Communion

[Dywyddyr]

the frickin' source man. sheesh!

But, once again, this "source" is not us!

what about gene therapy?

Okay I think I've got you now.
Supposition 1) there's an omniscient being
Supposition 2) he can endow us with his knowledge
Supposition 3) that endowment is elective

So you're asking if I'd want to become omniscient? (Bearing in mind that omniscience in any individual removes free choice anyway)....
We're back to having no choice again.
IF the knowledge exists we don't have choices!

and for those of us who believe in an eternal soul, what about death, and rebirth into a particular new and improved bloodline?

I think one series of woo woo speculations is enough for a single thread, don't you?

 

[Lori_7]

But, once again, this "source" is not us!

yes, for the 87th time, it is something greater than us. it is god, the universe, or law. so?

Okay I think I've got you now.
Supposition 1) there's an omniscient being
Supposition 2) he can endow us with his knowledge
Supposition 3) that endowment is elective

what does this have to do with gene therapy?

would you describe the universe, or the laws of the universe, as a being?

So you're asking if I'd want to become omniscient? (Bearing in mind that omniscience in any individual removes free choice anyway)....
We're back to having no choice again.
IF the knowledge exists we don't have choices!

no, not omniscience. if we were each omniscient, there would be no need for the source. the source is omniscient, and through some method of communion, be it genetic, spiritual, whatever, we are guided by this omniscient source instinctually.

I think one series of woo woo speculations is enough for a single thread, don't you?

i don't appreciate that. this is where atheists lose any and all credibility. trying to deny the mere possibility of a spiritual realm is obstinate at best, and ignoring all of the overwhelming and convincing testimonial evidence of this possible realm is just plain stupid, and what i think is a fear response.

now in this hypothetical, i'm giving the obstinate and afraid the option of ignoring this possible realm altogether, and what do you know, they still won't answer the question.

let's get to the point people. if there was some election to ensure that you would always act in accordance with the greater good, would you elect to do that? why?

 

[Dywyddyr]

yes, for the 87th time, it is something greater than us. it is god, the universe, or law. so?

And, for the 87th time, if it's a natural law then we already follow it. We cannot do otherwise.

would you describe the universe, or the laws of the universe, as a being?

Not in a million years.

no, not omniscience. if we were each omniscient, there would be no need for the source. the source is omniscient, and through some method of communion, be it genetic, spiritual, whatever, we are guided by this omniscient source instinctually.

And once again we come back to: if that is the case then we have no choice in subscribing or not.

i don't appreciate that. this is where atheists lose any and all credibility. trying to deny the mere possibility of a spiritual realm is obstinate at best, and ignoring all of the overwhelming and convincing testimonial evidence of this possible realm is just plain stupid, and what i think is a fear response.

Really? You talk about "credibility" and mention "convincing testimonial evidence" in the same paragraph?
Sheesh....

now in this hypothetical, i'm giving the obstinate and afraid the option of ignoring this possible realm altogether, and what do you know, they still won't answer the question.

The question has been answered: the way you have asked it and explained it is NOT OPTIONAL!!!!

 

[Lori_7]

And, for the 87th time, if it's a natural law then we already follow it. We cannot do otherwise.

to the extent that the greater good is achieved at all times? REALLY?! where???

Not in a million years.

well then why in the hell did you just do it in this thread then?

And once again we come back to: if that is the case then we have no choice in subscribing or not.

yes we do. the hypothetical here is an implied segregation between those who would CHOOSE this communion, which would result in a change in their instincts, which would enable them to always act in a way that promotes the greater good, and those who would not elect to commune because they like their instincts just the way they are now.

Really? You talk about "credibility" and mention "convincing testimonial evidence" in the same paragraph?
Sheesh....

i've got my own testimony. evidence that hit me in the head like a fucking hammer. you have no reason not to believe me. you have no reason to dismiss what i've experienced as a delusion, or a hallucination, and yet you do! do you know why? because what i testify to doesn't fit into your BELIEF SYSTEM. you might as well be religious! it's an arbitrary call based on nothing more than your own ego and paradigm.

The question has been answered: the way you have asked it and explained it is NOT OPTIONAL!!!!

it's a HYPOTHETICAL! which by definition is SUPPOSITIONAL! you don't argue the givens, you just answer the damn question!

 

[Dywyddyr]

to the extent that the greater good is achieved at all times? REALLY?! where???

Er no. You are ASSUMING that this "greater good" exists. I merely stated that IF things are as you postulated THEN we would not be able to do otherwise.

well then why in the hell did you just do it in this thread then?

I didn't. Try to read what I wrote.

yes we do. the hypothetical here is an implied segregation between those who would CHOOSE this communion, which would result in a change in their instincts, which would enable them to always act in a way that promotes the greater good, and those who would not elect to commune because they like their instincts just the way they are now.

Wrong. If it's a natural law then we cannot segregate ourselves from any more than we can segregate ourselves from gravity.

i've got my own testimony. evidence that hit me in the head like a fucking hammer.

And that's supposed to count as "convincing testimonial evidence" to me?

you have no reason not to believe me. you have no reason to dismiss what i've experienced as a delusion, or a hallucination, and yet you do! do you know why? because what i testify to doesn't fit into your BELIEF SYSTEM.

Also wrong: the explanation is more easily found from what we know of the human mind than it is by postulating "supernatural" entities.

it's a HYPOTHETICAL! which by definition is SUPPOSITIONAL! you don't argue the givens, you just answer the damn question!

And as I have repeatedly stated: GIVEN THE WAY YOU HAVE STATED THE "HYPOTHESIS" WE CANNOT DO OTHER THAN SUBSCRIBE.

 

[Yosef]

God is much bigger than physical laws. He is the Law back all the laws and reasons. Thank Him and ask Him and you will see for yourself.

 

[Dywyddyr]

God is much bigger than physical laws. He is the Law back all the laws and reasons. Thank Him and ask Him and you will see for yourself.

Yup. More supposition.

 

[Big Chiller]

God is much bigger than physical laws. He is the Law back all the laws and reasons. Thank Him and ask Him and you will see for yourself.

I'd appreciate if you would not address God as law, a law is not something itself but means that how entities behave or are enabled to behave.

 

[Yazata]

yes, for the 87th time, it is something greater than us. it is god, the universe, or law. so?

That certainly narrows things down, doesn't it?

Or maybe it's imagination, self-delusion, or something else that's a bit less uplifting.

A difficulty seems to be that when we talk about "submitting" to something, we are talking about giving up our freedom of choice concerning it. That includes moral choices.

no, not omniscience. if we were each omniscient, there would be no need for the source. the source is omniscient, and through some method of communion, be it genetic, spiritual, whatever, we are guided by this omniscient source instinctually.

That sounds like a statement of your personal religious ideas. The rest of us don't all share them, so they can't just be assumed as the basis for discussion.

i don't appreciate that. this is where atheists lose any and all credibility. trying to deny the mere possibility of a spiritual realm

I'm not sure what a 'spiritual realm' is. If you mean transcendent realities, then I don't deny them a-priori, though I do have questions about how human beings can gain knowledge of such things. I tend towards agnosticism about transcendental matters.

is obstinate at best, and ignoring all of the overwhelming and convincing testimonial evidence of this possible realm is just plain stupid, and what i think is a fear response.

That appears to be an ad-hominem insult.

Addressing the more substantive point, 'testimonial evidence' basically means 'taking somebody else's word for it'. And if that's the justification upon which this 'source' rests, then my answer to your original question is 'No', I wouldn't surrender my own powers of moral choice to something that shaky.

now in this hypothetical, i'm giving the obstinate and afraid the option of ignoring this possible realm altogether, and what do you know, they still won't answer the question.

let's get to the point people. if there was some election to ensure that you would always act in accordance with the greater good, would you elect to do that? why?

If you are asking us to just hypothetically assume that some means existed that enables us to always know what choice is right, and then asking us whether we would always make that moral choice to do the right thing, then my honest answer is that I would like to say 'Yes', but I can't guarantee it. I might secumb to temptation or something.

If you are asking whether we would be willing to turn our powers of choice and our moral responsibility over to to some allegedly higher power that knows more than we humans can know about right and wrong, and promises to always make the right choices for us even if we can't always understand the rationale, then I would have to have absolute confidence in that power.

Adolph Hitler's 'Fuhrer prinzep' was that Hitler was the Leader and that his role was to lead. The nation's function was to follow. And the German nation dutifully marched right off a cliff. Higher powers aren't always what they initially seem and blindly following them isn't always a smart choice.

So my answer would probably be 'No', I wouldn't hand over my powers of moral choice to a supposedly higher transcendental power. I might well choose to heed that power, but only if it convinced me that doing so was right.

You see, I question whether human beings CAN surrender their moral responsibilities, even if they wanted to. Choosing to always follow somebody (or something) else's will is still a person's own moral choice. People are always going to be responsible for their own actions, unless they are coerced or have somehow been reduced to automatons. Insisting that they were only following orders doesn't absolve them of their responsibility.

 

[Lori_7]

I'd appreciate if you would not address God as law, a law is not something itself but means that how entities behave or are enabled to behave.

it may be easier to think of god as some old bearded being sitting on a throne in the clouds, but it's not very realistic. i do think that a part of what god is, is law. the part that we call "the father", who is responsible for creation and regulation.

 

[Lori_7]

That certainly narrows things down, doesn't it?

Or maybe it's imagination, self-delusion, or something else that's a bit less uplifting.

it is absolutely not imaginative or delusion to realize that as a human being you're a part of something that is greater than you are, and that within it, everything you do, even what you think or how you feel, affects everything and everyone around you. that's the basis required for this discussion...we live a communal existence.

A difficulty seems to be that when we talk about "submitting" to something, we are talking about giving up our freedom of choice concerning it. That includes moral choices.

you choose to submit. and you choose to submit to what created, and regulates, you and everything else. now, you don't have to call it god. you can call it law, or the universe, or some higher level of consciousness that achieves the greater good. but whatever you call it, the presumption that the greater good CAN be achieved, and is not in our current state, means that our morals are the problem, and will be replaced with the truth about what it actually takes to achieve that.

That sounds like a statement of your personal religious ideas. The rest of us don't all share them, so they can't just be assumed as the basis for discussion.

what is it about the universe, or law, or genetics that sounds like a personal religious idea?

I'm not sure what a 'spiritual realm' is. If you mean transcendent realities, then I don't deny them a-priori, though I do have questions about how human beings can gain knowledge of such things. I tend towards agnosticism about transcendental matters.

and that's a great stance to have until you actually have a spiritual experience.

That appears to be an ad-hominem insult.

Addressing the more substantive point, 'testimonial evidence' basically means 'taking somebody else's word for it'. And if that's the justification upon which this 'source' rests, then my answer to your original question is 'No', I wouldn't surrender my own powers of moral choice to something that shaky.

i think i've made it clear that's not the justification upon which this source rests. when i talk of my spiritual experiences, or any experience for that matter, i don't expect people to use my testimony as a basis for a belief in the spiritual realm; i think that's something that everyone needs to experience for themselves before they can acquire the understanding necessary to believe. what i also don't expect is for people to make arbitrary judgement calls about my integrity, my intellect, or my mental health, simply because what i'm testifying to doesn't jive with their own beliefs that are based on their own experience or lack thereof (hopefully). i say hopefully, because i don't think all beliefs are based in experience. i think a lot of people just believe whatever they want to because it's appealing somehow.

If you are asking us to just hypothetically assume that some means existed that enables us to always know what choice is right, and then asking us whether we would always make that moral choice to do the right thing, then my honest answer is that I would like to say 'Yes', but I can't guarantee it. I might secumb to temptation or something.

why would you do that if you knew better?

If you are asking whether we would be willing to turn our powers of choice and our moral responsibility over to to some allegedly higher power that knows more than we humans can know about right and wrong, and promises to always make the right choices for us even if we can't always understand the rationale, then I would have to have absolute confidence in that power.

yes.

Adolph Hitler's 'Fuhrer prinzep' was that Hitler was the Leader and that his role was to lead. The nation's function was to follow. And the German nation dutifully marched right off a cliff. Higher powers aren't always what they initially seem and blindly following them isn't always a smart choice.

right. i'm not suggesting blindness though, and i don't think the nazi's were blind either.

So my answer would probably be 'No', I wouldn't hand over my powers of moral choice to a supposedly higher transcendental power. I might well choose to heed that power, but only if it convinced me that doing so was right.

well, the convincing is part of the premise, so your answer seems contradictory.

You see, I question whether human beings CAN surrender their moral responsibilities, even if they wanted to. Choosing to always follow somebody (or something) else's will is still a person's own moral choice. People are always going to be responsible for their own actions, unless they are coerced or have somehow been reduced to automatons. Insisting that they were only following orders doesn't absolve them of their responsibility.

the components of free will, personal desire, and accountability are in tact. the choice is based on desire, and implies that you as a human being are accountable for achieving the greater good.

you have brought up morality quite a bit in this post, and i have a problem with morality for a couple of reasons...

one is something that you also brought up, and that is temptation. we already have a conscience that we all (apparently) find fairly easy to ignore certain times. is it because it's too hard? requires too much sacrifice? because it isn't valued?

the second is incomplete knowledge.

 

[Yazata]

it is absolutely not imaginative or delusion to realize that as a human being you're a part of something that is greater than you are

I'm an ontological realist and I fully accept that I'm part of a universe that's almost infinitely larger than I am. I'm already subject to all of the applicable 'laws' of physics and don't really have any choice about whether or not I want to participate in them. Right now, I'm looking out my window and see gathering grey clouds. It's probably going to be raining in a few hours and I have no control over that.

and that within it, everything you do, even what you think or how you feel, affects everything and everyone around you. that's the basis required for this discussion...we live a communal existence.

What I do and think influences a small number of people around me, but the vast majority of people on Earth don't even know I exist. When it comes to the greater universe, to billions of galaxies and countless planets, I don't think that what I do and think has much significance.

you choose to submit. and you choose to submit to what created, and regulates, you and everything else.

If you are talking about things like physics and mathematics, I have no choice in the matter. It's already a condition of my being. But it's something more than that in your mind, isn't it?

now, you don't have to call it god. you can call it law, or the universe, or some higher level of consciousness that achieves the greater good. but whatever you call it, the presumption that the greater good CAN be achieved, and is not in our current state, means that our morals are the problem, and will be replaced with the truth about what it actually takes to achieve that.

I don't presume those things. I'd question a lot of it.

Again, this has become a statement of your own personal religious ideas. I don't really know what those beliefs are and most likely I wouldn't choose to share them if I did.

what is it about the universe, or law, or genetics that sounds like a personal religious idea?

I'm already fully a part of the universe, and I'm already 100% subject to all of its applicable natural laws and principles, including genetics. I have no choice about that, it's simply a condition of my being.

But you talk about a "higher level of consciousness that achieves the greater good". You tell us that "our morals are the problem", and that they "will be replaced with the truth". Then you ask us whether or not we will submit.

Well, I don't think that I, or the others who have responded to you in this thread, share your faith that some higher moral power exists out there that will replace some people's (but not everyone's) flawed human ethics with the truth.

when i talk of my spiritual experiences, or any experience for that matter, i don't expect people to use my testimony as a basis for a belief in the spiritual realm; i think that's something that everyone needs to experience for themselves before they can acquire the understanding necessary to believe. what i also don't expect is for people to make arbitrary judgement calls about my integrity, my intellect, or my mental health, simply because what i'm testifying to doesn't jive with their own beliefs that are based on their own experience or lack thereof (hopefully). i say hopefully, because i don't think all beliefs are based in experience. i think a lot of people just believe whatever they want to because it's appealing somehow.

Well, that's an answer to your original question right there, isn't it? If your 'source' wants to enter into my experience and change my cognition so that I believe totally and unquestioningly in whatever it's telling me, then of course I'd say 'Yes'. To anything. But I'd say it THEN, after the supernatural lobotomy, not NOW, when I still retain some control of my faculties.

At this point, I'm not willing to hand over my powers of moral choice to some unknown but supposedly higher authority. That's a definite and very emphatic 'No'.

i'm not suggesting blindness though, and i don't think the nazi's were blind either.

That's what it looks like to me.

If I put myself in a position where I judge that the higher power is indeed choosing ethically, then I've put myself in the position where I'm judging the power and I haven't truly submitted to it. I'm still hanging on to my own moral autonomy.

But if I abdicate my responsibility and choose instead to simply obey your 'source' and make it my Leader, in the faith that it is always and infallibly right, then I've just blinded myself. I'd be in a position where I'd say 'Yes' to anything and everything, and run the risk of marching right off the cliff like all of those who cried 'Heil Hitler'.

Yes, yes, I know that you believe that your source is nothing like Hitler, but we don't know that. If I just surrender my moral responsibility because I've had some 'spiritual experience', real or imaginary, I'd never have the opportunity to know it either, because I'd no longer be in any position to judge.

But even more fundamentally, I question whether it's even possible for human beings to surrender their moral responsibility to judge the rightness and wrongness of their own actions. Choosing to unquestioningly follow a glorious Leader who promises to make our decisions better than we can possibly make them ourselves is still our own moral choice. It won't absolve us of our personal responsibility for doing whatever the Leader orders us to do.