OT: What do you believe and why?

[pharphis]

That leaves the question why a lot of neardeath experiences are the same, why do we dream, why do some of us believe in God, why does sex feel good?(it doesnt need to feel good to be made) why doe we evolved to mainly intelectuel animals rather then physical?

any answers on that?

Neardeath experiences are a product of one's culture. Muslims all share similar experiences, Christians share others, etc. This is no different than alien abduction descriptions matching cultural descriptions of aliens (like in movies) very closely over time.

I don't understand how dreams are relevant but afaik there isn't a consensus explanation of why dreams occur.

Some of us believe in god because we're pattern-seeking animals. We want to have an explanation for things and we are superstitious (like many other animals). This has evolutionary backing afaik. I think this pattern-seeking was likely advantageous and that superstition is a byproduct of seeking answers

I don't know why sex feels good. I'm sure there's some advantage to it for evolutionary success. A random hypothesis I have at the moment is to imagine that have sensitive organs allowed for early humans to be 1) more clean, 2) reproduce more often, 3) keep genitals out of danger (more sensitive than our hands, for example)

I don't understand your last question. What is an mainly intellectual animal vs a physical animal?

 

[Grape1]

I find myself somewhere around the agnostic/atheistic -part of thinking.

I'm open for reading and getting to know about different religions, they somewhat interest me. It's good to know what others think about this world. But in the end they are all just stories to me, like I don't know why I should think for example the Bible is any more credible than any other mythology or belief, in explaining the God the universe and all.

In the end of the day, it's my own experience what matters. I haven't felt any existence of supernatural ever. And if I were to see something totally inexplicable, I'd still be very skeptical, probably questioning my mental health before turning to worship that Flying Spaghetti Monster I just came along.

Peace to those that find happiness and calmness for the mind from some religion. Unfortunately, I think that many many religions, and religious organizations (churchs, sects etc.) are just used for getting more money and power. Remember that.

 

[Kitteh1]

We can't answer everything, and there will always be things left to discover. Dreams as it happens, are very much on the radar and we are learning a lot, the problem seems to be understanding what we have actually learnt.

 

[Username is not in use]

What is an mainly intellectual animal vs a physical animal?

Alakazam vs Golem

 

[pharphis]

Alakazam vs Golem

funny answer

Well then you meant more or less what I thought. The answer is simple: We got the lucky mutations and lived in such conditions to benefit the most from having a larger brain. I don't think there's much of a "why" to the question because evolution by natural selection doesn't follow some order or purpose. It simply selects for favorable traits under the conditions present. Obviously, things like tool-making (of even the earliest and crudest tools) can be beneficial for survival

 

[Kitteh1]

I don't think Golem fits that category, he has the ability to reason at a human level. I think that Russell Brand or Katie Price might be a more suitable example.

 

[Username is not in use]

also golem can make fucking explosions to jump from mountain to mountain! :O

 

[Skjolde1]

EDIT: Nothing to see here.

 

[SunsetVista]

That leaves the question why a lot of neardeath experiences are the same, why do we dream, why do some of us believe in God, why does sex feel good?(it doesnt need to feel good to be made) why doe we evolved to mainly intelectuel animals rather then physical?

any answers on that?

Near-death experiences are heavily influenced by cultural beliefs in the way they are reported and can be simulated by stimulating certain regions of the brain indicating that no supernatural explanation for them is necessary.

Why we dream is not known, but that doesn't mean god did it.

The world is scary and we are flawed. It would be nice if there were some greater ideal to sort things out for us, to make judgements we could be sure were correct. I believe god is a creation of humanity. Since I do not believe in a god myself, I don't really know why some people do. Each person probably has their own reasons for belief, and those are valid to them. And that's ok.

Since not all sex results in conception, sex feeling good is a great motivator to have more of it, which is good for long-term species survival. In a species whose young develop slowly and require a lot of parental care, the social bonds formed by pleasurable sex might help hold a society together.

Human beings are intelligent, but so are many other animals. Intelligence - the ability to learn, reason, and remember - is a good trait to have if you want to survive. We have conquered our world to a degree that no other species on Earth seems to have managed. Intelligence and sociability and luck allowed us to do this. I do not believe we are special snowflakes chosen by a deity.

I see no evidence or need for a god as explanation for the natural world.

edit - whoa, and now there's a whole bunch of posts after the one I replied to.

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

There is no absolute Truth. Good and Evil do not exist. Human beings are animals. There is no greater meaning in life, only what we make of it. We get to choose what's important to us.

I prefer to create rather than destroy, to not be wasteful, and to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. I would like to somehow leave this world a better place for my having lived in it.

Organized religion is a tool for controlling people. It's not for me. I don't believe in a god and if I said I did I would be lying. I don't understand how people can truly believe. Insincere belief really bothers me.

At the same time, the choice of what to believe is a personal one. If religion helps you and you're not hurting anyone, that's fine.

Contradictions FTW.

@SunsetVista Just to point out the obvious--do you realize you stated "There is no absolute truth" among several other declarations that you claim are absolutely true?

Then you say that there is no such thing as good and evil, but that religion is OK "if it helps you and you're not hurting anyone." Well, if there is no such thing as good and evil, how about if religion is hurting others? Is it OK then? Or is it... evil/wrong/bad?!

If there is no such thing as good and evil, and we get to choose what is important for us, then who are you to pronounce moral judgments anyone's decisions? If someone wants to destroy, that should be fine. Why leave the world a better place if there is no meaning? What do you even mean by "better" if there is no good or bad? "Better" is in fact the comparative form of the word "good"!

Not trying to bust your chops, but I couldn't help pointing out some typical contradictions of this kind of viewpoint. I don't think it's an ignorant viewpoint, but I think that actually, underneath it all, you do affirm some sort of good and evil--you just don't realize it. Your post tells me that you think it is wrong for oppressive religions to control people. (I agree.) You think it is wrong to hurt others. (I agree.) You think it is wrong to have insincere belief. (I agree.)

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

@BBS_Agonistes I don't believe there is an objective moral truth or however that is best worded. I'm not sure if this puts me under one kind of relativism or another because I've read almost nothing about the philosophy behind it. In other words, I don't believe in "good" and "evil", though I definitely use those words out of convenience.

@pharphis and this is also a bit directed @Gripphon since he responded to my posts regarding absolute external truth in reference to ethics.

Again, I understand your reasoning, and much of the reading that I've done is in this line of thought, and I know some academics who are really considerate people who think this way. But I suppose the problem for me is that it has always been self evident that some actions are good and some are evil. For me, this is every bit as self evident as the fact that external reality exists, and the material world functions according to physical laws observable by science, etc.

Let me put it in more logical terms. Take the following proposition.

Proposition: It would be wrong for me to leave work now and go stab my child to death.

For me, this statement is unalterably true. To go stab my four-year-old son would be evil. This is as self evident to me as it is self evident that my child exists. I don't know anyone who would disagree with me and say it would be fine to leave work now and go stab my child to death. That all signals to me that there is universal, external truth regarding evil. It is not universally recognized in every circumstance, but in certain circumstances, it generally is. Underneath it all, it is there to be grasped.

So, in the realm of the natural sciences, we can disagree on a lot of things, but we do believe external truth actually exists. These truths are recognized universally, in a basic way. Everyone agrees that if dropped, a stone will fall to the ground. We don't all agree on the specifics: e.g., a lot of people might think a heavy stone would fall faster than a penny, when in fact they fall at the same rate. But just because people disagree and we don't have every bit of science worked out doesn't meant that I reject the idea of an unalterable external truth regarding the natural world. Just as I'm sure you could find some primitive tribe that condoned stabbing children to death, I'm sure you could find a primitive tribe that believed a stick wouldn't fall when dropped, but could be caused to levitate by a shaman. But this doesn't change that this external truth exists for both the material world and for morality.

In this way, I seek absolute, external truth in morality and ethics just as I do in science. Does that make sense?

Again, I don't expect you to agree just because I explain something. I'm just seeking to explain my views in a way that at least makes sense to someone who doesn't agree with me.

I'm open for reading and getting to know about different religions, they somewhat interest me. It's good to know what others think about this world. But in the end they are all just stories to me, like I don't know why I should think for example the Bible is any more credible than any other mythology or belief, in explaining the God the universe and all.

Well, if they are all just stories in the end, then why read them? For me, I've spent the last years reading thousands of pages of philosophy, theory, and literature. On average I read 1,500-2,000 pages a week! I'd really be bummed out if I thought there wasn't any truth behind it, and they were all just stories. I affirm Christianity, because out of all of these texts, the Bible has made the most sense out of the world--not just the material world.

I mostly state this just to clarify my views, because a lot of people voice similar things like, "Why the Bible? Why Christian morality?" And for me, it's because these morals most essentially line up with reality.

 

[Kitteh1]

Infanticide was common place in ancient times, is it ok now? No. Did they think it evil then? No. It is not evil, it is just evil in the modern world.

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

Infanticide was common place in ancient times, is it ok now? No. Did they think it evil then? No. It is not evil, it is just evil in the modern world.

This is the equivalent of claiming, "People believed the earth was flat in ancient times. So is it round? No. It is not round, it is just round in the modern world."

This isn't a way to make a proof regarding external truth, it's just a faulty syllogism. It is neither sound nor valid. As such, it can never be a truly logical argument.

The difference is that my argument is logically valid. You may debate whether or not it is sound.

Generally, people with your viewpoint can't answer a direct question. Let me see if you can.
Question: Is it evil for me to go home and stab my four year old son to death?

No qualifiers. Just yes or no.

My answer is, "Yes." No qualifiers needed. I'm very comfortable with that.

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

Also, let me mention that you shifted my claim to the different issue of infanticide. I gave a very specific situation. My contention is that this is almost universally recognized as evil and wrong, just like there are observable facts in the material world that are nearly-universally recognized.

Yes, we can find people who are so primitive that they do not recognize these. But, this all points to the fact that there is ultimately absolute moral truth.

Of course, you can bring up fuzzy issues until the cows come home. I’m not saying there are no moral gray areas, just like there are plenty of gray areas in science. We can debate about euthanasia; scientists can debate about the Higgs particle. I find it ridiculous that logical, scientific people value absolute external truth in reference to the material world, but then totally reject it in relation to the ethical world.

 

[pharphis]

@pharphis and this is also a bit directed @Gripphon since he responded to my posts regarding absolute external truth in reference to ethics.

Again, I understand your reasoning, and much of the reading that I've done is in this line of thought, and I know some academics who are really considerate people who think this way. But I suppose the problem for me is that it has always been self evident that some actions are good and some are evil. For me, this is every bit as self evident as the fact that external reality exists, and the material world functions according to physical laws observable by science, etc.

Let me put it in more logical terms. Take the following proposition.

Proposition: It would be wrong for me to leave work now and go stab my child to death.

For me, this statement is unalterably true. To go stab my four-year-old son would be evil. This is as self evident to me as it is self evident that my child exists. I don't know anyone who would disagree with me and say it would be fine to leave work now and go stab my child to death. That all signals to me that there is universal, external truth regarding evil. It is not universally recognized in every circumstance, but in certain circumstances, it generally is. Underneath it all, it is there to be grasped.

So, in the realm of the natural sciences, we can disagree on a lot of things, but we do believe external truth actually exists. These truths are recognized universally, in a basic way. Everyone agrees that if dropped, a stone will fall to the ground. We don't all agree on the specifics: e.g., a lot of people might think a heavy stone would fall faster than a penny, when in fact they fall at the same rate. But just because people disagree and we don't have every bit of science worked out doesn't meant that I reject the idea of an unalterable external truth regarding the natural world. Just as I'm sure you could find some primitive tribe that condoned stabbing children to death, I'm sure you could find a primitive tribe that believed a stick wouldn't fall when dropped, but could be caused to levitate by a shaman. But this doesn't change that this external truth exists for both the material world and for morality.

In this way, I seek absolute, external truth in morality and ethics just as I do in science. Does that make sense?

Again, I don't expect you to agree just because I explain something. I'm just seeking to explain my views in a way that at least makes sense to someone who doesn't agree with me.

I guess I just don't think it is self-evident. My answer to your question isn't a "yes this is wrong (under all circumstances)" because I believe there probably are circumstances where not only is it an understandable action but it is justifiably the best of actions. I'm sure you can imagine some "end of world" scenarios where it's up to you to decide whether everyone is nuked vs. only your child being murdered. That said, I do believe that in almost every circumstance it is wrong... but I think it's obvious that actions like theft and murder, while considered generally wrong, are justifiable (self defense, to feed a family...)

So I don't think there is an external truth regarding morality, but even if I did, I have no idea how we would objectively verify it. we know that there are countless different sects of Christianity, for example, and these all rely on a different understanding of the moral code and other aspects of the bible. In this way, I do think your "objective source" is still interpreted subjectively, so it is meaningless to call it objective in my mind.
I especially don't think that the bible is clear when it comes to moral questions, because from what I've heard and read it specifically condones slavery, for example. There is a commandment about murder but there are many verses where god explicitly commands people to murder. If that's "objective", I don't know what isn't. I think this point of mine is related to the Euthyphro dilemma which I'm sure you're familiar with.

I do think that what we consider to be moral or not is strictly a function of our culture and how we are raised. I won't pretend that I KNOW that's the case, but I find no reason compelling so far to think it is otherwise.

 

[pharphis]

I will try to clarify my own position a bit further.

As I said, I believe our morals come from our culture, and is this directly related to evolutionary gain as we became a social species. For a social species to maximize survival and reproduction, there are some general principles to follow: Don't steal, murder, etc.

Ofc, there are grey areas as we both admit. That's why I think it's fair to suggest that we live following general moral guidelines and not strict, objective truths.

For example: Life is generally preferable to non-life. Suffering is generally unwanted. General happiness and freedom is preferable to the lack of those. Obviously, there are restrictions on things like freedom when it conflicts with one of our other principles.
This also allows us to try to better address the nuance of the grey areas. Obviously, some suffering is so bad that we would rather die than live (severe depression, chronic illnesses, etc.).

I think that because out morality comes from evolutionary origins, it is reasonable to expect our view of various things to change as we evolve as a species. This is another reason to believe it to be subjective, and not objective.

 

[Grape1]

]Well, if they are all just stories in the end, then why read them? For me, I've spent the last years reading thousands of pages of philosophy, theory, and literature. On average I read 1,500-2,000 pages a week! I'd really be bummed out if I thought there wasn't any truth behind it, and they were all just stories. I affirm Christianity, because out of all of these texts, the Bible has made the most sense out of the world--not just the material world.

I mostly state this just to clarify my views, because a lot of people voice similar things like, "Why the Bible? Why Christian morality?" And for me, it's because these morals most essentially line up with reality.

Why read some book (stories or not) that has dramatically changed the world? Well, out of curiosity and for general education. The Bible gets referenced all the time in the western world. I'm an avid consumer of literature, and knowing the ideas of the Bible makes understanding many novels easier

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

I guess I just don't think it is self-evident. My answer to your question isn't a "yes this is wrong (under all circumstances)" because I believe there probably are circumstances where not only is it an understandable action but it is justifiably the best of actions. I'm sure you can imagine some "end of world" scenarios where it's up to you to decide whether everyone is nuked vs. only your child being murdered. That said, I do believe that in almost every circumstance it is wrong... but I think it's obvious that actions like theft and murder, while considered generally wrong, are justifiable (self defense, to feed a family...)

So I don't think there is an external truth regarding morality, but even if I did, I have no idea how we would objectively verify it. we know that there are countless different sects of Christianity, for example, and these all rely on a different understanding of the moral code and other aspects of the bible. In this way, I do think your "objective source" is still interpreted subjectively, so it is meaningless to call it objective in my mind.
I especially don't think that the bible is clear when it comes to moral questions, because from what I've heard and read it specifically condones slavery, for example. There is a commandment about murder but there are many verses where god explicitly commands people to murder. If that's "objective", I don't know what is. I think this point of my is related to the Euthyphro dilemma which I'm sure you're familiar with.

I do think that what we consider to be moral or not is strictly a function of our culture and how we are raised. I won't pretend that I KNOW that's the case, but I find no reason compelling so far to think it is otherwise.

You misunderstood the argument I was making in regard to the ethical quandary.

My claim is NOT that we have to find a moral absolute that is true in all circumstances. My claim is that if we can make an absolute moral claim about a specific circumstance, then ipso facto that is an absolute claim, and it follows that there is such a thing as absolute moral truth.

As I stated in response to Kitteh, my claim is NOT that every single moral issue is observably black and white. This would be absurd. That would be like saying every scientific debate is absolutely black and white. Neither of those are true.

Of course, you can shift the variables of my hypothetical situation and say, well, what if your child faced some other terrible pain, and you were in a burning building and you could choose between stabbing him to death and letting him burn alive?

Well, that's a different problem. I am not voicing a hypothetical problem, but a real one:
I am sitting in my office chair. I can go home and stab my son to death. Is this evil or good? If we can say it is evil, then that is an absolute statement. We don't need to go through other scenarios. We have established that an absolute moral claim may be made about a specific situation.

It is like this: if I drop a penny, will it fall? If I'm using these questions to try to understand the principle of gravity, then I don't need to say, well, it depends on whether I am in a space ship or not, outside of the earth's gravitational pull, so we can't really know if gravity actually exists. OK, great, but that's a different issue. It still remains that if I am on earth, the penny will fall. A specific circumstance allows us to observe an absolute truth regarding that circumstance.

Do you see the difference?

Obviously, there are heaps of dilemmas, paradoxes, etc. in both the natural sciences and in ethics. So why should we assume there IS no absolute truth in the latter case and then assume there IS absolute truth in the former case? Can you provide an answer for that?

I'm not posing a rhetorical question, or implying you can't--I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

Why read some book (stories or not) that has dramatically changed the world? Well, out of curiosity and for general education. The Bible gets referenced all the time in the western world. I'm an avid consumer of literature, and knowing the ideas of the Bible makes understanding many novels easier

No, I perfectly understand you, and perhaps my post was poorly stated. You could have easily turned it around on me and said, "Well, why do you read thousands of pages of fiction (which is by definition 'untrue') and secular philosophy if you believe the truth is Christianity?"

I suppose I more mean that at the end of the day, don't you seek some sort of truth and wisdom and meaning from these texts? Or is it just 100% entertainment?

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

By the way, @pharphis I'm not ignoring your statements regarding biblical morality and issues of subjectivity. I just wanted to make my initial point clear before going on: that external moral truth is possible, just as external material truth is possible.

If by subjective, you mean dependent on circumstance, then of course all truth is subjective--scientific and moral. To use the earlier example, a penny will fall to the ground on earth, but not not in a space shuttle. In certain cases, it might be right to end someone's life, while in others it would not be.

Essentially, my claim is this: I don't claim that morality isn't shaped by circumstances. It absolutely is. I don't even claim that we can objectively verify it. We can't, just as we cannot with science. Kant taught us that centuries ago. I don't claim that every single human in the world agrees upon it. Again, with science, we can't say that either. My claim is merely that in every ethical circumstance, there is an absolute, external truth--a right and wrong choice, just as in every material situation there is an absolute, external truth--a false or true way of understanding the relation between physical matter.

Does that make sense? I'm actually making what is in some ways a very small claim here: that it is not absurd to claim that absolute moral truth exists anymore than it is absurd to claim that absolute material truth exists.

Now, once we get into ethics and dilemmas, of course--we could go on for days. (The Euthyphro dilemma is a great one!) Just as in science, we could debate some of the trickier, nuanced subjects like a Higgs-Boson particle.