Scientists and Atheists Should be Moral Absolutists

[clouded.perception]

Atheists are rarely driven by logic. Most of them is unable to defend their ideas, and belief. They aren't able to derive any logical sense from their belief.

What exactly do you mean about not being driven by logic?

Most of them think that since they can't hear or see God, it isn't there at all.

Yes -- I don't believe in God without evidence in the same way I don't believe in pixies without evidence.

Just wanted to point that out. Sorry if I interrupted your conversation.

 

[arildno]

Just chiming in with clouded.perception:

While "everyone" agrees the belief in pixies is just silly and DISMISSABLE AT THE OUTSET, this silliness somehow disappears if you give the pixie the qualities of omnipotence and all-goodness (in addition to transparent wings of course).
In fact, now the belief is to be regarded as something profound and spiritual..

Well, I for one don't get this, and never will.

 

[moving finger]

So my question is, why? Why do scientists/athiests not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality?

Excellent post, excellent question.

Like many, I think I felt "intuitively" that moral values should be relative rather than absolute.

But your post has started me thinking. Thank you.

I'm going to do some more study & reading, and will be back.

My initial reaction is : Moral values are relative because they are values based on perspective and subjectivity. But I'm re-evaluating this.

Thanks for making me think!

Best Regards

 

[loseyourname]

What exactly do you mean about not being driven by logic?

I think he's trying to claim that atheism is the default position of the intelligentsia these days, and most atheists simply accept this status quo, rather than being driven to their beliefs by rational inference from the available evidence.

Of course, he does seem to go on to say that atheists do not believe in God because they have never experienced anything that would cause them to believe. I fail to see what's so illogical about this. I'd say the inference from "there is no good evidence for the existence of X" to "I do not believe in the existence of X" is perfectly rational. The real contentiousness lies in the truth of the first proposition and mostly in what exactly constitutes good evidence.

 

[moving finger]

Of course, he does seem to go on to say that atheists do not believe in God because they have never experienced anything that would cause them to believe. I fail to see what's so illogical about this. I'd say the inference from "there is no good evidence for the existence of X" to "I do not believe in the existence of X" is perfectly rational. The real contentiousness lies in the truth of the first proposition and mostly in what exactly constitutes good evidence.

If God wanted humans to believe in Him based on "good evidence", then He could easily provide plenty of such good evidence. God has it within His power to "prove" to everyone on Earth that He exists.

However, He chooses not to do this.

Conclusion : God does not want people to believe in Him simply because they have "good evidence" that He exists. Rather, He wants people to believe in Him based on faith alone - and faith by definition does not require "good evidence".

Now, if we are to assume that God is both omnipotent and consistent, then it follows from the above that He wants all people to believe in Him based on faith rather than "good evidence". Hence He will act to ensure there is no such "good evidence".

Thus, any and all phenomena which we might call "good evidence" are in fact either illusions or misinterpretations, and there is no such thing as "good evidence" that He exists.

Moving Finger

 

[moving finger]

A recent thread on moral absolutism/relativism got me thinking about the issue again, and rather than do the usual arguments, I'd like to take a slightly different angle at the issue.

Firstly, how do we define moral absolutism and moral relativism?

I suggest possible operational definitions are :

Moral Absolutism : The optimum moral code for any society is independent of the individuals which make up that society.

Moral Relativism : The optimum moral code for any society is dependent on the individuals which make up that society.

Any comments on these?

It seems to me that athiests are often athiests because their minds are dominated by logic - much like scientists (which is why a good fraction of scientists are athiests). But science is predicated on one primary/core article of faith/belief: that the universe obeys fixed laws and if we're smart enough, we can figure out what they are. Ie, scientists believe there are absolute physical laws that govern the universe. And yet, when it comes to morality, it seems a great many scientists and athiests are moral relativists. They don't believe that similar to (perhaps even part of) the laws of science, there exists a set of universal laws of morality.

I think it depends on how you define the term “laws of morality”
Morality is an extremely complex phenomenon. If someone believes (as I do) that notions of morality arise purely deterministically from interaction between individuals, then it follows that the basic “rules” of this morality are based on deterministic “laws”. The problem, however, is that the emergent “moral rules” are dependent on (derived from) the detailed value systems of the individuals concerned. Different individuals will give rise to different “moral rules”. Thus, given that individuals can vary across very wide ranges, there is no “universal set of moral rules” which would apply to all societies. Though the moral rules are based on universal laws, the detailed moral rules for a given society emerge from, and are dependent on, the individuals which make up that society.

In a similar way, “cloud formation” ultimately follows universal physical laws. But it does not follow from this that we can identify a “universal law of clouds” which will be applicable to all clouds and will prescribe the details of each cloud (size, shape, colour etc) in absence of the variable contributing factors which influence the formation of those clouds.

I am suggesting it is the same with moral laws. Moral rules ultimately follow universal physical laws, but it does not follow from this that we can identify a “universal law of morality” which will be applicable to all societies and will prescribe the details of all moral rules in absence of the variable contributing factors which influence those laws – ie the individuals in the society.

Best Regards

 

[selfAdjoint]

I suggest possible operational definitions are :

Moral Absolutism : The optimum moral code for any society is independent of the individuals which make up that society.

Moral Relativism : The optimum moral code for any society is dependent on the individuals which make up that society.

Any comments on these?

1) In what sense optimum? How about using "existing" instead?

2) Your absolute definition wouldn't satisfy most people who believe in absolute morality because of the restriction "for any society". This raises the question whether different societies could have different absolute moral codes (for example democracy and shari'a).

 

[moving finger]

Moral Absolutism : The optimum moral code for any society is independent of the individuals which make up that society.

Moral Relativism : The optimum moral code for any society is dependent on the individuals which make up that society.

1) In what sense optimum? How about using "existing" instead?

Good suggestion. However the problem with “existing” is that it presupposes agreement on the “existing” moral code. Can we assume that all members of any given society will agree on all the details of the moral code for that society? I doubt it. Lawyers make a lot of money from the fact that there is often disagreement!

2) Your absolute definition wouldn't satisfy most people who believe in absolute morality because of the restriction "for any society". This raises the question whether different societies could have different absolute moral codes (for example democracy and shari'a).

But isn’t the thesis that “different societies have different moral codes” just Moral Relativism (why – because “different societies” = “different individuals”, and Moral Relativism says that moral code depends on the individuals which make up the society)?

Could you perhaps suggest a better definition of Moral Absolutism to distinguish it from Moral Relativism?

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

Why do scientists/athiests not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality?

Or, better yet, why don't scientists consider absolute laws of morality to be part of the absolute laws of science?

As both a scientist and an atheist I feel obliged to get to the bottom of this question, and provide Russ with the answer he is seeking.

From Wikipedia :

Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act.

The problem with this is that “the context of the act” includes the properties of the individuals involved. Thus, it follows that moral absolutism entails that morals are independent of the properties of the individuals involved.

But any society is simply a collection of individuals.

Therefore moral absolutism entails that morals are independent of the society to which they apply.

Therefore moral absolutism entails that there is one and only one set of morals, which must be applicable to all societies and all individuals.

What is wrong with the above argument, if anything?

Also from Wikipedia :

Moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but are instead relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references.

It follows that moral relativism entails that morals are dependent on the individuals involved, and on the societies which these individuals make up.

Therefore moral relativism entails that there can be different sets of morals, applicable to different societies.

This explication of moral relativism I see as being entirely rational and deterministic. I see nothing in the above which would lead one to the conclusion that it is irrational for an atheist or a scientist to believe in moral relativism (as suggested by russ watters) – quite the reverse. The moral relativist position seems to me to be the more reasonable and scientific account of morality.

Russ - the simple answer to your question of why scientists/athiests do not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality is because the laws of morality are emergent laws which are critically dependent on the individuals involved (unlike physical laws which, it seems, are fundamental and not dependent on the entities involved). This means that physical laws can be considered absolute, whereas moral laws are not.

Best Regards

 

[George Jones]

I am a physicist, and I am not aware of any absolute physical laws.

 

[selfAdjoint]

But isn’t the thesis that “different societies have different moral codes” just Moral Relativism (why – because “different societies” = “different individuals”, and Moral Relativism says that moral code depends on the individuals which make up the society)?

I don't agree that “different societies” = “different individuals”. This is the Thatcher satz, "There are no societies, only individuals". But we evolved from animals that ran in bands and everywhere humans are found in structured societies. An absolute moral principle relative to a society is one that the society will punish an individual for breaking. Our big "civilizations" have legal codes and court systems to administer this, but even the smallest organized group will shun or exile someone who breaks one of their taboos.

 

[moving finger]

I don't agree that “different societies” = “different individuals”. This is the Thatcher satz, "There are no societies, only individuals".

I am certainly not saying there are no societies.
I am saying that individuals make up a society, and a society comprises individuals. It would be just as wrong to look at the morals of a society in isolation from the individuals that make up that society as it would be to look at the morals of an individual in isolation from the society of which he/she is a part.

An absolute moral principle relative to a society is one that the society will punish an individual for breaking.

That's a nice contradiction in terms - an absolute moral principle relative to a society?

A society does not exist as a disembodied "source of moral law" - the society is made up of individuals. And this is why not all societies have identical moral laws. Moral law is a balance between "social obligations" and "individual rights" - we cannot base morals on one and not the other.

Best Regards

 

[Les Sleeth]

A society does not exist as a disembodied "source of moral law" - the society is made up of individuals. And this is why not all societies have identical moral laws. Moral law is a balance between "social obligations" and "individual rights" - we cannot base morals on one and not the other.

I agree with you that morals are about individuals, but I'd add that it also primarily has to do with human interaction.

I think to understand what morals are one has to try to understand why the first ones came about. It is my opinion that morals evolved as social mores meant to preserve the group. If you live in a situation where your actions have no impact on anyone else, whatever you do is either beneficial or harmful to you alone. But once people’s actions affect others, morals come into play. If what you do creates strife with others in your group, the group is threatened. Over time, especially after the French and American revolutions, we came to understand that the preservation and nurturing of the individual is central to preserving and furthering the group. So, I say the fundamental (which I think is a better term than “absolute”) moral is that one’s actions do not harm others.

What complicates this simple definition is religion where theologians have proposed that God insists we behave certain ways. Now added to the basic (and practical) idea of no harm is obedience to some set of absolute rules of the universe. Also, some theologians have imagined that a religion has the right and obligation to insist, demand, and even enforce what they interpret as God’s absolute morality.

If we take religion out of the picture it becomes more clear why the atheist and religious alike have an intuitive sense of what is “moral” . . . it just an awareness that to share this planet with others it is best if we do no harm.

While "everyone" agrees the belief in pixies is just silly and DISMISSABLE AT THE OUTSET, this silliness somehow disappears if you give the pixie the qualities of omnipotence and all-goodness (in addition to transparent wings of course). In fact, now the belief is to be regarded as something profound and spiritual. Well, I for one don't get this, and never will.

From our past exchanges you probably know I agree with you wholeheartedly about religion. However, religion and the belief that some sort of creationary consciousness exists are not the same thing. You want to dismiss God as silly based on rationality?

What I find ironic is the ridiculing of God belief by people who don’t know the slightest thing about why the best experts on the subject believe(d) it. Once again I say, take religion out of the picture and you can see there is another understanding of God available. Let me try an analogy.

What if I said to you that heat is radiating from a toaster, and you stand back and say it makes no sense to you and therefore talking about heat from a toaster is silly. I say, just put out your hand and feel it, but you say I can’t think heat therefore it doesn’t exist. I say, but you can feel it. You say, I don’t want to feel, I just want to think, so therefore what I can’t think doesn’t exist. I say, well, isn’t it just that YOU haven’t experienced it, and isn’t it that YOU just don’t want to feel? So how can you logically conclude that heat doesn’t exist because of your personal preferences of what to investigate and what to experience, and then go around calling others silly who might want to learn to experience heat?

Blind, experience-less belief in God may be silly, but that doesn’t mean all who believe in God do so that way. What you and other hard-core rationalists don’t seem to want to allow is that one’s sensitivity can be evolved with practice so that one learns to feel more subtle things. It is an ancient and venerated practice, and out of it have come many reports of detecting consciousness at work behind manifest reality.

Now, it is your choice not to develop this ability, but it seems rather narrow to assume that the way you have developed your consciousness is the only non-silly way to develop it, or that what you are capable of detecting is all there is to detect. Further, thus far it is not proven that the knowledge possible in this universe is limited to what the rationalist or scientist can achieve no matter how eager they are to set themselves up as the epistemological standard for us all.

 

[kyleb]

I believe that morals are absolute. However, I also understand that one requires an omnipresent perspective in order to obtain objective understanding, while as individuals we are bound by subjective ones.

 

[arildno]

From our past exchanges you probably know I agree with you wholeheartedly about religion. However, religion and the belief that some sort of creationary consciousness exists are not the same thing. You want to dismiss God as silly based on rationality?

What I find ironic is the ridiculing of God belief by people who don’t know the slightest thing about why the best experts on the subject believe(d) it. Once again I say, take religion out of the picture and you can see there is another understanding of God available. Let me try an analogy.

What if I said to you that heat is radiating from a toaster, and you stand back and say it makes no sense to you and therefore talking about heat from a toaster is silly. I say, just put out your hand and feel it, but you say I can’t think heat therefore it doesn’t exist. I say, but you can feel it. You say, I don’t want to feel, I just want to think, so therefore what I can’t think doesn’t exist. I say, well, isn’t it just that YOU haven’t experienced it, and isn’t it that YOU just don’t want to feel? So how can you logically conclude that heat doesn’t exist because of your personal preferences of what to investigate and what to experience, and then go around calling others silly who might want to learn to experience heat?

Blind, experience-less belief in God may be silly, but that doesn’t mean all who believe in God do so that way. What you and other hard-core rationalists don’t seem to want to allow is that one’s sensitivity can be evolved with practice so that one learns to feel more subtle things. It is an ancient and venerated practice, and out of it have come many reports of detecting consciousness at work behind manifest reality.

Now, it is your choice not to develop this ability, but it seems rather narrow to assume that the way you have developed your consciousness is the only non-silly way to develop it, or that what you are capable of detecting is all there is to detect. Further, thus far it is not proven that the knowledge possible in this universe is limited to what the rationalist or scientist can achieve no matter how eager they are to set themselves up as the epistemological standard for us all.

Well, many people in the past would have sworn that pixies existed.
In fact, many of them would have been convinced that at some time, they had spotted a pixie in the twilight, quickly vanishing.
I'm sure they were very excited about such experiences, and that it had been a very emotional moment for them.

(Similarly, nowadays, not only is the belief in ghosts a lot stronger in Japan than in the West, and there are thousands of sightings every year. I'm sure every such moment is emotionally rich)

 

[moving finger]

Hi Les

I agree with you that morals are about individuals, but I'd add that it also primarily has to do with human interaction.

I didn’t say that morals are only about individuals. I said :

Moral law is a balance between "social obligations" and "individual rights" - we cannot base morals on one and not the other.

Human interaction is what human societies are all about.

I think to understand what morals are one has to try to understand why the first ones came about. It is my opinion that morals evolved as social mores meant to preserve the group. If you live in a situation where your actions have no impact on anyone else, whatever you do is either beneficial or harmful to you alone. But once people’s actions affect others, morals come into play. If what you do creates strife with others in your group, the group is threatened.

Agreed. Our “base” morals are indeed directly emergent from, and can be explained and understood on the basis of, a combination of genetic evolution and game theory. Such emergent and deterministic morals would guide human action and interaction in the absence of most intellectual thought about the origin and purpose of morals.

So, I say the fundamental (which I think is a better term than “absolute”) moral is that one’s actions do not harm others.

This is where morals (what I call the “higher” morals) start to depart from game-theoretical accounts. The extrapolation from “I will do no harm to others within my social group” (which can be explained on the basis of genes/game theory) to “I will do no harm to any other human being” is an intellectual step which cannot be explained on the basis of genes/game theory. Such higher morals have no deterministic origin, they are a lofty ideal which transcend rational explanation, they represent subjective “matters of opinion”.

I believe that all human beings have equal rights, but I cannot rationalise this belief.
What is the rational reason for believing that all human beings have equal rights?
Some moral absolutists will also claim that animals have the same rights, that we cannot value a human life above an animal life. What rational reason might we have for thinking this?

If we take religion out of the picture it becomes more clear why the atheist and religious alike have an intuitive sense of what is “moral” . . . it just an awareness that to share this planet with others it is best if we do no harm.

I agree there is a rational argument to support the notion that it is best if we do no harm (or at least minimal harm) to members of our social group.
But why is it necessarily best to do no harm to all other species on the planet, and is such a course of action even tenable?
Is there a rational argument to support such an idea?

Best Regards

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well, many people in the past would have sworn that pixies existed. In fact, many of them would have been convinced that at some time, they had spotted a pixie in the twilight, quickly vanishing.

When people believe something is true from being trained by their culture (or an aspect of it), or if they believe it out of dislike or fear of some other belief system, then they are susceptible to seeing things as they imagine them to be, as well as susceptible to ignoring, glossing over, and dismissing what might contradict their beliefs.

People who believe in pixies or ghosts aren’t the only one’s who do such things. I see the crowd of "scientismists" (believers in science as able to answer all answerable questions) I debate here at PF do the same thing all the time. As someone who is neither religious nor who thinks science can answer all the questions, blind belief stands out to me no matter who is doing it. This belief that science is the ultimate epistemology absolutely requires that one ignore, gloss over, and dismiss the long history of at least one entirely different type of epistemology.

. . . I'm sure they were very excited about such experiences, and that it had been a very emotional moment for them. . . . I'm sure every such moment is emotionally rich)

You missed my meaning (assuming you mentioned “emotional moment” and “emotionally rich” in reference to my comments about feeling God). I’ll take another shot at explaining. I’ve written before about how consciousness can be seen as having two sides, the rational side and the sensitive side. Sensitivity is what I meant by feeling, not emotions which I consider a physiological mixture of mentality, sensitivity and often hormones.

I see all experience as based in feeling; that is, our sensitivity to information allows us to “feel” light and sound and taste and smell, we even might say we “feel” our intellect when we think, we “feel” ourselves remembering . . . we feel/sense everything we are conscious of. In this model, feeling is the fundamental substrate of consciousness, not rationality, because if you didn’t sense you were thinking, your brain might think but you’d have no experience of it, yet if you stop thinking you will still be conscious (I know because I do that all the time in meditation).

Now, just as we can develop our rational skills, we can develop our feeling ability. Western culture has been primarily dedicated to developing rationality, while the East explored the potentials of feeling. In the East one particular potential was realized, first by the Buddha, and then kept alive through the centuries by others who loved the experience.

How does one develop one’s sensitivity? It is really a very simple concept: you learn to quiet consciousness. Just like noise a stereo system produces can mask the subtleties of music recorded on a CD, a mind that is never quiet misses the more subtle information available to consciousness.

There are people who have spent decades and hours each day practicing this quiet. An interesting feature of the practice is that there is a place inside, sort of at the “heart” of human consciousness, that if felt, automatically quiets the mind; it takes a bit to find and then more or less “surrender” to this feeling, but when accomplished it draws one into an entirely new realm of conscious experience. Anyway, my point is that the practice really is one of feeling. How deeply can one learn to feel and how sensitive does it make consciousness, if say, one were to practice daily for thirty of forty years as a great many have? What might such a sensitized consciousness detect that those who haven’t done the work wouldn’t?

So here we find ourselves in a forum peopled by individuals who love to think, and who likely can’t ever quiet it with the skills they now possess. Not only do they not know about heightening one’s sensitivity personally, they don’t know much about just how extensively it has gone on throughout history all over the world, in Christian monasteries for example. Then, rather ignorant of what has been accomplished through sensitivity, they criticize belief in God from what they see going on in religion where people do blindly believe things. If you study the inner adepts, however, that is where you will find the most credible reports about being able to detect some sort of consciousness subtly at work behind physical reality, not in religious dogma and theology, which is essentially speculation taken from what others have experienced.

So that’s why I’ve said it is rather foolish to criticize ALL belief in God based on the application of science, a practice which relies strictly on rationality and sense experience. It’s foolish because science works fine for the clunky world of matter, but in terms of developing sensitivity, rationality is merely noise, and the senses are gross sensors. It is foolish because of trying to evaluate an entirely different epistemology (i.e., deepening conscious sensitivity) which involves withdrawing from the senses with one that works through full reliance on the senses; by trying to evaluate a practice where the main experience is that of wholeness with one that takes things apart; by evaluating an experience found only in utter quiet with incessant, non-stop, relentless thinking! Maybe a little humility on the part of all the genius science believers might allow them to see there are other human potentials to develop than what they’ve chose to develop, maybe they might even eventually understand why someone like the 15th century German monk Thomas Kempis said, ““A humble knowledge of thyself is a surer way to God than a deep search after learning . . . . [God is] to be heard in silence, with great humility and reverence, with great inward affection of the heart and in great rest and quiet of body and soul.”

A last point I would make is that I’ve not found rationality and deepening sensitivity to be in competition, they are distinct areas of consciousness, each with their own rules for development. There is no reason I can see that a person can’t be competent in both; in fact, I have found that one compliments the other. I can’t explain why but the deeper I feel, the better my intellect seems to work for me.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Agreed. Our “base” morals are indeed directly emergent from, and can be explained and understood on the basis of, a combination of genetic evolution and game theory. Such emergent and deterministic morals would guide human action and interaction in the absence of most intellectual thought about the origin and purpose of morals.

It can be explained in terms of just about anybody’s favorite theory, but of course that doesn’t make it so. Creationists might explain it in terms of God, atheists may want to make it genes. If you believe a priori that you are nothing but a physical thing or a spiritual thing, then every explanation has to fit that belief. Most people I know can’t refrain from “believing” something they don’t really have enough evidence to know if it is true.

I like believing nothing and then letting the weight of experience shift my certainty where it will.

This is where morals (what I call the “higher” morals) start to depart from game-theoretical accounts. The extrapolation from “I will do no harm to others within my social group” (which can be explained on the basis of genes/game theory) to “I will do no harm to any other human being” is an intellectual step which cannot be explained on the basis of genes/game theory. Such higher morals have no deterministic origin, they are a lofty ideal which transcend rational explanation, they represent subjective “matters of opinion”.

Because something transcends rational explanation doesn’t necessarily mean it is merely a subjective matter of opinion. First of all, everything conscious is subjective since all experience takes place within each consciousness; it’s just that some things can be commonly experienced. If I want to be more certain of your claims, I will look for what we can experience in common. But if I am concerned about my own certainty alone, that allows me to consider what I am able to experience only inside myself. Some people have the opinion that only what can be commonly experienced is trustworthy, but it seems a personal preference rather some hard, fast rule about what consciousness needs in order to know. What if you were the only person alive on this planet? Are you then able to know nothing?

Amongst my own collection of experiences are some which escape rational explanation. I might, for example, explain transcending group loyalty for human or even all life loyalty, as the result of experiencing an underlying basis of unity I've had during meditation, the experience of something that connects us all and at the essence level makes us all one. If so, then it isn’t an “intellectual step” at all that has transformed me, it is an experiential step.

I realize it is possible to create a rational explanation for anything really, but that doesn’t mean the explanation is adequate. Sometimes people, especially with consciousness stuff, will say “consciousness is an illusion,” to get rid of what they can’t explain. Partly I see that as once again an a priori belief getting in the way of objectively evaluating even, in this case, what we ourselves actually are (as consciousness); but I also see it as some people’s obsession with rational explanations.

Does everything real have to be accessible to reason? Or is there another way of knowing? For example, I understand that in philosophy “morals” are and have been mostly an intellectual thing. But . . .

I agree there is a rational argument to support the notion that it is best if we do no harm (or at least minimal harm) to members of our social group.
But why is it necessarily best to do no harm to all other species on the planet, and is such a course of action even tenable?
Is there a rational argument to support such an idea?

(I switched the order of your last two paragraphs.)

. . . I, like you, cannot rationalize why I feel the moral way I do. So we don’t get bogged down from the outset, by “feel” I don’t mean emotions. I simply mean some ongoing level of sensitivity that for me at least has deepened as I’ve aged and practiced meditation. I feel a connection to all life, and compassion for others. I want to understand them, I want the best for them. When I see people suffering it hurts; even when I watch a cartoon where Daffy Duck ineptly swings on a vine into a wall I flinch. That is very different than how I was when I was young, where the only person I seemed able to consider was myself.

My point is, what is it that truly makes one moral? Is it the exact and proper behavior, or is it sincerely feeling goodness? I mean, how many morals do you need if you naturally feel love and goodness? Aren’t you going to behave as you feel over what’s programmed into your head, or what you’ve “rationally” decided? Isn’t it the lack of feeling why we find so many moralists caught doing things they have openly rationalized against? And look at sociopaths, isn’t what makes them capable of such evil that they’ve shut down their feeling?

I believe that all human beings have equal rights, but I cannot rationalise this belief.
What is the rational reason for believing that all human beings have equal rights?
Some moral absolutists will also claim that animals have the same rights, that we cannot value a human life above an animal life. What rational reason might we have for thinking this?

Well, I still think one can “feel” this is a human need faster than rationalizing it, but there is a rational reason for believing in equal rights, and that is it “works.” This is the lesson learned in the field of organizational development where it used to be that business owners exploited workers thinking if they squeezed every bit of labor out of them it was profitable. It turns out that the costs of turnovers, purposeful work slow down and sabotage, sickness, lack of care for the work done, and a host of other problems actually costs a business in the long run. Right now the smartest companies are doing things that help employees thrive on the job, and very often not for humanitarian reasons.

We can evaluate all human interaction theories on this basis. Humans have, however you think they got there, needs beyond physical needs, and when those needs aren’t met it can have an unhealthy effect on our psychology, which in turn affects how and what the individual contributes to any sort of human interaction situation including society, business, marriage, parenting . . . all of it.

This might sound shallow in a serious philosophical discussion, but I think one of the best things going on culture-wide in the US anyway, is programs like Dr. Phil who is giving the masses much-needed lessons in what makes a group situation and the individual flourish. It is amazing to see so many people believe that giving children everything they want is good for them, or being as strict as the Gestapo is the way to discipline, or constantly nagging your mate will make them change for the better, or dumping your bad mood on others is justified, etc. People for the most part don’t seem to understand their own makeup, their own nature, and so both treat others and themselves in ways that lead to dysfunction. (There is a show on TLC called the “Dog Whisperer” which shows pet owners have the exact same problem understanding the importance of relating to a species according to its nature.)

 

[moving finger]

It can be explained in terms of just about anybody’s favorite theory, but of course that doesn’t make it so.

Of course not, reality isn’t like that. The best we can ever do is to propose hypotheses which attempt to explain “how” the world works in terms of simpler concepts. But we can never “prove” those explanations are the right ones. If you are looking for “proof” that your favorite theory is right then you’re on an impossible quest.

Most people I know can’t refrain from “believing” something they don’t really have enough evidence to know if it is true.

Everything in science, philsophy, logic and mathematics is predicated on premises, or propositions assumed true. If you seek a world-view with no premises you are on an impossible mission.

I like believing nothing and then letting the weight of experience shift my certainty where it will.

Like it or not, you are “assuming” that your “experience” is providing you with true information about the world. Unless you profess to be a true skeptic (believing in absolutely nothing, not even the “evidence” of your own senses) then you have to make assumptions about the world. (But even such a skeptic must make assumptions if he/she wants to interact with the world). What is an assumption but a believed but unproven truth?

Amongst my own collection of experiences are some which escape rational explanation. I might, for example, explain transcending group loyalty for human or even all life loyalty, as the result of experiencing an underlying basis of unity I've had during meditation, the experience of something that connects us all and at the essence level makes us all one. If so, then it isn’t an “intellectual step” at all that has transformed me, it is an experiential step.

In fact there is a completely rational explanation for your beliefs in this case. In a separate thread I have agreed that human moralising is probably often a combination of an intellectual exercise and an affective exercise (some agents will lean more towards affectation, some more towards intellectualisation).

I realize it is possible to create a rational explanation for anything really, but that doesn’t mean the explanation is adequate.

If you think my explanation inadequate, please do point out where you think it fails to explain correctly.

Sometimes people, especially with consciousness stuff, will say “consciousness is an illusion,” to get rid of what they can’t explain.

I don’t say this. Consciousness is very real. But we can very often be deluded into thinking that everything we think we experience via our consciousness represents some “fundamental insight into reality” which transcends rational explanation, when in fact it is no more than a simple emotion or feeling.

Partly I see that as once again an a priori belief getting in the way of objectively evaluating even, in this case, what we ourselves actually are (as consciousness); but I also see it as some people’s obsession with rational explanations.

I could equally claim that you seem obsessed with intuitive insights. You seem to have an a priori belief that your subjective experiences during meditation are telling you something fundamental about reality which cannot be rationally explained. I would say this belief of yours is getting in the way of you objectively evaluating reality.

Does everything real have to be accessible to reason? Or is there another way of knowing? For example, I understand that in philosophy “morals” are and have been mostly an intellectual thing. But . . .

If you have another explanation for the origin of morality and morals could you share it?

. . . I, like you, cannot rationalize why I feel the moral way I do.

I believe our moral inclinations do have a rational source, which is genetic. We have evolved to be moral animals, because morality usually “works well” within a social group of intelligent agents. This explains the emergence of a basic “feeling of morality”, and explains why it would be hard-wired into our behaviour. But these feelings have evolved to apply within small social groups, and I believe the further step of applying such moral rules to the entirety of humanity is an intellectual (or possibly in some cases an affectational) step.

So we don’t get bogged down from the outset, by “feel” I don’t mean emotions. I simply mean some ongoing level of sensitivity that for me at least has deepened as I’ve aged and practiced meditation. I feel a connection to all life, and compassion for others. I want to understand them, I want the best for them. When I see people suffering it hurts; even when I watch a cartoon where Daffy Duck ineptly swings on a vine into a wall I flinch. That is very different than how I was when I was young, where the only person I seemed able to consider was myself.

And I believe there is a perfectly rational genetically-based explanation for why we feel this way, and why these feelings change with maturity. A young child has no offspring, if he/she dies then this is the “end of the line” for his/her genes. It stands to reason, therefore, that there will be strong genetic reasons why that child will be more concerned with his/her own welfare and survival and have less sensitivity for the welfare and survival of others (ie a genetically-based reason for such behaviour). As that person reaches maturity, however, it is possible that they will have children of their own, in which case they will tend to start caring more for the welfare of others (especially others in their direct social group), and perhaps care a little less for their own personal welfare. As that person ages, and passes beyond the age at which they are likely to have any children, then from a genetic-survival viewpoint there is less benefit in prolonging that individual’s life compared to the lives of his/her offspring (the future survival of the genes now rests fairly and squarely in the subsequent generations).

My point is, what is it that truly makes one moral?

I think we need to agree a definition of “what is moral?” before we can tackle the question of what it is that makes one moral.

Is it the exact and proper behavior, or is it sincerely feeling goodness? I mean, how many morals do you need if you naturally feel love and goodness? Aren’t you going to behave as you feel over what’s programmed into your head, or what you’ve “rationally” decided?

I see no reason why one’s morals cannot be based on a rational decision (the intellectual road to morality) rather than on an emotional or affectational decision. (What makes you think that “feelings” are any less “programmed” than rational thoughts?)

Isn’t it the lack of feeling why we find so many moralists caught doing things they have openly rationalized against? And look at sociopaths, isn’t what makes them capable of such evil that they’ve shut down their feeling?

I would argue that sociopaths have in fact not shut down their feelings, that they in fact have extremely strong feelings, it’s just they are not the kinds of feelings which lead to moral behaviour.

I still think one can “feel” this is a human need faster than rationalizing it, but there is a rational reason for believing in equal rights, and that is it “works.” This is the lesson learned in the field of organizational development where it used to be that business owners exploited workers thinking if they squeezed every bit of labor out of them it was profitable. It turns out that the costs of turnovers, purposeful work slow down and sabotage, sickness, lack of care for the work done, and a host of other problems actually costs a business in the long run. Right now the smartest companies are doing things that help employees thrive on the job, and very often not for humanitarian reasons.

Well done, you’ve identified rational reasons for behaviour.
I don’t dispute that we can sometimes reach a useful conclusion faster by using our intuitions (what you call feeling) than we can by using our rationality. This is precisely why intuitions evolved in the first place. The point is, however, that our intuitions are not always right, especially when we apply them outside the sphere in which they have evolved to be effective.

We can evaluate all human interaction theories on this basis. Humans have, however you think they got there, needs beyond physical needs, and when those needs aren’t met it can have an unhealthy effect on our psychology, which in turn affects how and what the individual contributes to any sort of human interaction situation including society, business, marriage, parenting . . . all of it.

Yes, and all of this can be understood on a completely rational basis.

Best Regards

 

[Les Sleeth]

Everything in science, philsophy, logic and mathematics is predicated on premises, or propositions assumed true. If you seek a world-view with no premises you are on an impossible mission.

Science, philosophy and logic are, or are dependent upon, rational processes which of course rest on assumptions. But I wasn’t talking about rational processes, but another sort of conscious process which with practice one can develop. Keep in mind, I have not said anything against rationality, I have only suggested 1) it is not the only way to know and 2) there are some situations where an advanced development of one’s feeling side of consciousness works better, and that morality is one of them.

Like it or not, you are “assuming” that your “experience” is providing you with true information about the world. Unless you profess to be a true skeptic (believing in absolutely nothing, not even the “evidence” of your own senses) then you have to make assumptions about the world. (But even such a skeptic must make assumptions if he/she wants to interact with the world). What is an assumption but a believed but unproven truth?

Well, I am not a skeptic because a skeptic must assume too much in order to doubt. There is little difference in my mind between a skeptic and a blind believer; one is reactionary, the other is clinging, and both are guilty of unconscious mental practices.

What you call my “assumption” about my experience I would say is instead acceptance since I have nothing to work with but my consciousness. I merely accept what I find myself as: conscious. And consciousness has demonstrated to me again and again that it comes to know via experience, so I accept that experiential priority too as long as my consciousness continues working that way.

Surrendering to your nature is vastly different from assuming things that are NOT needed to be assumed in order to contemplate reality. I say you are assuming something you merely want to be true for some personal reason, not because you either need to assume it in order to function as consciousness (which is why I “accept” the experiential basis of knowing), or because the evidence is sufficient to justify your assumptions. Case in point . . .

I believe our moral inclinations do have a rational source, which is genetic. We have evolved to be moral animals, because morality usually “works well” within a social group of intelligent agents. This explains the emergence of a basic “feeling of morality”, and explains why it would be hard-wired into our behaviour. But these feelings have evolved to apply within small social groups, and I believe the further step of applying such moral rules to the entirety of humanity is an intellectual (or possibly in some cases an affectational) step.

Why would you believe that now? Have you found the genes that produce moral inclinations? You believe something not because you have observed what you need to in order to be certain, but because you have already decided what the truth is! Now, just like I said earlier what such mental practices cause, you are trying to find bits and pieces to fit your a priori opinion, and I’d bet anything you are also filtering out anything that might contradict what you want to be true (i.e., rather than is true). That’s what happens to the search for truth when it’s done by “believers.” The best search can be done by non-believers.

In fact there is a completely rational explanation for your beliefs in this case. In a separate thread I have agreed that human moralising is probably often a combination of an intellectual exercise and an affective exercise (some agents will lean more towards affectation, some more towards intellectualisation).

Rational explanations are not proof! They merely make sense. Tons of things make sense (i.e., are internally logically consistent) which are not true. You can decide little more than tautologies with rationality alone. That is exactly why science replaced rationalistic philosophy/theology as the epistemological standard for modern culture.

I could equally claim that you seem obsessed with intuitive insights. You seem to have an a priori belief that your subjective experiences during meditation are telling you something fundamental about reality which cannot be rationally explained. I would say this belief of yours is getting in the way of you objectively evaluating reality.

Really? Why would you say that? What do you know about the experience that can be attained in stillness? Are you speaking from experience or are you trying to win a debate. Besides, you are the one who has already made up his mind that genetics is causing morality without the evidence! So who’s objectivity has been compromised here?

If you have another explanation for the origin of morality and morals could you share it?

I have shared it. I have suggested that first it was a rational process, just as you suggested. But then you posed the question of why someone would transcend the practical issues of group unity. I answered that is because some people learn to feel goodness and love and compassion and . . . Of my many acquaitances some are highly moral (often for religious reasons), one friend in particular subscribes to a very strict moral standard. But I have to tell you that another friend, who is a bit sleezy, I trust more. Why? Because I can feel his goodness. I know he waffles when it comes to being perfectly honest, but I also know he will be more careful about doing real harm to me or others.

It’s not my place to tell you what to prefer. I only know that I don’t trust people who are behaviorally/rationalistically moral UNLESS I feel their sincerity behind that. Give me an imperfect living conscious friend with a kind heart any day over a robotic perfectly-behaved and rationalized moralist.

Well done, you’ve identified rational reasons for behaviour.

Look, I haven’t even slightly hinted that rationality doesn’t have its place, or that there aren’t times when rationality should determine our behavior. Further, often even what we do out of feeling also often has practical effects and therefore can be justified rationally.

What I have said is that some things we do for rational reasons are better done through feeling. I have found morality to be one of those things.

 

[moving finger]

Hi Les

What you call my “assumption” about my experience I would say is instead acceptance since I have nothing to work with but my consciousness.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Acceptance. Assumption. One may choose to call it what one wishes, but at the end of the day one assumes the veracity of one's experiences.

Surrendering to your nature is vastly different from assuming things that are NOT needed to be assumed in order to contemplate reality.

What is your “nature”? Are you assuming things again? Or maybe just accepting things? Or perhaps you think there is a difference?

I believe our moral inclinations do have a rational source, which is genetic. We have evolved to be moral animals, because morality usually “works well” within a social group of intelligent agents. This explains the emergence of a basic “feeling of morality”, and explains why it would be hard-wired into our behaviour. But these feelings have evolved to apply within small social groups, and I believe the further step of applying such moral rules to the entirety of humanity is an intellectual (or possibly in some cases an affectational) step.

Why would you believe that now? Have you found the genes that produce moral inclinations?

Why would one believe anything? Because it provides a rational and objective explanation which fits the facts. If you have evidence which shows this hypothesis is possibly incorrect, or even if you have an alternative explanation which is equally rational and equally fits the facts then I am sure we would love to hear it…. Would you like to offer one that we could discuss?

In fact there is a completely rational explanation for your beliefs in this case. In a separate thread I have agreed that human moralising is probably often a combination of an intellectual exercise and an affective exercise (some agents will lean more towards affectation, some more towards intellectualisation).

Rational explanations are not proof!

No hypothesis is “proof”.
Nobody can “prove” that any particular scientific hypothesis or theory is “right”. Nobody can “prove” that quantum mechanics is “right”, or that general relativity is “right”. The best we can ever do is to show that our hypothesis is both rational and that it fits the facts. If you have evidence which shows this hypothesis is possibly incorrect, or even if you have an alternative explanation which is equally rational and equally fits the facts then I am sure we would love to hear it…. Would you like to offer one that we could discuss?

I could equally claim that you seem obsessed with intuitive insights. You seem to have an a priori belief that your subjective experiences during meditation are telling you something fundamental about reality which cannot be rationally explained. I would say this belief of yours is getting in the way of you objectively evaluating reality.

Really? Why would you say that? What do you know about the experience that can be attained in stillness? Are you speaking from experience or are you trying to win a debate. Besides, you are the one who has already made up his mind that genetics is causing morality without the evidence! So who’s objectivity has been compromised here?

Do you have an argument?
I have suggested the basis of a rational hypothesis, viz that basic feelings and beliefs of morality would be expected to emerge as natural and dominant strategies in intelligent social agents as a normal and straightforward consequence of evolution by natural selection.
I am happy to discuss objectively the validity of this hypothesis.
If you believe there is evidence that this hypothesis does not fit the facts then please do present your evidence.
If you believe you have an alternative rational hypothesis which also fits the facts then please do present it here.
Unfortunately, subjective intuitive insights, and “experiences attained in stillness”, do not count as either rational or objective arguments, unless one can rationalize and objectify them.

Best Regards

 

[Les Sleeth]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Acceptance. Assumption. One may choose to call it what one wishes, but at the end of the day one assumes the veracity of one's experiences. . . . . What is your “nature”? Are you assuming things again? Or maybe just accepting things? Or perhaps you think there is a difference?

You are being clever. There is a difference between acceptance of the way something as consciousness "works," and assuming. You can blur the distinctions if you want, but it is little more than sophistry. If water freezes when the temperature is low enough, that's the way it works. If water were aware, it wouldn't have to "assume" it freezes, it just does. Consciousness likewise doesn't have to assume anything to accept how it works, it only need recognize it's own workings. After all, we, as consciousness, have lived every moment of our lives "working" as consciousness does.

Why would one believe anything? Because it provides a rational and objective explanation which fits the facts. If you have evidence which shows this hypothesis is possibly incorrect, or even if you have an alternative explanation which is equally rational and equally fits the facts then I am sure we would love to hear it…. Would you like to offer one that we could discuss?

I am and have been discussing it! I believe something because of what I have experienced, or other's I trust (such as empiricial observations done in science). Relying on my pool of experience, and that of others' I trust, I reason about things. I don't need a "rational" explanation to justify things when experience for me is what establishes certainty (i.e., not reason). Reason I how I communicate, how I work with another's mind to help him understand, or to understand what he is trying to say. It is also a way I logically extend from facts (observed reality) to hypothesize. But in no way do I think reason gives certainty about anything unexperienced.

Now, how much more clearly can I say it?

If you have evidence which shows this hypothesis is possibly incorrect, or even if you have an alternative explanation which is equally rational and equally fits the facts then I am sure we would love to hear it…. Would you like to offer one that we could discuss?

?

If you believe there is evidence that this hypothesis does not fit the facts then please do present your evidence.

Do you have an argument?

If you believe you have an alternative rational hypothesis which also fits the facts then please do present it here.

This tactic is getting old. I've argued my point all along, that morals "transcend" reason when one begins to act out of sincerity (recall that the transcend question was what you yourself posed, and why I endeavored to offer an opinion to begin with). You disagree, fine. But stop acting like I have said nothing and am making no point like some moron who doesn't even know what debate he's in.

I have suggested the basis of a rational hypothesis, viz that basic feelings and beliefs of morality would be expected to emerge as natural and dominant strategies in intelligent social agents as a normal and straightforward consequence of evolution by natural selection.

And I said, believe what you want. You got things all nice and neatly in place. I don't think you, or anyone who knows me, will find me lacking in the ability to reason. I merely have learned an advanced way to feel, which you admittedly know nothing about; because of what I've learned, I prioritize that advanced sensitivity over reason in terms of how I am generally conscious. When it is time to reason, I temporarily give reason the priority, but it's not how I live my life overall. On the question of morality, I have stated that I think they work better out of feeling sincere than they do working out of rationality. Once again I ask, how much more clearly can I say it?

You know, there was a time I was a hardcore rationalist, a vehicle of pure reason (or tried to be). Looking back I think it made me stiff, robotic, and not fully alive. So it is from choice I am conscious the way I am, and not from never trying alternatives.

Unfortunately, subjective intuitive insights, and “experiences attained in stillness”, do not count as either rational or or objective arguments, unless one can rationalize and objectify them.

Fortunately, your proclamations about what is and isn't allowed mean little. One can reason rationally from any experience if the experience is real. You just don't know, and won't bother to find out, if the experience realized in stillness is real. I hope you aren't so egocentric you think we all must be bound by your limitations! Everything known may not fit your nice, neat, tidy little set of explanations. Everything known may not be subject to being objectified. Some things you may have to know for yourself alone. Is that so horrible?

 

[moving finger]

Hi Les

at the end of the day one assumes the veracity of one's experiences

You are being clever. There is a difference between acceptance of the way something as consciousness "works," and assuming. You can blur the distinctions if you want, but it is little more than sophistry. If water freezes when the temperature is low enough, that's the way it works. If water were aware, it wouldn't have to "assume" it freezes, it just does. Consciousness likewise doesn't have to assume anything to accept how it works, it only need recognize it's own workings. After all, we, as consciousness, have lived every moment of our lives "working" as consciousness does.

You seem to be assuming that your interpretation of "how consciousness works" is the correct interpretation. You may choose to call this assumption your "acceptance" of how consciousness works in order to try and avoid being accused of making assumptions, but this doesn’t change the fact that you are assuming your interpretation is correct.

Why would one believe anything? Because it provides a rational and objective explanation which fits the facts. If you have evidence which shows this hypothesis is possibly incorrect, or even if you have an alternative explanation which is equally rational and equally fits the facts then I am sure we would love to hear it…. Would you like to offer one that we could discuss?

I don't need a "rational" explanation to justify things when experience for me is what establishes certainty (i.e., not reason). Reason I how I communicate, how I work with another's mind to help him understand, or to understand what he is trying to say. It is also a way I logically extend from facts (observed reality) to hypothesize. But in no way do I think reason gives certainty about anything unexperienced.

I have never said that reason gives “certainty” about anything (in fact I’ve said just the opposite), and I dispute that you have access to certainty through experience.

The issue is not about “justifying things”, it is about finding reasonable and rational explanations for things. Perhaps you really do believe that your pet explanation does not need to be rational – that is your prerogative. For my part, if I am offered two explanations, one rational and one irrational, I would choose the rational one every time.

This tactic is getting old. I've argued my point all along, that morals "transcend" reason when one begins to act out of sincerity (recall that the transcend question was what you yourself posed, and why I endeavored to offer an opinion to begin with). You disagree, fine. But stop acting like I have said nothing and am making no point like some moron who doesn't even know what debate he's in.

And what, pray, is wrong with an “old tactic”? The only important issue in any philosophical debate is whether the tactic is logically valid or not.

The point I am making is that there is a rational explanation which fits the facts (the “basic morals result from evolution by natural selection” hypothesis, viz that basic feelings and beliefs of morality would be expected to emerge as natural and dominant strategies in intelligent social agents as a normal and straightforward consequence of evolution by natural selection). I agree that the mere existence of an hypothesis is no proof of truth (but science is not about the proof of truth). All I am asking is, if you disagree with this hypothesis, that you present the rational reasons why you disagree. Is this unreasonable?

I have suggested the basis of a rational hypothesis, viz that basic feelings and beliefs of morality would be expected to emerge as natural and dominant strategies in intelligent social agents as a normal and straightforward consequence of evolution by natural selection.

And I said, believe what you want.

Interesting. Is this really supposed to be a rational argument?

You know, there was a time I was a hardcore rationalist, a vehicle of pure reason (or tried to be). Looking back I think it made me stiff, robotic, and not fully alive. So it is from choice I am conscious the way I am, and not from never trying alternatives.

Are you suggesting that rationalists are not “fully alive”?
Would you care to provide a rational argument that supports such a belief?

You know, there was a time when my reactions were based on emotion, intuition and feeling, and I rejected rationalism (or tried to). Looking back, I think it made me pretentious, wishy-washy, ephemeral, insubstantial and evasive. So it is from choice that I am conscious the way I am, and not from never trying alternatives…….duhhhhh …..So what?

I hope you aren't so egocentric you think we all must be bound by your limitations!

The feeling is reciprocated 100%. I also hope that you are not so egocentric you think we must all be bound by your limitations?

But this is hardly a rational argument, is it?

Everything known may not fit your nice, neat, tidy little set of explanations.

Nor may it fit yours. The point is that the only basis for rational debate is rational debate. If you think there is any other basis for rational debate apart from rationality then please do explain.

Everything known may not be subject to being objectified. Some things you may have to know for yourself alone. Is that so horrible?

Not horrible at all. But if everything is subjective, there isn’t much point in discussing it with someone else, is there? If one wishes simply to “know for oneself alone” that is fine, but in that case how can one expect anyone else to participate?

Good luck with your assumptions.

Best Regards

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hi Les


You seem to be assuming that your interpretation of "how consciousness works" is the correct interpretation. You may choose to call this assumption your "acceptance" of how consciousness works in order to try and avoid being accused of making assumptions, but this doesn’t change the fact that you are assuming your interpretation is correct.


I have never said that reason gives “certainty” about anything (in fact I’ve said just the opposite), and I dispute that you have access to certainty through experience.

The issue is not about “justifying things”, it is about finding reasonable and rational explanations for things. Perhaps you really do believe that your pet explanation does not need to be rational – that is your prerogative. For my part, if I am offered two explanations, one rational and one irrational, I would choose the rational one every time.


And what, pray, is wrong with an “old tactic”? The only important issue in any philosophical debate is whether the tactic is logically valid or not.

The point I am making is that there is a rational explanation which fits the facts (the “basic morals result from evolution by natural selection” hypothesis, viz that basic feelings and beliefs of morality would be expected to emerge as natural and dominant strategies in intelligent social agents as a normal and straightforward consequence of evolution by natural selection). I agree that the mere existence of an hypothesis is no proof of truth (but science is not about the proof of truth). All I am asking is, if you disagree with this hypothesis, that you present the rational reasons why you disagree. Is this unreasonable?


Interesting. Is this really supposed to be a rational argument?


Are you suggesting that rationalists are not “fully alive”?
Would you care to provide a rational argument that supports such a belief?

You know, there was a time when my reactions were based on emotion, intuition and feeling, and I rejected rationalism (or tried to). Looking back, I think it made me pretentious, wishy-washy, ephemeral, insubstantial and evasive. So it is from choice that I am conscious the way I am, and not from never trying alternatives…….duhhhhh …..So what?


The feeling is reciprocated 100%. I also hope that you are not so egocentric you think we must all be bound by your limitations?

But this is hardly a rational argument, is it?


Nor may it fit yours. The point is that the only basis for rational debate is rational debate. If you think there is any other basis for rational debate apart from rationality then please do explain.


Not horrible at all. But if everything is subjective, there isn’t much point in discussing it with someone else, is there? If one wishes simply to “know for oneself alone” that is fine, but in that case how can one expect anyone else to participate?

Good luck with your assumptions.

Best Regards

To all of that I say, you could use a little sincerity.

 

[Mickey]

I haven't noticed that scientists tend to not believe in laws of morality. Then, maybe that's because I've spent most of my time around economists.

Economics supports the notion that non-coercive systems of resource exchange are more efficient. Therefore, economists will often take a moral ground, based on observation, that coercion is immoral.

Similarly, economists who believe that losses due to coercion are worth it in the long run for certain circumstances may take a moral ground for additional support of that belief.

Further, economics relies on scarcity (i.e. finite supply), which makes it non-theistic, since with God all things are available and possible. According to religion, you can get all you ever need by praying for it. In economics, you have to buy it or work for it.

Traditional Protestants only have their characteristic "work ethic" because they don't have to work for salvation. Because their salvation is already taken care of, they no longer have religious barriers to creating a modest upper middle class fortune. It's a little ridiculous, when you think about it.

Anyway, I think those in the hard sciences still have moral absolutes, whether they are conscious of them or not. I bet they all agree that one must have some impartial knowledge of the universe, that one must hold their theories hostage to observation, that it's a good thing to find ways to make technology affordable and a bad thing to be sloppy.

The really good morals are so short and simple that we adapt them into our group psychology. (However, certainly not everything adapted into our group psychology is really good).

 

[moving finger]

To all of that I say, you could use a little sincerity.

and you could focus a little less on being disrespectful, and a little more on the issues of the thread

Best Regards

 

[Rade]

...Economics supports the notion that non-coercive systems of resource exchange are more efficient. Therefore, economists will often take a moral ground, based on observation, that coercion is immoral...

Perhaps we can say that coercion is the absolute root of all evil ?

 

[loseyourname]

Is not coercion a huge source of moral behavior, though? We use it both to teach our children how to behave morally and to induce moral behavior in adult citizens.

 

[arildno]

Well, but does "root of all evil" signify that everything that comes out of coercion is evil, or does it rather signify that all evil stems from coercion?

 

[Rade]

Is not coercion a huge source of moral behavior, though? We use it both to teach our children how to behave morally and to induce moral behavior in adult citizens.

Yes, but are these really examples of coercion ? If a child is about to hit another child with a bat and I use force to stop them--have I used coercion ? If society forces drunk driver to watch videos about harm of drinking has society used coercion ? To me, coercion is action taken when one uses another by force and without permission as a means to ones own end. This seems to follow the post by Micky where it was stated that "Economics supports the notion that non-coercive systems of resource exchange are more efficient. Therefore, economists will often take a moral ground, based on observation, that coercion is immoral". Thus, in a capitalist society a coercive system of resource exchange is evil because society is using individual capitalist, with force and without permission, as a means to society ends. Communists thus love coercion and find no immorality within the act.

 

[Rade]

Well, but does "root of all evil" signify that everything that comes out of coercion is evil, or does it rather signify that all evil stems from coercion?

The first because many forms of evil do not stem from coercion--the second is covered by the statement "evil is the root of all coercion". Thus we find the two truth statements:
1. everything that comes out of coercion is evil
2. all coercion stems from evil

 

[moving finger]

Is not coercion a huge source of moral behavior, though? We use it both to teach our children how to behave morally and to induce moral behavior in adult citizens.

Coercion underscores secular law.

"Do as the law says or you will be punished!"

When a society judges you right or wrong, it judges you NOT against your moral code of ethics (whatever that might be), but against a consensus moral code of ethics accepted by that society, and any enforcement of that code of ethics in the form of punishment is simply a form of coercion - it is an attempt to modify not only your behaviour but also the behaviour of others, such that you conform to that code in future.

All completely rational, and all completely deterministic.

Best Regards

 

[neurocomp2003]

I think to study morality scientifically("to claim there are absolute laws") would require one to delve into every science involved in the study of an individual and a society...from physics to biology, from the inner workings of the brain to the environmental(cultural or geophysical) factors that influence that brain.

This would require every individual or a substantial number of individuals to document everything they and their offspring do in life...how they are raise d, what they have eaten, where they live, whom they interact with etc

Unfortunately our society is not setup this way and i don't think ever will be capable of doing such a long term project,after all we are individuals.
Also the task of verifying data(real/fake) will be an enormous task itself, again after all we are individuals hoping that our own beliefs are right.

Thus the enormous permutations that would exist in studying morality would not make it an [drawing a blank ?absolute?] science ...ah forget it...would not make it science.

 

[moving finger]

I think to study morality scientifically("to claim there are absolute laws") would require one to delve into every science involved in the study of an individual and a society...from physics to biology, from the inner workings of the brain to the environmental(cultural or geophysical) factors that influence that brain.

...

Thus the enormous permutations that would exist in studying morality would not make it an [drawing a blank ?absolute?] science ...ah forget it...would not make it science.

The entire notion of "absolute laws of morality", and the illusion that we can find such laws via reductionist science, is misguided. Moral and ethical rules are emergent properties of social structures, they are not fundamental laws built into the microstructure of physics. Like most emergent phenomena, they arise from particular configurations of micro-states, and as such are not simply dependent on the individual properties of the micro-states involved, but are more dependent on the particular configurations that those states adopt. This "configuration-space" is truly enormous, and the emergent properties of such a space are not reducible to some simplistic reductionist notions in terms of the basic laws of morality.

In essence, the problem is the same with trying to identify the reductionist micro-states of consciousness - another misguided enterprise, because consciousness like morality is an emergent phenomenon which depends for its existence NOT on particular physical properties of individual microstates, but rather on the emergent properties of particular configurations of microstates.

The dream of finding the basic physical laws of morality is as nonsensical as the dream of finding the source of consciousness in individual "consciousness neurons" in the brain - it's reductionism gone mad.

Best Regards

 

[Mickey]

Is not coercion a huge source of moral behavior, though? We use it both to teach our children how to behave morally and to induce moral behavior in adult citizens.

Well, I think this is a huge problem. Actually, I think it's the biggest one we have.

I support non-coercive methods of schooling (e.g. Montessori, unschooling) and fully abhor the conventional state-sponsored alternatives. The culture of manipulation we have towards young people is unnecessary and eventually works against their interests, which are no less legitimate than our own.

I believe basic morality can be discovered independently and naturally by curious people, if perhaps not immediately. Children are universally gifted with curiosity, but it's stifled by our attempts to hurry and forcefully moralize them. Adults have a social problem when it comes to interacting with young people. We prejudge them as lesser individuals and ignore their strengths in favor of worrying about their weaknesses.

I am disturbed by the way we seem to treat children like a different species, even poor and diseased children in impoverished nations. Have you noticed the similarities with the popular image of an alien? Short, very skinny, pale and sickly small-mouthed individual with big eyes and deformed head, often naked? The physicist Fred Alan Wolf believes that abduction experiences are actually psychological manifestations of our fear of needy children and the growth of technology. It's by far the most interesting approach to the UFO abduction issue I've ever heard before.

Anyway, I do believe it's a bigger problem than the Iraq war or anything else, because children are the future. That reasoning is cliche now, unfortunately, but it's a simple undeniable fact. Society's plans for the future are irrelevant if we alienate our young people.

Perhaps it's because I'm at that time in life. I just finished college a little while ago, and it's come to the point where I reflexively don't trust educators anymore. I went to a Montessori school when I was very young, and since then, schooling at all levels seems to have been nothing but a demand for obedience.

Even in the Economics department, the professors don't understand that non-coercive methods can be applied inside a course as well as the marketplace. My macro professor said to his class that undergraduates can't be trusted with the freedom to learn independently, since they'll just go out and party all the time. The really sad part was that I seemed to be the only one who felt deeply insulted.

 

[moving finger]

My macro professor said to his class that undergraduates can't be trusted with the freedom to learn independently, since they'll just go out and party all the time. The really sad part was that I seemed to be the only one who felt deeply insulted.

It's a sad fact of life that not everyone has the same value system that you do. Maybe if everyone went to Montessori schools then we would all turn out with similar value systems, maybe not. Who knows? But at the moment it would be grossly socially irresponsible to remove the coercive secular law enforcement system from society - it's a necessary part of the social framework that keeps many people (at least mostly) honest.

Best Regards

 

[neurocomp2003]

In essence, the problem is the same with trying to identify the reductionist micro-states of consciousness - another misguided enterprise, because consciousness like morality is an emergent phenomenon which depends for its existence NOT on particular physical properties of individual microstates, but rather on the emergent properties of particular configurations of microstates.

Moving FIngers: I will agree with you that its about studying emergent phenomenon. As you put it Emergent Phenomenons arise because of "particular configurations of microstates", the science of studying emergent phenomenon(N-body problems,Cellular Automata, Flocks&boids etc) thus is about researching how these configurations result from a lower scale fundamental and how the configurations themselves EVOLVE or FLOW based on the lower scale properties. This type of reductionist approach is not just about studying a single fundamental and what types of properties it has, but also how it interacts with other fundamentals,how modular regions interact and how the system as a whole(N-body,("particular configurations of microstates") ) acts based on these fundamental principles.
Putting it in better words. "Consciousness may depend only on these configuratoins but these configurations depend on their underlying fundamental's properties.

 

[moving finger]

Moving FIngers: I will agree with you that its about studying emergent phenomenon. As you put it Emergent Phenomenons arise because of "particular configurations of microstates", the science of studying emergent phenomenon(N-body problems,Cellular Automata, Flocks&boids etc) thus is about researching how these configurations result from a lower scale fundamental and how the configurations themselves EVOLVE or FLOW based on the lower scale properties. This type of reductionist approach is not just about studying a single fundamental and what types of properties it has, but also how it interacts with other fundamentals,how modular regions interact and how the system as a whole(N-body,("particular configurations of microstates") ) acts based on these fundamental principles.
Putting it in better words. "Consciousness may depend only on these configuratoins but these configurations depend on their underlying fundamental's properties.

I don't necessarily agree. A particular (emergent) type of property of a configuration might NOT depend on the micro-physical components of that configuration - there might be many possible ways to construct a configuration with the same types of emergent properties, but based on very different micro-physical components. Sometimes the configuration (the way those components are put together) is more important in determining some types of emergent properties than the actual micro-physical nature of the components themselves.

Example : A Car. What property about an object makes it a "car"? It is not necessarily anything to do with the micro-physical nature of the components used to build the car - it is more to do with the configuration of those components, and how they inter-relate in a functional (rather than physical) sense.

I believe the same is basically true of consciousness, and of morality.

Best Regards

 

[neurocomp2003]

moving finger: But how will you analyze going from one configuration to another configuration. For example going from one emotional state to another? Let us assume as you have said that there are many configurations for being angry...how will you as the external researcher analyze the next state? Is it feeble to try?For your example of the car, I guess what this example brings out...is the Question of what is fundamental to the "concept" that's being study. Or how does one decide what is fundamental to the "concept". Again as an example the car, the fundamentals would probably be 4 rolling things(physical property) attached by a body containing seats and perhaps controlled by some gearing mechanism(physical property)

That example would lead us to asking what are the fundamentals to studying morality and consciousness. Are the terms morality and consciousness the fundementals? Or are the emotional states & Langauge fundamentals? If Langauge is a fundamental...then how does one learn a language, how does the brain allow individuals to learn to speak different languages and how do these individuals interact speaking different languages?

I will have to agree with an implied argument of yours that one may not need to analyze the lowest form of a fundamental(smallest reduction) in a system...because pertaining to Consciousness, I am trying to become an AI researcher where my fundamental is Neural Nets not the chemistry or physics(though i would require physics in my environment as input/output to the AGENTS for training).
I would like to point out THOUGH that should I see "errors" in my models, one option is to go to a lower scale(eg consciousness example->molecular activity) and try to understand why my models are wrong, by understanding flow in those lower level properties

And i think this last comment applies to the study of consciousness and morality. After all depending on how you view the brain and consciousness it is a multidisciplinary field.

 

[neurocomp2003]

moving finger: i also forgot to ask, Do you think sound/vision/Action have any relevance to consciousness or are they completely separate from it? Same for morality.

 

[moving finger]

moving finger: But how will you analyze going from one configuration to another configuration. For example going from one emotional state to another? Let us assume as you have said that there are many configurations for being angry...how will you as the external researcher analyze the next state? Is it feeble to try?

Are you talking about researching the states from the 3rd person perspective (ie a researcher researching the manifestations of someone else's states of anger), or are you talking about researching the states from the 1st person perspective (ie a researcher researching the manifestations of her own states of anger)?

For your example of the car, I guess what this example brings out...is the Question of what is fundamental to the "concept" that's being study. Or how does one decide what is fundamental to the "concept". Again as an example the car, the fundamentals would probably be 4 rolling things(physical property) attached by a body containing seats and perhaps controlled by some gearing mechanism(physical property)

I disagree - and this may cut right to the heart of our differences. "rolling things" and "gearing meachanism" are functional properties/concepts as opposed to physical properties. Yes it is true that a functional concept must be physically instantiated as a physical object, but there are many different ways to make "rolling things" from lots of different physical components - the essential property that makes them "rolling things" is NOT their micro-physical make-up, it is their configuration and function.

That example would lead us to asking what are the fundamentals to studying morality and consciousness. Are the terms morality and consciousness the fundementals? Or are the emotional states & Langauge fundamentals?

Some theories of emergence posit that there ARE no fundamentals - that we can always decompose whatever we think is fundamental into "lower levels". If this is true, then all we can do is to take an arbitrary level and start from there.

If Langauge is a fundamental...then how does one learn a language, how does the brain allow individuals to learn to speak different languages and how do these individuals interact speaking different languages?

One learns a language largely by mimicry, by copying others. I'm not sure what relevance your other questions have to the topic here, but I could attempt answers if you are interested.

I will have to agree with an implied argument of yours that one may not need to analyze the lowest form of a fundamental(smallest reduction) in a system...because pertaining to Consciousness, I am trying to become an AI researcher where my fundamental is Neural Nets not the chemistry or physics(though i would require physics in my environment as input/output to the AGENTS for training).

We agree here. I don't believe that emergent properties such as intelligence or consciousness necessarily have anything to do with the hardware on which they are "run" - just as a software program can run (in principle) on different makes and models of computer hardware (Apple's can emulate PCs and PCs Apples).

I would like to point out THOUGH that should I see "errors" in my models, one option is to go to a lower scale(eg consciousness example->molecular activity) and try to understand why my models are wrong, by understanding flow in those lower level properties

Possibly, just as if one finds errors in one's software, one may also possibly think of checking out the hardware to see if it is a hardware problem (but 99 times out of 100 it's a software problem).

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

moving finger: i also forgot to ask, Do you think sound/vision/Action have any relevance to consciousness or are they completely separate from it? Same for morality.

I think consciousness (at least the biologically-instantiated kind as we know it) requires a certain amount of sensory input (phenomenal experience) (in the form of audio, video, tactile, taste, smell etc inputs) in order to develop in the first place. I find it hard to believe that someone who was brought up in a completely sense-deprived fashion from birth could develop a properly functioning consciousness (I hope nobody ever tries the experiment!). Why? Because we are not born with fully programmed consciousness, and sensory input is really the only way that the brain has of "programming itself".

But once consciousness is fully developed within an individual, I don't think it is essential to maintain sensory input in order to maintain consciousness (though it may be essential if one wants to maintain sanity!)

As for morality - I believe morals are basically rules for social interaction (morality makes no sense in a society of one) - thus it stands to reason that morals cannot exist without some kind of sensory input (otherwise how could there be social interaction?).

Best Regards

 

[neurocomp2003]

moving finger: The first question, I meant to be in the 3rd person(external).
I'm sorry for asking...but what was the argument about again? Its 6am and I'm alittle tired to reread all that was type, i get lost in my own thoughts hehe. Still up because I'm excited about starting graduate school.

As for the second post of yours. Once the consciousness has developed through childhood and you remove the brain from its adult body(also unethical), do you believe that consciousness will still exist or function?

I had a point somewhere with all the questions but its incoherent to me now.

One Final Question. If indeed morals are shaped by sensory input, does it imply that morals depend on how the "individual" brain or consciousness is wired? and can possibly dictate how an individual handles future external stimuli?

It has been a fun discussion your posts were well written.

 

[moving finger]

moving finger: The first question, I meant to be in the 3rd person(external).

I think that is relatively easy - as long as one understands that one can never get 1st person information about the "phenomenal experience" from a 3rd person viewpoint. All one can do is to study consciousness "from the outside" as it were - study the neural correlates of phenomenal experineces, and study the behavioural aspects and reports of conscious agents.

I'm sorry for asking...but what was the argument about again? Its 6am and I'm alittle tired to reread all that was type, i get lost in my own thoughts hehe. Still up because I'm excited about starting graduate school.

uhhhh, what argument?

As for the second post of yours. Once the consciousness has developed through childhood and you remove the brain from its adult body(also unethical), do you believe that consciousness will still exist or function?

If you could keep the brain alive, yes I believe consciousness would continue to exist (it might be a very traumatic experience for the consciousness though)

One Final Question. If indeed morals are shaped by sensory input, does it imply that morals depend on how the "individual" brain or consciousness is wired? and can possibly dictate how an individual handles future external stimuli?

I believe morals are simply beliefs about how we think we ought to behave - these beliefs are acquired and developed mainly in childhood, but I think some of them (at least the basic tendencies such as "killing another person is wrong") may be hardwired also (in the genes).

Certainly our moral beliefs determine how we react to external stimuli - especially where these stimuli concern other people.

Best Regards

 

[ecolitan]

Let me begin by clarifying some of the matters which I have found to be objectionable in the first post.

It seems to me that atheists are often atheists because their minds are dominated by logic - much like scientists (which is why a good fraction of scientists are atheists).

I would propose that scientists are most like atheists in that they both share a sceptical viewpoint with respect to their beliefs, only accepting ideas which have sufficient evidence to support them.

But science is predicated on one primary/core article of faith/belief: that the universe obeys fixed laws and if we're smart enough, we can figure out what they are. I.e., scientists believe there are absolute physical laws that govern the universe.

This is a misrepresentation of the position of scientists. While I accept that some scientists might believe that there are absolute physical laws, this generalisation cannot be applied to all scientists. The goal of science is to provide as accurately as possible, a description of our physical reality which is able to be falsifiable by experiment. Scientists make use of the scientific method when acquiring new knowledge, whereby we postulate hypotheses to explain natural phenomena and design experimental studies to test the predictions for accuracy.

The end result of the scientific method is never an absolute physical law. The best a scientist can believe in is a testable description which has not been disproved.

Why do scientists/atheists not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality?

Because scientists do not believe in the existence of absolute laws of science this question can now be disregarded, however by bearing in mind the fact that scientists have to acquire knowledge by the application of the scientific method we can further build an argument against the case of scientists believing in the existence of absolute laws of morality.

A scientist would have to observe the already existing properties of morality, postulate a description of the phenomena observed and then experiment to attempt to falsify the description. Again, even at its best the scientific method applied to morality will fail to provide any absolute laws for the scientist to believe in.

 

[moving finger]

This is a misrepresentation of the position of scientists. While I accept that some scientists might believe that there are absolute physical laws, this generalisation cannot be applied to all scientists. The goal of science is to provide as accurately as possible, a description of our physical reality which is able to be falsifiable by experiment. Scientists make use of the scientific method when acquiring new knowledge, whereby we postulate hypotheses to explain natural phenomena and design experimental studies to test the predictions for accuracy.

I don't fully agree. Science is predicated on the existence of regularities in nature (if there were no regularities at all then science as we know it would be both meaningless and impossible). What we refer to as "laws" (of nature or physics) are simply human attempts to describe those regularities. The only reason why a scientist can reasonably expect that natural phenomena can be explained by hypotheses is because these regularities (described by laws) exist.

The end result of the scientific method is never an absolute physical law. The best a scientist can believe in is a testable description which has not been disproved.

Again I disagree. The end result of the scientific method is some form of coherent and consistent and reproducible description/explanation of the regularities in nature - and laws are nothing more nor less than human attempts to formalise a description of these regularities. Hence science is indeed all about "discovering" physical laws.

Because scientists do not believe in the existence of absolute laws of science this question can now be disregarded, however by bearing in mind the fact that scientists have to acquire knowledge by the application of the scientific method we can further build an argument against the case of scientists believing in the existence of absolute laws of morality.

As explained above, this conclusion is incorrect. Scientists do indeed believe in the existence of regularities in nature, and since the laws of nature are nothing more nor less than a human description of those regularities, it follows that scientists believe in the existence of laws of nature.

A scientist would have to observe the already existing properties of morality, postulate a description of the phenomena observed and then experiment to attempt to falsify the description. Again, even at its best the scientific method applied to morality will fail to provide any absolute laws for the scientist to believe in.

Not necessarily. If the scientific method provides evidence of regularities then the normal scientific approach would be to propose an hypothesis in an attempt to "explain" these regularities. Such an hypothesis may involve proposed "laws" of nature. Once the hypothesis is proposed, it is then open to further experiment to attempt to show that the hypothesis is false. This, in a nutshell, is scientific method.

Best Regards

 

[Pythagorean]

my bias: I'm a weak athiest, i can neither confirm nor deny the existence of a god/gods. I'm also training to be (or am?) a scientist. I don't believe in absolute laws. In fact, I was led to believe that quantum and probability wave functions were key indications that things aren't as absolute as Newton would have wanted them to be. In fact, I was just reading in my mechanics (by lymen) book how he found difficulty with the fact that his three principles weren't attached to any particular coordinate system, whereas today we view this as a cool thing about it, or at least that's how I'm taught to percieve it, because it allows flexibility)

Rather, He wants people to believe in Him based on faith alone - and faith by definition does not require "good evidence".

I'm curious about this. Why is faith so important to God? Does this imply a sort of narcissism. I suppose we were made in his image and he's said to be a jealous god as well, so it would make sense in the end, but he seems to be a tyrranical god (add the fact that you go to hell and live an eternity of misery if you don't do things his way).

I'm also a pluralist though. That is, I believe all religions are equally valid, and this is only one religion.

As for morales, I don't find them to be absolute either. Case by case. For the most part, killing, stealing, rape, assault are all terrible things and I can only see where killing and stealing might be excusable from here (in extrenious situations), 'here' being a relatively safe country in modern times.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I'm curious about this. Why is faith so important to God? Does this imply a sort of narcissism. I suppose we were made in his image and he's said to be a jealous god as well, so it would make sense in the end, but he seems to be a tyrranical god (add the fact that you go to hell and live an eternity of misery if you don't do things his way).

It has been remarked by many people that God, as presented in the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) has serious self-image problems. He requires constant reaffirmations of loyalty and uses his super powers to massacre people who don't toe his line.

Jesus's Father, in the New Testament, is more subtle, but every now and then Jesus has to admit the old ogre is still in there ("Don't fear people on Earth who can kill your body; fear the One who can destine your soul to eternal fire" or close to that - off the top of my head).

And if you have concluded, on sufficient evidence, that God exists, then that God is of your making; he is the conclusion you drew, defined by the properties you accepted. But this is no better than carving a graven image out of wood or stone; it is your workmanship, not the transcendent CREATOR OF ALL. So to really believe in ol' Jehovah, you have to have no rational reason to do so!

 

[MeJennifer]

It has been remarked by many people that God, as presented in the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) has serious self-image problems. He requires constant reaffirmations of loyalty and uses his super powers to massacre people who don't toe his line.

Such attributed qualities of a God are really the hopes, fears, wishes, mentality etc of the people believing in this God which they project onto their God.

 

[Pythagorean]

And if you have concluded, on sufficient evidence, that God exists, then that God is of your making; he is the conclusion you drew, defined by the properties you accepted. But this is no better than carving a graven image out of wood or stone; it is your workmanship, not the transcendent CREATOR OF ALL. So to really believe in ol' Jehovah, you have to have no rational reason to do so!

yes, even as a weak athiest, I've come to the conclusion that God exists... in the minds of men. Millions of men. He is powerful indeed, regardless of whether he created us, or man created him.