HRG

I submit that "the whole is the sum of its parts" is generally false. What should replace it is "the whole is the sum of its parts plus their interactions". The original formulation was derived from "wholes" like five apples in a row - which are obviously interacting with each other extremely weakly! The situation with particles, atoms etc. is quite different.

If we are talking about systems with strongly interacting parts, the burden should be on the side which argues that no new features, properties, modes of behavior may emerge from composition-

You are right about conductivity, but not about metallic conductivity - which is defined by a top energy band which is partially empty. Pretty much a 0/1 property.

Regards,
HRG.

Theli

Tercel...

What reason (wich is in itself moraly justifiable) for an individual to be moral can you give assuming god exist, that you can't give assuming god doesn't exist?
I don't think that a foundation for morality must be non-human, that doesn't make sense. Obviously we as social beings knows not to act in ways that would harm our society (since the society is ultimatly vital for our survival as a speices). This doesn't always apply though since we are not 100% social and 0% primal just yet.
Even apes knows not to kill eachother for no reason as they are also to a degree social beings.
I don't see why we would need an external being to tell us not to act in ways that are ultimatly harmfull to us.

So I would say that the philosophical foundation is based on social and biological "factors" (can't find a better word, damn!)

Thanks for relplying.

Theli.

Synaesthesia

Tercel,
Such an assumption, even if generally true (which is certainly not the case) would not be valid. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

Indeed, the assumption is especially dubious given the fact that the issue you are debating is whether mental properties are aminable to inter-theoretic reduction. Mental properties of the mind, as most educated people know, require the efficient interplay of millions of subagencies within our brains. Whatever intelligence and sentience is, the composite elements of it clearly do not posess the requisite functionality.

Tercel

I was including the interactions as "parts" already. Rephrase it however you like though.

Tercel

I would have thought that forkness is a matter of degree and depends greatly on the subjective understanding of the observer as to exactly what constitutes a fork.

But, I think you misunderstand the nature of the dualist argument. The argument is heavily based on the presupposition that self-awareness is of a fundamentally different reality to non-self-awareness. This is something I see as self-evident as do many other people I know. For people who accept this premise, this argument constitutes a very powerful argument indeed. However, if you reject a fundamental distinction between the two, then obviously the conclusion will not follow.
In your dubious analogy, you'll note that the fundamental component of a fork is physical matter constructed in a certain way. It has the same fundamental nature as physical matter and hence using the remaining reasoning of the dualistic argument unsuprisingly gives the inadequate results.

Tercel

If God is indeed God, then he surely has the sovereign right to make moral decrees? Furthermore as our creator and sustainer, we owe our very existence to him, he would seem to thus have every right to place laws ordering the morality of human behaviour.
The existence of God provides an objective grounding point and source for any moral standard. Without a God to attribute the moral dictates to, we are left with some sort of objective moral standard coming from nothing and simply floating around (If such even did exist, why should we even care what it said?) or alternatively no objective moral standards at all (which I think is a practically unteneable belief).

The survival of the species is good? Can you give me any logical reason why I should care whether the species survives once I am dead?

Natural selection theory suggests that apes don't kill each other for the reason that if they did the species would die out. But "because that's what natural selection does" doesn't seem to be a valid philosophical ground for why humans should act morally.

I'm certainly not going to act in ways that are ultimately harmful to me. But can you tell my why I shouldn't harm others if it benefits me?

So if I choose to disregard the standard morality and redefine morality however I like (it might happen to include killing and rape, or whatever else is convenient), can you justifiably accuse me of being anything more that "unsocial" or "unfasionable" simply because I'm not happening to agree with what the rest "society" happens to like 'cos of "social and biological factors".

Further to that, imagine I'm a Christian simply becuase of "social and biological factors". Is that completely justifiable?

Tercel

Is anyone going to reply to the two arguments based on the first part of Reid's argument that I gave on page 2 of this thread? I thought they were rather good myself (as you do), and I was hoping for some intelligent responses.

Here they are again for convenience:
-----
1) No empirical evidence can prove the existence of the external world, other minds, or the reality of history, or other such basic things.
2) We do not find this epistemological dilemma debilitating on a daily basis because we assume that if our experiences are consistent and regular than we can navigate in "reality" whether it is ultimately illusory of not.
3) Consistency and regularity of personal experience is the key.
4) A personal and consistent deity as the ultimate reality will yield consistency and regularity of personal experience.
5) A non-personal naturalistic ultimate reality will be incidental to personal experiences and hence has no more reason to render personal experiences consistent and regular than not.
6) Probabilistically observed consistency and regularity in personal experience implies the existence of a personal and consistent deity as more probable than a naturalistic ultimate reality.
-----
1) No empirical evidence can prove the existence of the external world, other minds, or the reality of history, or other such basic things.
2) We do not find this epistemological dilemma debilitating on a daily basis because we assume that if our experiences are consistent and regular than we can navigate in "reality" whether it is ultimately illusory of not.
3) This assumption is a purely pragmatic one. Here we are assuming the accuracy and truth of extremely important propositions based on no evidence but only convenience.
4) If pragmatic assumptions are justifiable with respect to such major components of one's worldview, pragmatic assumptions are justifiable with respect to the existence of the deity.
5) It is pragmatic to assume the existence of the deity. (*)
6) Hence it is justifiable to assume the existence of the deity.

(*) I imagine that the premise that is most problematic in the above is number 5 - that it is pragmatic to assume the existence of the deity. I would defend that with:
a) Pascal's Wager. Most religions teach that if one doesn't believe in the exisetence of the deity then bad consequences follow. Hence a lack of belief in the deity if the deity did in fact exist is probably very bad. Conversely there seems to be no compelling reason why belief in the deity if the deity didn't exist should be a bad thing. Hence belief in the deity is pragmatic.
b) Belief in the deity gives a sufficient philosophical foundation for morals. Lack of belief in the deity fails to give (or at best gives an extremely questionable) philosophical foundation for morals. Morals are pragmatically necessary. Hence a sound philosophical foundation for morality is pragmatically necessary. Hence belief in the deity is (perhaps probabilistically) pragmatic.
c) Many people find belief in the deity give a meaning to life and gives answers to similar such important questions. While some maintain that with a lack of belief in the deity people can still give "their own meaning" to their lives, this also seems to lack a sound philosophical foundation, and in general life without the existence of the deity would appear absurd and meaningless. Hence belief in the deity is pragmatic.
d) Many people use their belief in the deity and a subsequent afterlife as an emotional crutch, so to speak, to help them during emotional strife. Lack of belief in the deity, provides no such crutch (save perhaps the oft voiced idea that atheists are "facing reality"). Hence belief in the deity is pragmatic.
-----

Vorador

Tercel I addressed your arguments concerning reality in my last post, if you'd be so kind as to look at it.

Theli

Tercel...

For who?
It seems strange to me that an entity that is practicly indifferent to our wellbeing creates a code of morality for us to live by. Why should that code be superior to something we create? We are the ones who suffer the consequences for a lacking moral code, not god.

We also owe our pain and loss to him.

If he really had our wellbeing in mind when making the laws for us to follow, why would our laws (having our own wellbeing in mind) be lesser?

Objective?
Why is not my notion of morality objective?
Has it something to do with power? or who created who?
Both god and I can disagree on each others principles, so how can one of our moralities be objective and the other subjective?

You aren't giving humans too much credit if you reffer to our whole advancement as a society as "nothing".

Because we were the ones who created it.

You neglected or missenterpreted my initial question, so I pose it again.

What moraly justifiable reason do you have to act moraly (as an individual) assuming god exist, that you don't have assuming god doesn't exist?

When you're dead, you don't care at all. Atleast I don't think you do (that's another question all together)...

Perhaps, after awhile. But the reason some speices are more successfull than other is not just the ability to adapt, but the sufficient inteligence to have a social life. If the apes would start killing each other for no reason, their "society" would collapse and each individual ape would have much lesser chance of survival.

It is grounds for why humans are acting moraly. But I don't know what philosiphical grounds you are looking for.
The only ps grounds I can find coming from religion is "do it or be punished!".
It doesn't seem to motivate the individual to act moraly out of compassion, but rather out of fear.

I assume you have some compassion, atleast I hope you do. This is what should compel you not to act malevolent. And also what compels me to stop your act.
This problem exists in the same fashion regarding religion. If acting malevolent will go unpunished by god (benefits you) you'll have the same problem, why should you not act malevolent?

I can call you malevolent, dangerous and so on...
I might call you insane aswell, if your actions speaks for it.
You could direct the question back at yourself, what would you call me if I included rape and murder in my moral code?
Remember that being an atheist, the word "god" has no meaning to me at all, neither does "god's will" have any weight when compared to my own.

That is very justifiable. Imagine a society without christianity, would you be a christian then?
Of course not, how?
Talking about bioligical factors...
If you were not a social animal, would you have a creed then?
If you didn't have the sufficient inteligence, you couldn't believe in god.

You make your own choices ofcourse, but they more or less comform with the society you live in and to the being you are born as.
If they didn't then why didn't you invent your own religion?

Theli

Tercel...

I assume we as speaking of personal belief.
You can prove the reality around you exists by the way it directly affects your ability to think. Step in front on car on a highway and your thoughtprocess will halt or sieze to be. Is that not empirical evidence that atleast some of your perceptions can be trusted and that what you observed exists?

Humans have a way of missinterpreting their environment though. It's quite plausable to think that the world is flat, if you haven't heard otherwise.

Completetly depends on how that deity manifests itself for you and how you interpret it.
If you claim to see god outside your window, while other people does not. Does that god exist? Are the people lying? Does the other people exist?

If you don't know your experience is missinterprented. My question is, how can you decide that the deity isn't a product of the naturalistic reality (just a voice in your head)?

You might also be fooling yourself.
I personally believe in questioning my worldview. If a component of my worldview is of very large influence, it doesn't change my lack of certainty in that component.

I personally see Pascal's Wager as an argument against religion. Since it so clearly shows one of christianity's major marketing tools.

Life in general doesn't have much meaning with god either.

This one I agree with. Belief in an afterlife helps alot of people in crisis.
But I don't see the correlation between needing something to exist to actual existence.

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>