at all, so what is God to do? Respect your choice of what you choose. Besides, can you name a lession you have learned without having to go though some difficultly to learn it?

Crystal

[lilpixieofterror]

Out of curiosity - the small children who slowly drowned in their attics in New Orleans last year, or the vast number who died in the tsunami in south east Asia the year before - how did their traumatic deaths "build character?"

I think you hit more accuratly below, so I'll just leave this.

Are you suggesting they gained wisdom from this for their eternity in heaven?

Maybe, I'm not them nor am I God.

Seems rather extreme, don't you think?

As I said before, what is a life time of suffering compaired to eternity?

Or perhaps their tortorous deaths built the character of other people?

Paul and Peter seemed to think that (among more modren thinkers). I can give you a list of a number of people who died quite tortorous deaths and never said God wasn't loving, If you want a 20th century example, go look up Saint Maxmillian Kobe

If so, doesn't it seem odd that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god can't find a better way to "build character" than to permit and/or cause small children to be traumatized and killed?

Than by all means Michel come up with a better way! I'd love to hear it.

Or is there a different interpretation, in your worldview?

That bad things happen to good people? Nope, that's reality and as I said before, what is a life time of pain, suffering, and death compaired to the eternity?

Crystal

[Carpedm9587]

I think you hit more accuratly below, so I'll just leave this.

Maybe, I'm not them nor am I God.

As I said before, what is a life time of suffering compaired to eternity?

By that argument, LAOT, what does it matter if I kill a man? It takes but a moment. If all of the rest of my life is spent doing and being good, and I have all of eternity to continue in goodness, what consequence is it that such a finite moment of time happened?

Paul and Peter seemed to think that (among more modren thinkers). I can give you a list of a number of people who died quite tortorous deaths and never said God wasn't loving, If you want a 20th century example, go look up Saint Maxmillian Kobe

The argument isn't whether or not someone who was tortured, as Max Kolbe was, thinks god is good. The question is whether or not resorting to tortuously killing a child to "build character" in other people would be the action of an all powerful, all good god.

Personally, I come down on the side that such an action is not good, and would/could not be done by an all powerful, all good being. So what we call "natural evil" is a strong indicator that either god is not both all powerful and all good (i.e., god can be one or the other but not both), or god simply is not.

Than by all means Michel come up with a better way! I'd love to hear it.

I've always wondered why some people feel obliged to use disparaging or belittling emoticons when the conversation is a civil one and the discussion about reasonably serious matters.

I can think of many ways to "build character" in Person X without torturously killing Child Y, LAOT. Of course it depends on what "build character" means to you. I interpret it to mean grow in appreciation of the value and preciousness of life, and attention to the needs of our fellow humans. Struggle often builds character, so to have to struggle through life to thrive, or even survive, usually "builds character." Having to raise children has built my character. Struggling in my profession to master new skills and deal with challenging scenarios has built my character. Marriage has built my character.

That bad things happen to good people? Nope, that's reality and as I said before, what is a life time of pain, suffering, and death compaired to the eternity?

As you wish, Crystal. This is not, however, a particularly strong case (IMO) that such a god exists. It's an inconsistency that, for me, is another brick in the overall structure of atheism.

Michel

[Jim E.]

Because a loving, omnipotent god wouldn't have created us flawed in the first place. Parents need to disipline children because they need to prepare them for an unfair, imperfect world.

That sums things up nicely.

Crystal is in love with the concept of free will. Sorry, Crystal, you don’t have the free will to fly. You don’t have the free will to cure someone from a disease. You don’t have the free will to prevent natural disasters. You don’t have the free will to guarantee that your life will turn out the way you want. Quite frankly, you seem to have some issues with control (very typical for Christians).

Free will is what do I want to eat for dinner. Not do I choose heaven or hell. Because heaven or hell is no choice at all. Everyone would choose heaven. Look, I feel a little bit sorry for you. But Christianity misleads people. And this free will baloney ignores far too much. Yes, it may be effective mind control. Basically it plays on the desire of humans to control their fate. Ironically, it lessens their control. An atheist will work harder to get their life to turn out the way they want. And have more freedom along the way. But whatever.

[Bagger_Vance]

But that makes us more, not less than a computer. And more complicated.

I don't know. You seem to be asking questions no one has an answer to and then upon "proving" that no one has a concrete answer you smugly offer this "rational" entity/force/being that you've neither proven nor seen as the most logical choice. I get this one a lot from kids.

"Why did my brother die?"

Is it more likely that a rational force killed him as a part of a cosmic plan for the good of all living creatures throughout time or is it more likely that he died by pure chance?

[DurAlvar]

That sums things up nicely.

Crystal is in love with the concept of free will. Sorry, Crystal, you don’t have the free will to fly. You don’t have the free will to cure someone from a disease. You don’t have the free will to prevent natural disasters. You don’t have the free will to guarantee that your life will turn out the way you want. Quite frankly, you seem to have some issues with control (very typical for Christians).

Free will is what do I want to eat for dinner. Not do I choose heaven or hell. Because heaven or hell is no choice at all. Everyone would choose heaven. Look, I feel a little bit sorry for you. But Christianity misleads people. And this free will baloney ignores far too much. Yes, it may be effective mind control. Basically it plays on the desire of humans to control their fate. Ironically, it lessens their control. An atheist will work harder to get their life to turn out the way they want. And have more freedom along the way. But whatever.

Actually, I'd disagree with this too, mainly in your definition of free will. In a cosmic sense, free will is not a desirable thing, for if will was completely free of all influences it would be completely random, and I don't see this as being a good thing.

While in the practical sense, the granting of free will allows people to follow their own wants and desires without unjust limits, these wants and desires must be caused by something, be it experience or biology. The reason free will is so important to humans is that we cannot control our wants or desires, though we can control how/if we seek to fulfill them. However, an omnipotent God would be perfectly capable of changing these wants and desires while creating humans in the first place. If he had created adam so that his decendants would always be righteous, caring and unselfish then there would be no need to build character, as our characters would already be acceptable.