Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

[Pseudonym]

And yes, one thing all Christians and Atheists alike can agree on is that toilet paper is and absolute essential, and any hypothetical without it would be just too absurd!

I hate to be the contrarian, but I'd far prefer to live in a country where bidets are the norm.

[yjoeyh]

yjoeyh wrote:
And yes, one thing all Christians and Atheists alike can agree on is that toilet paper is and absolute essential, and any hypothetical without it would be just too absurd!
I hate to be the contrarian, but I'd far prefer to live in a country where bidets are the norm.

That would certainly put the issue of T.P. hoarding to bed! We wouldn't have to worry about that being a problem in our new society.

[Angela]

Our beach bum society, based as it would have been on wholesale extermination of other human beings such as ourselves, would have destroyed itself. The Nazi belief system depended on the existence of an enemy; as soon as they had succeeded in violently conquered one enemy, they would have had to find another, and another, and another, until there wasn't anyone left to fight but themselves.

I think you are probably right, although, logically speaking, this really is begging the question. We have no way of knowing what the outcome of such a society would be in the long run. Up until now, there's always been someone out there with a bigger stick. It would be interesting (at least from the perspective of an observer) to see what the long term affect of world domination would be on the moral compass of a society that accomplished it.

Yes, and I certaintly don't claim to have proved that the hypothetical beach bums or the Nazis would have destroyed themselves. And you're right, it wouldn't be possible to prove that. What we can do is look at different (actual) societies and their values, and draw some conclusions about how values affect the health of a society. Also, some things just make sense (to me, at least) on a basic level. If the people in a society think it is ok to kill others over trivial things like toilet paper and bidets (hi Pseudo ), then there is likely to be a lot of killing in that society. And that would lead, at the least, to an unhealthy society, and, if the trivialization of killing is taken to the extreme, to the end of that society. Though maybe society would change its morals before it destroys itself? Kind of like we are changing our morals in regards to the environment as we realize that our current approach isn't going to work. I'm rambling a bit here, and again, I'm not claiming to prove anything. This is what makes sense to me.

Now here's why I don't think the existence of moral absolutes would help us any with this problem. Whether they exist or not, we are still confined to our subjective understanding of them

I agree with this completely.
I'm just not satified that "universally shared values" adequately explains the cause of universally perceived/understood moral truths. Yes, the "invisible scroll in the sky" answer is equally, if not more so unsatisfying. I think it's a enigma that warrants continued discussion, research and reasoning.

Well, from my perspective, I'm ok with not completely understanding exactly how our morality developed. It's kind of like biological evolution. I understand the general idea, and it makes sense to me. But I don't know all of the details, and while I like to keep up with advances in the field (for example, I enjoyed the recent article in Time about Ardi, the hominid skeleton that has shaken up the prevailing understanding of early human evolution), I don't find my lack of in-depth knowledge of the subject to be a problem that needs solving. I'm not saying I'm not curious or interested in the evolution of human morality, or that we can't continue to discuss it. I guess I just don't see it as the "enigma" that you do.

[Angela]

the products of evolution are a combination of what is arbitrary and what is necessary, which is why I am a pluralist. For me the very term "what works" implies that there are things that do not work, and therein is found the fact that it is not completely arbitrary - WHICH IS ALL THAT I HAVE ARGUED FOR.

I think we do mean two different things when we say "not completely arbitrary." You mean that some morals are arbitrary while others are absolute, and I mean that all morals are somewhere in between arbitrary and absolute (and some are more arbitrary than others).

1. "values are not implicit in anything unless there is someone to do the valuing"

Sounds like something I said.

You must mean it differently, though. Otherwise you would also agree to number 2, below. I mean that the only way it makes sense to say that "values are implicit" in a process, object, event, etc., is if there is a sentient being who created the process or object, or made the event happen. So values can be implicit in books, actions, and architecture, for example, because these things are intentional. There is a person behind them who indeed has values and may have expressed those values in the book, action, etc. But it is not logical to say that values are implicit in, say, a tornado, because no one made it happen so it doesn't express anyone's values. Of course, I am assuming that we are using the commonly accepted definition of value ("a principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable").

2. "the fact that we are alive does not mean it is inherently or implicitly valuable to be alive"

On this we disagree.

Yes, I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I don't see how you can agree to #1 without agreeing to # 2.

4. "because it is all still human, because we can't get out of our human perspective to see what things might look like from an outside perspective, morality is still, ultimately, relative."

Partially yes, but not completely. This is no more true in any absolute sense than any similar dismissal of the discoveries of science.

The recognition that morality is relative to human experience or that science is subject to the (collective) human perspective is not a dismissal of morality or science. Think about it. There is no dismissal, explicit or implied.

. .. . Learning is a process process of trial an error by which a self-organizing entity tries different things, finds out what works and then preserves the result of this process in some manner. Those entities with brains store the information somehow in a process that we do not quite understand but call memory. Human beings additionally store information by the use of language and symbols in various mediums. Biological species store the results of their efforts chemically encoded in DNA and RNA.

OK, thank you, that makes sense! Actually, I think I prefer it to the more narrow understanding of the concept of learning. And I definitely see how it is useful in the context of biology and evolution. Googling around a bit, I found this article on "plant intelligence," Smarty Plants: Inside the World's Only Plant-Intelligence Lab. (No, clicking on the link is not required ; I enjoyed the article, and thought you might enjoy it too )

I am defining suicide as "an action the sole purpose of which is to cause one's own death." A person might do this when he believes his life is not worth living anymore. For example, a cancer patient with little chance of survival who is in a great deal of pain. Or a person who has lost everything (home, community, livelihood, family, friends) in a tsunami. My question is do you think it is possible for this to ever be a moral and/or logical choice?

Your definition seems contradictory to me. Does "sole purpose" mean that there is no reason for doing so or not?

Reason and purpose are related but different things.

Do you think your example is really that of a person who says that life has no value?

No

Would such a person end their life with an atomic bomb so as to kill their family and everyone around them as well?

No

What you have said is that it is a contradiction for a living being not to value life.
...That is separate from any actions the living being might or might not take. So the contradiction isn't between values and actions.

That is correct, I did indeed say that. I continue to assert this without reservation. No it is not seperate. Yes it is a contradiction between values and action. A living being lives and therefore to not value life is a contradiction between values and action. Life is an inherent value because life is an inherent action.

If living is an action, it is an involuntary one, and thus is not a matter of choice, and does not express values. I must live in order to act, and I cannot act without living. I can, however, live without (voluntarily) acting. If I am unconscious or in a coma, I continue the involuntary actions that constitute the "act" of living (breathing, digesting, etc), but I am incapable of making choices, and thus my values do not affect my "actions."

No my definition of life has nothing to do with continuing to breathe or having a heartbeat.

Dang, we keep having this problem. You are free to define words and concepts as you wish, but if you are using a definition that differs from the standard one, it would be very helpful if you would include your definition the first time you use the word. The standard definition of life goes something like this: "a. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism." So what is your definition of life? By your definition, does an unconscious person "live"?

Every action of a living being is an act of life.

Is the action of killing oneself an "act of life"?

Above, because you point out that "living IS you" I suggested that perhaps you would like to rephrase your argument as "it is a contradiction to not value oneself."

Same thing and that is the whole point. Living is what we are and therefore we cannot seperate the two.

I think we have perhaps been conflating things in our discussion of "valuing life." There are multiple possibilities of what this might mean.
For example, one can value
a. one's own life.
b. all human life.
c. all life.
It is possible to value a. without valuing b. and to value b. without valuing c.

Also values are relative to each other. I can value something more or less. I could value a cow's life but value my nourishment more. I could value my own life but value relief from suffering more. I could value my neighbor's life but value my own life more. I could even place a very high value on my own life while valuing all other life very little, or not at all.

I can value myself but value something else more or less. And I can choose to continue to live, not because I think my life has intrinsic value, but because I value something else that requires me to be alive. For example, perhaps I value my children's wellbeing, and I must stay alive in order to take care of them.

[mitchellmckain]

the products of evolution are a combination of what is arbitrary and what is necessary, which is why I am a pluralist. For me the very term "what works" implies that there are things that do not work, and therein is found the fact that it is not completely arbitrary - WHICH IS ALL THAT I HAVE ARGUED FOR.

I think we do mean two different things when we say "not completely arbitrary." You mean that some morals are arbitrary while others are absolute, and I mean that all morals are somewhere in between arbitrary and absolute (and some are more arbitrary than others).

No I do not. I don't think either of these are correct. Its more like the form and expression is arbitrary but underneath is something which is not arbitrary. For example, the fact that some countries drive on the right side of the road and some on the left reveals that which side you drive on is an arbitrary matter BUT it is extreme important that you drive on one side or the other the same as everyone else and not on whichever side you feel like. You can try for something complex like driving on the left in Fall and Winter while on the right in Spring and summer but regardless there is still an unchangeable principle involved that will not go away.

1. "values are not implicit in anything unless there is someone to do the valuing"

Sounds like something I said.

You must mean it differently, though. Otherwise you would also agree to number 2, below. I mean that the only way it makes sense to say that "values are implicit" in a process, object, event, etc., is if there is a sentient being who created the process or object, or made the event happen. So values can be implicit in books, actions, and architecture, for example, because these things are intentional. There is a person behind them who indeed has values and may have expressed those values in the book, action, etc. But it is not logical to say that values are implicit in, say, a tornado, because no one made it happen so it doesn't express anyone's values. Of course, I am assuming that we are using the commonly accepted definition of value ("a principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable").
[/quote]
Still sounds like what I would say, with 1 caveate. Created objects like books and architecture are part of a living process themselves. Their very existence is due to living things creating them as part of their own living and as such they are much like the body organs of pancreas and liver. So it is a little bit funny to say that a human liver has no value except that there is a person who values it. Would that mean that human livers had no value before we people even knew enough about their own biology to know that they exist? Of course not. From that perspective the value of the liver does not depend on how people "value them" at all. LOL

2. "the fact that we are alive does not mean it is inherently or implicitly valuable to be alive"

On this we disagree.

Yes, I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I don't see how you can agree to #1 without agreeing to # 2.

Hmmmm.... I wonder if my example above helps a little bit???

4. "because it is all still human, because we can't get out of our human perspective to see what things might look like from an outside perspective, morality is still, ultimately, relative."

Partially yes, but not completely. This is no more true in any absolute sense than any similar dismissal of the discoveries of science.

The recognition that morality is relative to human experience or that science is subject to the (collective) human perspective is not a dismissal of morality or science. Think about it. There is no dismissal, explicit or implied.

Oh well yes if you want to put it that way. Morality is relative to the process of life itself, but since I cannot see where there would be any morality at all without life, then that seems to me to erase the distinction altogether. LOL

I am defining suicide as "an action the sole purpose of which is to cause one's own death." A person might do this when he believes his life is not worth living anymore. For example, a cancer patient with little chance of survival who is in a great deal of pain. Or a person who has lost everything (home, community, livelihood, family, friends) in a tsunami. My question is do you think it is possible for this to ever be a moral and/or logical choice?

Your definition seems contradictory to me. Does "sole purpose" mean that there is no reason for doing so or not?

Reason and purpose are related but different things.

Do you think your example is really that of a person who says that life has no value?

No

Would such a person end their life with an atomic bomb so as to kill their family and everyone around them as well?

No

Right so the person we are talking about DOES value life, doesn't he? Seems to me the question here is as I suggested before, not whether what you are doing will end your life but whether you value life or not, and don't forget that quality of life is a part of it.

So what is this difference you see between reason and purpose? All I see is a chain of reasoning that could have flaws anywhere along the line. People will do something for a reason and then find out that what they do does not address that reason after all.

If living is an action, it is an involuntary one, and thus is not a matter of choice, and does not express values. I must live in order to act, and I cannot act without living.

Yes that is why life in an intrinsic value for living things.

I can, however, live without (voluntarily) acting. If I am unconscious or in a coma, I continue the involuntary actions that constitute the "act" of living (breathing, digesting, etc), but I am incapable of making choices, and thus my values do not affect my "actions."

Yes and when these life functions stop, bacteria will imediately begin feasting upon the body and so you could say that life does not even stop there. But of course that is not what we would call living, no more is permanent coma. That is not human life. When I say that that living is an action I am not talking about involuntary biological function. The point is that every voluntary action of a human being is an act of living.

No my definition of life has nothing to do with continuing to breathe or having a heartbeat.

Dang, we keep having this problem. You are free to define words and concepts as you wish, but if you are using a definition that differs from the standard one, it would be very helpful if you would include your definition the first time you use the word. The standard definition of life goes something like this: "a. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism." So what is your definition of life? By your definition, does an unconscious person "live"?

No Angela you do not get away with this smarmy outrage this time. Life is a complex and philosophically and even scientically debatable term. Just today I heard a program on NPR about how this whole area between life and death has become a totally gray area. Life even according to your sacred dictionary (whichever one that may be) definition, just isn't the black and white thing it has been made out to be. I have EVERY RIGHT to HAVE MY OWN IDEAS ABOUT THIS!!! So you can stuff it!

YES WE WILL ALWAYS HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH WORDS. Every single discussion between EDUCATED people will ALWAYS have a difficulty with words, BECAUSE they know better than to assume that the word just means what they have always used it to mean in everyday language!

I have already given a definition, but maybe you weren't paying attention and I will elaborate a little. Life is a particular kind of self-organizing process with the capabilities of creativity, development and learning. We can recognize it when we see it but a simple precise definition is difficult. So if you want to think up something that sounds like this, I will see if I can tell you whether it is or isn't and why I think so. I have hopes that this will change in the future and we will have a more adequate definition of life, but I fear that when this is so there will be some technical language involved. The problem is that the life we know of is just the life here on earth and yet as we think it quite likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe this would require a definition of life that can capture the essence of what it is while going beyond what it is incidentally on this planet. We are aided in this to some degree by the radical diversity of life to be found on this planet which challenges many traditional defintions already.

Is the action of killing oneself an "act of life"?

Yes exactly! That is indeed the question! Every action is an act of life, but it may not be without contradiction - both and act of life and an act opposed to life.

Above, because you point out that "living IS you" I suggested that perhaps you would like to rephrase your argument as "it is a contradiction to not value oneself."

Same thing and that is the whole point. Living is what we are and therefore we cannot seperate the two.

I think we have perhaps been conflating things in our discussion of "valuing life." There are multiple possibilities of what this might mean.

Yes this is true to some small degree but these things are not really seperable.

For example, one can value
a. one's own life.
b. all human life.
c. all life.
It is possible to value a. without valuing b. and to value b. without valuing c.

No not entirely. Remember the green clothing example. If you do not value c then there is nothing but trivialities (like green clothing) to value in b, and if you do not value b then there is nothing but trivialities (like green clothing) to value in a.

There is however a quantitative nature to life and so all life is not equal. A single cell even though very much alive is not of the same value as my whole body.

[Angela]

Mitch,
OK I admit it, I am tired of this discussion. I've responded to some of your points below, but feel free to respond to only what you really want to (you know, like if I've said something outrageous that you just can't let slide, or if you'd like to answer any of my questions, or certainly let me know if you see any more "smarmy outrage" ) and ignore the rest. Use the delete button freely. Then at the end I've posted another question for you on a different topic (I think it's the one we dropped earlier), if you want to respond to that.

I think we do mean two different things when we say "not completely arbitrary." You mean that some morals are arbitrary while others are absolute, and I mean that all morals are somewhere in between arbitrary and absolute (and some are more arbitrary than others).

No I do not. I don't think either of these are correct. Its more like the form and expression is arbitrary but underneath is something which is not arbitrary. For example, the fact that some countries drive on the right side of the road and some on the left reveals that which side you drive on is an arbitrary matter BUT it is extreme important that you drive on one side or the other the same as everyone else and not on whichever side you feel like. You can try for something complex like driving on the left in Fall and Winter while on the right in Spring and summer but regardless there is still an unchangeable principle involved that will not go away.

OK, thanks for the clarification. Certainly chaos would ensue if we didn't agree on things like which side of the road to drive on, or how many ounces in a pound, or what time 3 o'clock is. This is what we have both agreed on--that morals arise from our learning how to live together in a society. Society won't work without them. So, hey, I agree--that's an unchangeable principle: Morals are necessary to the survival of society.

1. "values are not implicit in anything unless there is someone to do the valuing"

Sounds like something I said.

You must mean it differently, though. Otherwise you would also agree to number 2, below. I mean that the only way it makes sense to say that "values are implicit" in a process, object, event, etc., is if there is a sentient being who created the process or object, or made the event happen. So values can be implicit in books, actions, and architecture, for example, because these things are intentional. There is a person behind them who indeed has values and may have expressed those values in the book, action, etc. But it is not logical to say that values are implicit in, say, a tornado, because no one made it happen so it doesn't express anyone's values. Of course, I am assuming that we are using the commonly accepted definition of value ("a principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable").

Still sounds like what I would say, with 1 caveate. Created objects like books and architecture are part of a living process themselves. Their very existence is due to living things creating them as part of their own living and as such they are much like the body organs of pancreas and liver. So it is a little bit funny to say that a human liver has no value except that there is a person who values it. Would that mean that human livers had no value before we people even knew enough about their own biology to know that they exist? Of course not. From that perspective the value of the liver does not depend on how people "value them" at all. LOL

I created my liver?

Obviously the human liver has always had a function, a purpose. And it is a little different to say that "there are values implicit in the human liver" (which sounds silly to me) than that "the liver has value." Value, by definition, is something we assign to things ("a principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable"). Now, if you want to use "value" in a slightly different sense, here's another definition (of value, not values) that may work better in this context: "Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit" So the liver has value, or usefulness to the possessor, whether or not he knows it exists. If we use that definition of value, we could say, not that morals are based on values, but that morals are based on their value, or utility. And we're back to "what works."

4. "because it is all still human, because we can't get out of our human perspective to see what things might look like from an outside perspective, morality is still, ultimately, relative."

Partially yes, but not completely. This is no more true in any absolute sense than any similar dismissal of the discoveries of science.

The recognition that morality is relative to human experience or that science is subject to the (collective) human perspective is not a dismissal of morality or science. Think about it. There is no dismissal, explicit or implied.

Oh well yes if you want to put it that way. Morality is relative to the process of life itself, but since I cannot see where there would be any morality at all without life, then that seems to me to erase the distinction altogether. LOL

You need more than life to have morality, you need conscious beings living together. Trees don't need morals. If there were only one single conscious being in existence, it would not need morals.

I am defining suicide as "an action the sole purpose of which is to cause one's own death." A person might do this when he believes his life is not worth living anymore. For example, a cancer patient with little chance of survival who is in a great deal of pain. Or a person who has lost everything (home, community, livelihood, family, friends) in a tsunami. My question is do you think it is possible for this to ever be a moral and/or logical choice?

Do you think your example is really that of a person who says that life has no value?

No

Would such a person end their life with an atomic bomb so as to kill their family and everyone around them as well?

No

Right so the person we are talking about DOES value life, doesn't he? Seems to me the question here is as I suggested before, not whether what you are doing will end your life but whether you value life or not, and don't forget that quality of life is a part of it.

I guess you thought I was trying to trap you with my question about suicide. My examples weren't supposed to show that people don't value life. I was interested in your thinking on the morality of suicide in different situations.

No my definition of life has nothing to do with continuing to breathe or having a heartbeat.

Dang, we keep having this problem. You are free to define words and concepts as you wish, but if you are using a definition that differs from the standard one, it would be very helpful if you would include your definition the first time you use the word. The standard definition of life goes something like this: "a. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism." So what is your definition of life? By your definition, does an unconscious person "live"?

No Angela you do not get away with this smarmy outrage this time.

Had to look up smarmy (this being the first time I have heard it applied to myself), to get a clear idea of what you're accusing me of: "Hypocritically, complacently, or effusively earnest." So was my earnest "outrage" (which I assume you inferred from my use of "dang"?) hypocritical, complacent, or effusive? I agree, you shouldn't let me get away with any of that.

Life is a complex and philosophically and even scientically debatable term. Just today I heard a program on NPR about how this whole area between life and death has become a totally gray area.

Sounds interesting. Do you remember what program it was?

Life even according to your sacred dictionary (whichever one that may be) definition,

My "sacred dictionary" is usually whatever comes up first on a google search.

just isn't the black and white thing it has been made out to be. I have EVERY RIGHT to HAVE MY OWN IDEAS ABOUT THIS!!!

Yes, and, hoping you would not think I was trying to deny your rights again, I made sure to point out that "you are free to define words and concepts as you wish" And I completely agree, defining life is not a simple thing.

So you can stuff it!

Oh dear, what kind of outrage were you experiencing? Not smarmy, I'm sure.

YES WE WILL ALWAYS HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH WORDS. Every single discussion between EDUCATED people will ALWAYS have a difficulty with words, BECAUSE they know better than to assume that the word just means what they have always used it to mean in everyday language!

Yes. I will try to notice more quickly when you are using a word in what seems to me an unusual way, and ask you for a definition before we get deep into discussion. But it would be great if you would also try to anticipate any confusion, and note when your definition is non-standard, if you can.

Life is a particular kind of self-organizing process with the capabilities of creativity, development and learning. We can recognize it when we see it but a simple precise definition is difficult.

Well, I still am not sure if an unconscious person is alive according to your definition.

NEW (old) TOPIC:
You said this on the Frank Turek thread:

No one who clearly understood what sin is would want to sin, because its very essence is self-destructive - a destruction of free will and life. Only finite clueless beings would sin. God would not sin because He isn't stupid or self destructive.

This is very similar to the point I was trying to make earlier about people "choosing" hell. People would not knowingly choose eternal destruction.
My question: If sin is due to a lack of understanding on our part, what would prevent everyone from, at least eventually, understanding? Low IQ? Does it seem right that the dividing line between heaven and hell is a sort of IQ test?

[mitchellmckain]

Still sounds like what I would say, with 1 caveate. Created objects like books and architecture are part of a living process themselves. Their very existence is due to living things creating them as part of their own living and as such they are much like the body organs of pancreas and liver. So it is a little bit funny to say that a human liver has no value except that there is a person who values it. Would that mean that human livers had no value before we people even knew enough about their own biology to know that they exist? Of course not. From that perspective the value of the liver does not depend on how people "value them" at all. LOL

I created my liver?

Uh... yes. Where did you think it came from?

You need more than life to have morality, you need conscious beings living together. Trees don't need morals. If there were only one single conscious being in existence, it would not need morals.

I disagree. I think you mean laws not morals. Next thing you will tell me is that a man alone cannot have things like integrity, principles and good character. Although I do admit that the vast majority of what we call morality would cease to have any meaning for this persons everyday life AND it is very difficult to see how such a being could learn any of this kind of morality. BUT it is like without cars, the moral way to drive becomes meaningless and inapplicable, but the sentiments of humanguy and Jim aside, even without cars there is still life and wherever there is life there are choices about how to live it and thus morality. Consider, for example, the morality of the Native Americans to be found in there attitude toward the natural world around them and the animals in it.

I guess you thought I was trying to trap you with my question about suicide. My examples weren't supposed to show that people don't value life. I was interested in your thinking on the morality of suicide in different situations.

Well I don't equate morality to rules. I think we covered that ground. Motivation and reason have everything to do with the question of morality.

Sounds interesting. Do you remember what program it was?

Gosh, I only listen to NPR when I am driving and I do not drive far. I think it was with an author who wrote a book... so if only I could remember the title of the book. I think it might have been (from a quick internet search), "Cheating Death: The Doctors and Medical Miracles that are Saving Lives Against All Odds".

Life is a particular kind of self-organizing process with the capabilities of creativity, development and learning. We can recognize it when we see it but a simple precise definition is difficult.

Well, I still am not sure if an unconscious person is alive according to your definition.

Of course he is alive. ???

Oh I see... maybe? My definition has to do with what is life, not some medical way of determining whether someone is alive or not. You want a simple definition for all purposes?

Well yes... we can look at his body and see the processes of self organization continuing as the body continues to metabolize food for the continuing process of self-renewal - that is life on the biological level. On the mental level we know that the dream state represents a continuation of the process by which the human mind "metabolizes" information -- but it is clear that at this point we enter the frontier where there is a lot of unknown territory.

No one who clearly understood what sin is would want to sin, because its very essence is self-destructive - a destruction of free will and life. Only finite clueless beings would sin. God would not sin because He isn't stupid or self destructive.

This is very similar to the point I was trying to make earlier about people "choosing" hell. People would not knowingly choose eternal destruction.
My question: If sin is due to a lack of understanding on our part, what would prevent everyone from, at least eventually, understanding? Low IQ? Does it seem right that the dividing line between heaven and hell is a sort of IQ test?

Well I did NOT say that sin is due to a lack of understanding. What I said here was not meant in that way at all. The real point was that sin is bad for very good reasons and not just as arbitrary rules that requires a God to make them. Yes sin is self-destructive -- destructive of free will and life. But the fact is that human beings will choose to do things that are self-destructive even when they understand that it is so.

Anyway nobody said that all is right with the world. It is part of the message of Christianity that something is indeed terribly wrong. It has been my explanation that we were never meant to navigate the moral landscape of life on our own, but always meant to do so with the guidance of God.

No it has nothing to do with any IQ test. Intellegence is a kind of power and power of all kind is as much a liability as it is an advantage because with power comes responsibility and thus one more way that you can do things terribly wrong. No it is really just about the nature of life, that you will not find what you do not seek and you will not acheive what you do not strive for. Nobody can live your life for you, and therefore what you choose is where you will go. Its not a test, its a choice.

[JustJim]

I created my liver?

Uh... yes. Where did you think it came from?

Now you're talkin'!

Have you read/studied A Course in Miracles and/or the Workbook that accompanies it?

Jim

[wondersforoyarsa]

Hi Brad,

Things seem to have settled down a little bit for me here. I've got myself a contract gig that has me working less hours for more pay, with a lot of flexibility, so I'll thank all of you for your prayers (even the sarcastic ones) and good wishes.

Thank you especially for the energy you've put in responding to me. I don't know how much progress we will really make in understanding each other. My deepest loves are your deepest hatreds. But you've made effort to personally and respectfully engage with me, and I want to honor that.

Your larger complaints about the Bible and historic Christian culture having dangerous attitudes about sex I think range from the valid, to the misguided and simplistic, to the flat-out false. You are clearly quite passionate about wanting to scrub the world clean of religion, and religion being the source of the worst of the world's ills, and that is a difficult position to argue against as a deeply religious man who finds it the wellspring of the best things about me. The presence of intense hatred colors everything we see with confirmation bias. My only response really is that we both believe what we believe on the evidence - and the evidence you've seen is different from the evidence I've seen. We might grow closer together if we actively walked together over time, but this is our situation.

As far as notions of sex being dirty, or a deep sense of shame about it - this simply wasn't my upbringing, thank God. I've run into whiffs of it here and there, but this isn't really a deep part of my psyche and it was utterly absent from my home. My parents were very open to talking about sex; my Dad talked to me about masturbation when I was a teenager; I've returned home from college to find notes of "Do Not Disturb" on the front door of the house(!); etc. Yes, the Christian view is that it is meant to be experienced in the context of a lifelong and lifegiving communion, but I'm happy to defend this as simple sanity in a rather disjointed consumerist popular culture that wants to divorce (and commercially exploit) the pleasure of orgasm from the devotion of love and the building of community.

I think the basic response I have to you on my story is a feeling that I didn't communicate terribly well on the podcast. The intensity of the prayer I experienced was a discipline not directly meant to deal with pornography per se, but rather to awaken my soul. Insofar as whatever sexual fantasies and urges I had come up, related to pornography, my response was not to repress it at all (though not to fuel it either) but rather to present it openly before God, and to ask for revelation of where they sprang from. It's more a matter of learning to be open and honest before one who fully knows you anyway, asking to be free from self-delusion, and seeking true insight as to your makeup and deep motivations - and to affirm and pursue the good things that they themselves are a distortion of. The interesting thing I found, was that the time itself was often a drudgery - hard, persistent work over long hours. But then I came home with new insights and fresh vision and vigor - feeling like actual change had happened, rather then some sort of emotional high I associate with religious retreats.

Anyway, the struggle for me is to pursue my wife as the focus of my sexual desire, rather than taking the easy route by using pornography and masturbation to satisfy personal cravings whenever they come up. In the food example, imagine if I popped in junk food every minute, and then never had much of an appetite or palette for a long dinner with my wife. Love takes real work, and actual sacrifice, and my delusion has been in seeing what I do in private not affecting how I relate to the one I love. One of my "assignments" from my priest is to spend some time in prayer, meditating on Shakespeare's sonnets, and seeking to understand how that picture of deep affection can apply to my wife.

I suppose some of the atheists here may sneer at a desire to center my sexual longings around my love for my wife, rather than masturbating in front of pictures of strangers on my computer. But I'm finding this to be a path toward deeper love, deeper knowledge of myself, more honesty, fuller integrity, and more consistent religious faith. It's also hard work - relationships take effort and are more organic than a sexual vending machine.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure where you want to go with this. Interestingly, we don't seem all that far apart with regard to what a healthy sexual life looks like - we probably agree on some basic principles at least. But we are worlds apart as to whether Christianity is a hindrance or a help to these ends. This probably has something to do with whether it was a hindrance or help in our own life experience.

[mitchellmckain]

Angela: "I created my liver?"
Uh... yes. Where did you think it came from?

Now you're talkin'!

Have you read/studied A Course in Miracles and/or the Workbook that accompanies it?

No never heard of it.

Been looking into it, and I am still puzzled as to why you connect this with our exchange. Or... are you fishing around for some source of the things I say? I have already stated where much of my inspiration comes from in my introduction and in that thread "The advantages of being a **** are" in the General Discussion section.

[Angela]

I created my liver?

Uh... yes. Where did you think it came from?

Same place the rest of me came from.

You need more than life to have morality, you need conscious beings living together. Trees don't need morals. If there were only one single conscious being in existence, it would not need morals.

I disagree. I think you mean laws not morals.

No, I mean morals.

Next thing you will tell me is that a man alone cannot have things like integrity, principles and good character.

Yeah, I guess that is the next thing I will tell you. I don't think any of the above would be meaningful if there were only one person in existence.

No one who clearly understood what sin is would want to sin, because its very essence is self-destructive - a destruction of free will and life. Only finite clueless beings would sin. God would not sin because He isn't stupid or self destructive.

This is very similar to the point I was trying to make earlier about people "choosing" hell. People would not knowingly choose eternal destruction.
My question: If sin is due to a lack of understanding on our part, what would prevent everyone from, at least eventually, understanding?

Well I did NOT say that sin is due to a lack of understanding. What I said here was not meant in that way at all.

OK If it is true that "no one who clearly understood what sin is would want to sin," then anyone who understands what sin is will not want to sin. Right? So the desire to sin is due (at least in part) to a lack of understanding, and, more importantly, the desire to sin would disappear in the event of universal understanding of sin.

The real point was that sin is bad for very good reasons and not just as arbitrary rules that requires a God to make them. Yes sin is self-destructive -- destructive of free will and life.

Yes, I know that is the point you were trying to make. I am asking you to consider other implications of your statement.

But the fact is that human beings will choose to do things that are self-destructive even when they understand that it is so.

The above statement seems to contradict this one:

No one who clearly understood what sin is would want to sin, because its very essence is self-destructive

No it is really just about the nature of life, that you will not find what you do not seek and you will not acheive what you do not strive for. Nobody can live your life for you, and therefore what you choose is where you will go. Its not a test, its a choice.

But for it to be a real choice, the options must be clearly understood by the chooser. And if everyone really understood the choice, no one would choose eternal self-destruction.

[mitchellmckain]

Well I did NOT say that sin is due to a lack of understanding. What I said here was not meant in that way at all.

OK If it is true that "no one who clearly understood what sin is would want to sin," then anyone who understands what sin is will not want to sin. Right? So the desire to sin is due (at least in part) to a lack of understanding, and, more importantly, the desire to sin would disappear in the event of universal understanding of sin.

The real point was that sin is bad for very good reasons and not just as arbitrary rules that requires a God to make them. Yes sin is self-destructive -- destructive of free will and life.

Yes, I know that is the point you were trying to make. I am asking you to consider other implications of your statement.

Yes I see that implication and I am disagreeing with with my statement with regards to that implication. Therefore I made a correction to say that all I really meant was that there are good reasons for why these things are wrong. I did not mean that human beings would actually do what only makes perfect sense, because the quite often do not. People do things even when they KNOW that they are self-destructive. It is my instinct from my liberal upbringing to think and talk like education and understanding is the solution to all human problems, but I know VERY WELL that this is naive and incorrect.

No it is really just about the nature of life, that you will not find what you do not seek and you will not acheive what you do not strive for. Nobody can live your life for you, and therefore what you choose is where you will go. Its not a test, its a choice.

But for it to be a real choice, the options must be clearly understood by the chooser.

No that is unreasonable. It is our responsibility to discover the options. I have said repeatedly that there is NOTHING absolute or inviolable about our free will. Through laziness, willfulness, and irresponsibility we can be robotic dullards who do the first thing that pops into our head without the least bit of reflection that there are other option. Doing that habitually will reduce our free will to nothing. BUT we DO have the creative and intellectual capacity to discover the options and so this is simply not an acceptable excuse.

And if everyone really understood the choice, no one would choose eternal self-destruction.

YES they WOULD, because they do so ALL THE TIME! I think you can only say that YOU would not and that you know of no one who you believe would, according to your knowledge of them, choose so. But all you have to do is observe how people behave in regards to their own physical health and it is clear as crystal that people do choose to do that which is self-destructive.

[Angela]

It is my instinct from my liberal upbringing to think and talk like education and understanding is the solution to all human problems, but I know VERY WELL that this is naive and incorrect.

That's interesting. My upbringing was fairly conservative, and my life experience has led me to believe that education and understanding can go a long way in solving human problems. I think they are the best tools we have against poverty, injustice, war, etc. But I agree it would be naive to think they are a solution to everything.

It is our responsibility to discover the options. I have said repeatedly that there is NOTHING absolute or inviolable about our free will. Through laziness, willfulness, and irresponsibility we can be robotic dullards who do the first thing that pops into our head without the least bit of reflection that there are other option. Doing that habitually will reduce our free will to nothing. BUT we DO have the creative and intellectual capacity to discover the options and so this is simply not an acceptable excuse. . . .
all you have to do is observe how people behave in regards to their own physical health and it is clear as crystal that people do choose to do that which is self-destructive.

So, people choose hell sort of like they choose obesity? I have free will, and can eat what and when I want. I can also choose to play a game of tag with my kids. But if I eat too much cake, and play too few games of tag, at some point I won't have the choice to play tag any more. I won't have the ability to run at all.

Except that I always have the choice to change. The most obese person can lose weight, and eventually be able to play tag with his kids again.

You have indicated that in your idea of heaven people will continue to change and grow. Is this also true of hell? And in general, what, in your opinion, is the difference between life as we experience it now and eternal life? Is it mostly a continuation of our experience, or is there some qualitative difference?

[mitchellmckain]

So, people choose hell sort of like they choose obesity? I have free will, and can eat what and when I want. I can also choose to play a game of tag with my kids. But if I eat too much cake, and play too few games of tag, at some point I won't have the choice to play tag any more. I won't have the ability to run at all.

YES! Our free will choice is only over what we will do right now, not a choice of what future we will have. That what we do now affects what future we will have is a large part of why it even matters what we do now.

Except that I always have the choice to change. The most obese person can lose weight, and eventually be able to play tag with his kids again.

You have indicated that in your idea of heaven people will continue to change and grow. Is this also true of hell? And in general, what, in your opinion, is the difference between life as we experience it now and eternal life? Is it mostly a continuation of our experience, or is there some qualitative difference?

YES, I believe there is an enormous qualitative difference.

Our physical existence is ruled by mathematical laws and what we desire affects our physical reality only in a very limited way through what we can do about it within the limitaion of those mathematical laws. But our spiritual existence is NOT ruled by mathematical laws but is in fact ruled by our own choices. In our physical existence, through these mathematical laws, outside factors intrude and force things upon us against our choices and giving us a chance to learn what we are not aware of and do not understand, but in our spiritual existence a connection to things outside of ourself is not forced upon us but has to come from inside us.

To use a metaphor it is like the difference between the surface of the earth and outer space where our choices and desires provide us with considerable momentum. On the surface of the earth, it is hard to even see the truth of Newton's first law (that things in motion tend to remain in motion) because there is always friction from our contact with the earth. Likewise our physical existence provides us with constant friction that resists our own choices and desires and that way it is easy to stop and turn around. But our spiritual existence is like outer space where there is no traction and our movement carries us on in the direction we have started and there is no way to turn around unless you have line to something else which can pull on you.

[Angela]

Our physical existence is ruled by mathematical laws and what we desire affects our physical reality only in a very limited way through what we can do about it within the limitaion of those mathematical laws. But our spiritual existence is NOT ruled by mathematical laws but is in fact ruled by our own choices. In our physical existence, through these mathematical laws, outside factors intrude and force things upon us against our choices and giving us a chance to learn what we are not aware of and do not understand, but in our spiritual existence a connection to things outside of ourself is not forced upon us but has to come from inside us.

Cool. So, when we die, our physical existence ceases, but our spiritual existence continues? Can you give me some examples of choices that our spiritual beings, after they are free of our physical bodies, can make? This is one problem I have with the idea of a spiritual existence. Apart from the logical issues I see with it, I have a really hard time picturing what it could possibly be like to exist without my body. What would I do? What can I choose?

To use a metaphor it is like the difference between the surface of the earth and outer space where our choices and desires provide us with considerable momentum. On the surface of the earth, it is hard to even see the truth of Newton's first law (that things in motion tend to remain in motion) because there is always friction from our contact with the earth. Likewise our physical existence provides us with constant friction that resists our own choices and desires and that way it is easy to stop and turn around. But our spiritual existence is like outer space where there is no traction and our movement carries us on in the direction we have started and there is no way to turn around unless you have line to something else which can pull on you.

OK, that all makes sense, at least in the abstract. So, when I die, my spiritual being sort of accelerates in the direction I was headed? And it's a lot harder to turn around and go a different direction? Well, then, I don't feel like I have anything to worry about. I mean I am headed in a generally good direction, I think. My take on life generally brings me fulfillment, and seems to work well as far as my relationships with others. It's very important to me to live my life well, and always will be.

It seems like belief in reincarnation would be a good fit with your ideas of heaven and hell. God could keep sending us back to try again to learn what we need to learn before we graduate to the spiritual-only existence where our choices are so powerful. The nature (and brevity) of some people's lives would make it very difficult for them to learn anything much at all, and it would seem unreasonable for God to allow them to go straight from those lives to the more dangerous spiritual existence.