Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

[mitchellmckain]

But obviously the living organism that does not value life is a contradictory existence.

Let us take, then, a fish. It's a living organism, and a relatively complex one. Does a fish value life?

Yes.

[Rian]

Hi NH,
My "prayer" was meant as emotional support. Sometimes when my Christian friends are going through something difficult, I would really like to be able to say "I'll pray for you," because I know that is what they would most like to hear, and my aim is to be as encouraging and supportive. I can't do that, though, because it would be dishonest of me. But here on this board where we talk about and respect one another's views, I thought perhaps it was possible that I could offer a prayer for Wonders while still maintaining my integrity. Maybe that was misguided? I don't know.

Misguided? No. I thought it was very kind.

[Rian]

The "uninteresting" question of whether or not God exists! Now let's explore the nature of God!
The arrogance of that! "Explore the nature of God!"

Why do you think that is arrogant?

I think it's arrogant to say that it's possible to explore the nature of God. Exploring the nature of the internal combustion engine, okay, but "exploring the nature of God" is just ascribing to God qualities that you want him to have.

But you're falling into the "it's too good to be true!" fallacy. IOW, just because you want something to happen doesn't mean it can't be true. And if God made people because he wanted to interact with them, then I imagine he'd also be smart enough to give them some type of capability to do this. I don't see any arrogance here - do you still?

That's not an assumption, it's an opinion. I'm really convinced that the time will come when humanity won't have a need for a god anymore.

I could call it an opinion, but it was stated pretty strongly, so I called it an assumption. I'd agree with you that it's an opinion and I'm fairly convinced that your opinion is wrong!

Well, I think it's an interesting question. Why do so many people need for there to a god?

Why do you assume they "need" for there to be a god? I think many Christians just found sufficient supporting evidence - it wasn't a "need" in the sense that atheists usually mean.

And why is it so easy for other people to not need a god at all?

Oh, lots of reasons - people are very complex!

This shows me that religious belief is not hard-wired into human beings. Some people just don't need it at all, they don't think about it, they don't feel that they're missing anything, in fact they live pretty damn interesting lives and are a lot of fun to be around. The whole god thing is interesting to think about but that's about as far as it goes, and if there had never been such a thing as gods or a God I'll bet this world would be a nicer place to live in. Of course Christians would disagree with that.

Yup!

Oh, and Rian, I think you're a wonderful person!
And I'm glad to find out that we're both musicians and love reading!

Why, thank you! and did you hear about tirtlegrrl and the viola?

Thanks for the quote info. I'm starting to get the hang of it.

Yes, you are - embedded quotes and alternating quote/text in your last post. PIece of cake!

[Rian]

Then who's to say thay my special god that nobody knows about isn't the real god, and the god you worship is just a made-up fantasy?

I suppose the god that really exists will say!

I would suggest to you that this is a non-answer or at best is an answer of circular reasoning.
Or if you meant your reply as a joke it's an example of trying to hide circular reasoning, the most common form of the shell game of belief, behind humor.

It was meant as a joke only. I wasn't doing any circular reasoning, nor do I think my beliefs involve a shell game.

But so as not to offend as the mean ol' angry atheist, let me say that chess is a great game, and my regard for any person who I find to be a chess player increases immediately!
And if you were playing chess with your children, all the more wonderful!

All 3 kids play, as well as most of their cousins. My oldest son and husband can beat me, but not quickly, and I'm pretty even with the younger two (they have played a lot more than I have). But I'm good enough to give them all a run for their money, and I'm learning fast. I'm trying to find a balance between making a good move and not taking too long. Have you played much?

[Tim-the-Hermit]

I'm trying to find a balance between making a good move and not taking too long. Have you played much?

I recommend devising a personal 'blunder check' to quickly run through before making a move e.g.

"If I make this move:

a) can any of my pieces be captured?
b) can I be put in check? (including by discovered attack.)
c) can my opponent launch a 'double attack' (making two or more threats at the same time.)"

That helped me, Rian, but it's quite tricky to process c) well on some moves.

[Rian]

Thank you for the help, Tim - that's a good checklist! I tend to miss #1, because I concentrate too much on my own attack. I was ahead on both of my games yesterday until I made a move that lost me a good piece. I do better when I give myself more time, but then it just starts to get unenjoyable and unfeasible when the game is over 2 hours and there's 5 or more minutes between moves. Also, I think you learn better by experience, so moving within a few minutes is just better overall because you see more consequences. I really haven't played chess that much, because it's frustrating to me to know that I'll never have the time to be really good, but I just decided recently that it's a good game and I'll just have to play however I can play given my limitations with time.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Rian, I found this chess kids site a while ago. It's really for kids, but I like it because I'm an overgrown kid. It gives plenty of tips on all sorts of utterly horrible things that you can do to your own kids over the chess board.

[StillSearching]

I see this thread has dissolved into bishop virtues. At what age did you introduce chess to your children?

[humanguy]

I'm still trying to work out how a fish can value life.

[Rian]

I'm still trying to work out how a fish can value life.

The real question is: can a fish recognize a Queen's Gambit?

I see this thread has dissolved into bishop virtues. At what age did you introduce chess to your children?

Cardinal to Bishop
I'd say the kids started at around 7 or 8, but it was on and off. When they did chess camp at a summer program, they quickly moved to playing the teachers because they had no competition among the kids their age.

Rian, I found this chess kids site a while ago. It's really for kids, but I like it because I'm an overgrown kid. It gives plenty of tips on all sorts of utterly horrible things that you can do to your own kids over the chess board.

Hey, that looks like a good site! Thanks! I'll go through it myself. I may or may not tell them ...

[mitchellmckain]

I'm still trying to work out how a fish can value life.

The fish doesn't have a mind, so if you insist that valuing life is a mental activity then no the fish doesn't "value life" according to your definition. However I believe that the mind is just a living organism in a different medium and that the same basic self-organizing processes are ocurring the biology of the fish as is ocurring in the human mind. Therefore when I say that the fish values life I am discarding the priviledged human point of view with the special names it gives to its activities just because they are occuring in the organization of information in human brain - to say that the same basic things are going on in the fish, which also chooses life over death in its own way all the time.

Here is another way of looking at it is this: We have taken this reductionist approach that saying that since particle physics explains chemistry then chemicals are just particles, and since chemistry explains biology then living organism are just chemicals and thus just particles again, and so finally the conclusion is that everything that human beings are and experience is just particles too. But you can also go in the completely opposite direct and instead of dismissing the human experience as nothing in this reductionist approach, you can instead attribute elements of the human experience to the processes of biology then chemistry and then particle physics. Some people do take that approach whether in the Process Philosophy of Whitehead or those who see conciousness in the quantum physics of particles.

I think that both of these extreme approaches are wrong because they are missing an understanding of some key scientific developments in chaos theory and self-organizing processes, which identifies emergent realities in the process of life. So I will take the reverse approach described in the preceding paragraph but only down to that point where there is this self-organizing life process. Thus I do indeed attribute the more basic elements of the human experience (like choices, creativity, learning and values) to all living things (though I do think that there are significant quantitative differences).

I'm still trying to work out how a fish can value life.

The real question is: can a fish recognize a Queen's Gambit?

Since I cannot recognize this, I guess I am in the same category as the fish in this case.

[tirtlegrrl]

I would say a fish values life in the way most living beings value life: they struggle to live in the face of all obstacles.

[Angela]

My hunch is that you won't find many Christians to agree with you that morals are primarily based on human values rather than on God's. Do you find that to be the case? If so, why do you think that is?

Well it is not that simple and those are not the terms of the disagreement with other Christians. The actual ones can be found in the discussion with Frank Turek in the other thread. It is certainly not human values versus God's values, for there is no doubt in the mind of any Christian that God has it right and we have it wrong.

Hi Mitch, I was going to respond to this one a couple of days ago, but got sidetracked by the Frank Turek thread you mentioned. That is an interesting thread, but I'm on page 7, and so far mostly it's an argument about whether morality can be derived from evolution, which I find a bit strange. Why would anyone want to derive morality from evolution? I can see that certain elements of morality might have an evolutionary basis, but so do certain elements of, say, our nutritional needs, but does that mean we need to derive nutritional guidelines from evolution? I would say "what works" is a better place to start.

But I take it that the basic disagreement is whether or not there is an objective (oh dear there is that word again) basis for morality. I haven't seen any of your posts in the other thread yet (but I haven't gotten to the end). What is your stand on this question?

Going back to the psychopath that lacks the values which gives morality any meaning to him, this does not mean that if we were all psychopaths or Nietzsche's "ubermench" then it would not matter what we did at all. Yes we are valuing beings and free to make our own choices, but that does not mean that all choices are equal. Some choices and ways of life are better than others. On the other hand, some choices are equal -- that is not all choices are between the right way and the wrong way.

OK, I'm a little confused here. Do you think all morals are based on values, or not? When you say some choices are better than others, does that depend on what is valued? Or are some choices better than others, independent of values (human or divine)?

But obviously the living organism that does not value life is a contradictory existence. Perhaps this is the reason you find it hard to fathom that anyone would choose death over life - because to be sure it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Yes, that's part of it. Living things want to live. But I'm not sure that's really what our discussion on the "Jesus Fully Human" thread was about. (BTW, I did respond on that thread to your post awhile back.) Hell is not death as we generally think of it (the end of all experience); hell is eternal suffering. What I find impossible to fathom is that people would choose suffering over bliss.

[mitchellmckain]

Hi Mitch, I was going to respond to this one a couple of days ago, but got sidetracked by the Frank Turek thread you mentioned. That is an interesting thread, but I'm on page 7, and so far mostly it's an argument about whether morality can be derived from evolution, which I find a bit strange. Why would anyone want to derive morality from evolution?

Sounds like a pretty simple minded Christian approach: God is supposedly the source of morality so if you replace God with evolution then evolution has to be the source of morality if there is any.

My perspective is that evolution is just a learning process in which God plays the role of a teacher, so even if the values/morality originally came from the guidance of a creator, it came through a process of teaching by which those values were learned - but they are learned because they work not because God said so.

I would say "what works" is a better place to start.

I would too -- basic pragmatic approach.

But I take it that the basic disagreement is whether or not there is an objective (oh dear there is that word again) basis for morality. What is your stand on this question?

Yeah I don't know what the word means in that context either. The usual word is "absolute", but I take it means whatever a God can provide that no God cannot provide. LOL

Anyway if you will recall, my position on this question was given in my intro as a pluralist compromise between absolutism and relativism -- and if you read the explanation there you will see a pragmatic basis for the non-relativistic aspects of morality.

Going back to the psychopath that lacks the values which gives morality any meaning to him, this does not mean that if we were all psychopaths or Nietzsche's "ubermench" then it would not matter what we did at all. Yes we are valuing beings and free to make our own choices, but that does not mean that all choices are equal. Some choices and ways of life are better than others. On the other hand, some choices are equal -- that is not all choices are between the right way and the wrong way.

But obviously the living organism that does not value life is a contradictory existence. Perhaps this is the reason you find it hard to fathom that anyone would choose death over life - because to be sure it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

OK, I'm a little confused here. Do you think all morals are based on values, or not?

Yes of course, but as I indicate in the subsequent discussion of valuing life, some values are implicit in the nature of ones existence. This is because we do not start from scratch. Our existence as a product of billions of years of the accumulation of genetic information in the creative endeavor of life, which is founded on values not only implicit in the process itself but in the direction that the process has taken. On top of that are a set of what is more usually called values learned in human history and transmitted by human communication. So on top of the values implicit in being a living organism and a primate, are values implicit in being human as well.

When you say some choices are better than others, does that depend on what is valued? Or are some choices better than others, independent of values (human or divine)?

Some choices of what to value are better than others and what this depends on is the nature of your existence. To take an extreme silly example a person could choose to model his life after that of a tree, valuing only what a tree values, but this would use so little of his capabilities as a human being that I think it is obvious this choice is inferior to a choice that would make more use of what he is capable of. In other words contradicting values upon which your very existence is founded, is implicitly inferior.

What I find impossible to fathom is that people would choose suffering over bliss.

I would. But I think you have the choice here a little mixed up. People do not choose what their future is going to be. They choose what they are going to do right now. And the choice right now that leads to these two different results is the choice between what is easy (or comfortable) and what is difficult. I think we already talked about that somewhere.

[Rian]

I would say a fish values life in the way most living beings value life: they struggle to live in the face of all obstacles.

Do you think humans value life any differently?