Half of English No Longer Christian

[Playball40]

The Judeo-Christian sanctity of life ethic entails that we are more than just a lump of meat and that human life is 'special'.
Unborn baby, 99 year old in a nursing home - both have souls. Or as CS Lewis puts it,
...not that they have souls but that they are souls and what they 'have' are bodies.

Except that's not biblical.

The Bible says they aren't really alive until after their first breath. That's when the spirit enters the body and they become a living person. So the old fart may be a soul, but the unborn is just matter swimming in its own natural juices.

Oh that's right...The Guff and all that.

 

[abaddon]

...Perhaps just an aside here, but how come the brain is just a hunk of meat incapable of doing anything, but a clump of cells that are "unborn babies"? Just curious.

The Judeo-Christian sanctity of life ethic entails that we are more than just a lump of meat and that human life is 'special'.
Unborn baby, 99 year old in a nursing home - both have souls. Or as CS Lewis puts it,
...not that they have souls but that they are souls and what they 'have' are bodies.

This dualism hurts the whole entire planet because people think they are one thing and all the rest of the earth (including even “their” bodies) is something else. We think we are souls that “have” bodies though it’s the prone-to-dissociation bit of the body… the brain… that imagines this. It’s partly based on our partial experience (we feel like a observational and choice-making unit stuck inside a skull about an inch behind the eyes rather than feel as we are: whole bodies-entwined-with-environment) and it's partly based on language with all its possessives.

Even finding a lasting “self” that isn’t an ephemeral configuration of short-term events will be difficult.

And again, here’s the ugliness of Christianity showing itself: the deprecation of our material reality so that everything seems stupid unless God graces at least some of it with unearthly specialness. A soul is “special”, but a body is just a “lump of meat”.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...Tell me about god.

Do you think the heirarchy of 'beings' - lowest to highest - is a valid ontology?
Do you think there is a maximally great being? (Whether here on Earth or somewhere in the universe/multiverse.)

No. Are you somehow greater than a bacterium? If so, how? Bacteria kill humans by the billions and then consume our carcasses.

It's just that within your ontology are gods and the need to worship, but those things don't share my makeup. Nature is always serving up new recipes. I'm intellectually conflicted when it comes to gods but you are not.

There could be a life form that contains the multiverse. How would it be greater than a hippopotamus or an ear of corn? Only my ontology makes it greater or lesser. It's just a comforting human behavior, selected for. That's the only reason it's around. It's like the billions of bacteria that are part of you, and you them. How are you greater? You can certainly take comfort in your views and claims but that's all, just as I do in mine or a child does in writing a letter to Santa.

 

[Lion IRC]

Except that's not biblical.

The Bible says they aren't really alive until after their first breath. That's when the spirit enters the body and they become a living person. So the old fart may be a soul, but the unborn is just matter swimming in its own natural juices.

Oh that's right...The Guff and all that.

Keith&Co is mistaken. The bible clearly refers to us as alive in the womb.
An unborn baby needs oxygen every bit as much as their mother.

 

[Lion IRC]

...Are you somehow greater than a bacterium?

How would we know IF there exists an answer to this question? (Ontology)
How would we find the correct answer to that question? (Epistemology)

Ok, so maybe you think all bacteria are equal.
And maybe you think all humans are equal. And maybe you think bacteria and humans are equal.
No hierarchy - just a homogeneous blur of biology with no objective category differences.

But what does such a worldview do to the notion of "human rights"? What happens to ethics/morality if we dissolve the supposed "rights" of a woman who thinks she is more of a person than the embryo inside her?

I think that the ontological argument for a maximal Being is sound unless you take the view that there is not and cannot ever be a heirarchy. Thus;
human = God = bacteria = polio virus = sheep = Justin Beiber = artificial intelligence = fungus = etc.

 

[none]

...Are you somehow greater than a bacterium?

How would we know IF there exists an answer to this question? (Ontology)
How would we find the correct answer to that question? (Epistemology)

Ok, so maybe you think all bacteria are equal.
And maybe you think all humans are equal. And maybe you think bacteria and humans are equal.
No hierarchy - just a homogeneous blur of biology with no objective category differences.

But what does such a worldview do to the notion of "human rights"? What happens to ethics/morality if we dissolve the supposed "rights" of a woman who thinks she is more of a person than the embryo inside her?

I think that the ontological argument for a maximal Being is sound unless you take the view that there is not and cannot ever be a heirarchy. Thus;
human = God = bacteria = polio virus = sheep = Justin Beiber = artificial intelligence = fungus = etc.

Yeah, but your god is a dick

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh that's right...The Guff and all that.

Keith&Co is mistaken. The bible clearly refers to us as alive in the womb.
An unborn baby needs oxygen every bit as much as their mother.

Nope, sorry, the bible is silent on the subject of oxygen saturation of the bloodstream. That's a fact you add to your interpretation.

Genesis 2:7, Skyguy “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being."

Ezekiel 37:5 - 6, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones 'Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live.'"

This is why Noah only had to save the animals that breathed through their nostrils. To the authors of scripture, bugs were no more 'living' than running water, trees, clouds...

Also Numbers 5:11-31 makes no sense if life begins at conception. A man who suspects his wife has cheated on him takes her to a priest who will curse her and make her drink 'bitter waters.' It will cause her womb to miscarry. Which makes sense if
1) the baby might not be the husband's beget
2) the baby is not alive until the first breath.
Then it's just 'justice' for the cuckold, not manslaughter by causing a spontaneous abortion.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...Are you somehow greater than a bacterium?

How would we know IF there exists an answer to this question? (Ontology)
How would we find the correct answer to that question? (Epistemology)

Ok, so maybe you think all bacteria are equal.
And maybe you think all humans are equal. And maybe you think bacteria and humans are equal.
No hierarchy - just a homogeneous blur of biology with no objective category differences.

But what does such a worldview do to the notion of "human rights"? What happens to ethics/morality if we dissolve the supposed "rights" of a woman who thinks she is more of a person than the embryo inside her?

I think that the ontological argument for a maximal Being is sound unless you take the view that there is not and cannot ever be a heirarchy. Thus;
human = God = bacteria = polio virus = sheep = Justin Beiber = artificial intelligence = fungus = etc.

I suppose you know that what you refer to as your "own" DNA is outnumbered by all the other DNA that interacts with every cell in your body in an arrangement without which you would quickly die. Your hierarchy is therefore flawed. No part of it stands alone.

Now if you invent a magic "maximally great" something or other, and things like spirits and souls and afterlives and heavens and devils and hells and supernature it's probably quite easy to set those things up in some kind of hierarchal arrangement simply because they're all pretend and can become whatever you want them to be. Nothing ventured nothing learned.

 

[Atheos]

"Maximally great" is a value judgment, not a characteristic that can be quantified. The Maximally Great Being is no more real than the Maximally Deadly Disease. After all a disease that kills every life form is worse than one that only kills most. And a Maximally Deadly Disease that actually exists and has already killed every life form everywhere is much more deadly than one which does not exist. Therefore we're all dead because the Maximally Deadly Disease is an irrefutable philosophical certainty. Woo.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You're telling us that an infinite being exists who has the ability to magically create anything they want to. How is it stupid to not believe in that?

I think it is quite irrational and stupid not to cooperate with the inevitible.

What is the inevitable. Are we reincarnated, or go to hell or heaven?

 

[abaddon]

Do you think the heirarchy of 'beings' - lowest to highest - is a valid ontology?
Do you think there is a maximally great being? (Whether here on Earth or somewhere in the universe/multiverse.)

This kind of thinking is fascinating to me. Nature doesn't look much like a hierarchy. It's more a web of interdependence. Even apex predators get eaten by decomposers, and thus the cycle goes round and round, it never goes up to a top tier except very temporarily. The origins of the the  great chain of being goes back to Plato but through time the Christian model is largely societies with peasants at the bottom then lords and barons then kings and emperors. God becomes this "maximally great being" because humans project a human (a conscious, deliberating "being") out onto nature — or rather outside of it since nature is just temporal and imperfect and thus necessarily created by some eternal being. It's a deification of human nature at the heart of it because it's all projection, but that's concealed by a false show of humility about how much greater the made-in-man's-image god is than the humans.

- - - Updated - - -

But what does such a worldview do to the notion of "human rights"? What happens to ethics/morality if we dissolve the supposed "rights" of a woman who thinks she is more of a person than the embryo inside her?

Mostly such a worldview puts the more selfish, destructive, “let’s be abusive with the rest of nature” human rights into question, and leaves the other intra-human rights alone.

If there’s no stratified value hierarchy it doesn't mean there are no differences between different entities. If a feudal society of serfs, lords and kings comes apart and becomes more egalitarian, does that mean all the non-serf/non-lord/non-king persons are degraded to valueless nothings? Or do we start bargaining better than is done in a social and ecological order where subservience is important?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's probably where the more modern ideas like Buddy Jesus and Morgan-Freeman-like relaxed and casual God come from. The traditional views of God as an uberking whom you abase yourself before doesn't fit into the worldview of believers as much these days, so now he's much more just your quirky pal that helps out during a football game or makes sure that the pot roast doesn't get overcooked when you have company over.

 

[jonJ]

And let's not forget George Burns: "Take my avatar -- please!"

 

[Ramaraksha]

I think you are going to find out something after you die.

Just a cheap shot - but that is why they talk about Fear and obedience - just a religion born when Kings/Masters ruled - they made God in the ruler's image - the King's word was Law. Brought before the king, Subjects/Slaves got down on their knees, shaking with fear, begged for his mercy and protection. Under the king subjects/slaves had a reasonably good life, if the King/Master did not like you, out you went

Your religion is just a carbon copy of the above - your Heavens are segregated by religion, like living under a Dictator, one who will only reward his cronies(Heaven), and will gas the Kurds like Saddam did - that is Hell

Commandments, Submit, Obey, beg, mercy, wrath, Fear - ALL Slave/Servant words, totally absent in Hinduism/Buddhism

Just a very primitive and backward religion taking us back to medieval times

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"Maximally great" is a value judgment, not a characteristic that can be quantified. The Maximally Great Being is no more real than the Maximally Deadly Disease. After all a disease that kills every life form is worse than one that only kills most. And a Maximally Deadly Disease that actually exists and has already killed every life form everywhere is much more deadly than one which does not exist. Therefore we're all dead because the Maximally Deadly Disease is an irrefutable philosophical certainty. Woo.

Without the oooo aaah spooky factor religious thinking wouldn't be so popular.

 

[Lion IRC]

I think you are going to find out something after you die.

Just a cheap shot...

Wait, how is the afterlife a "cheap shot"?

You can be an atheist and think there is life after death. sheesh!

 

[Lion IRC]

I

"Maximally great" is a value judgment, not a characteristic that can be quantified.

Agreed. But the category surely exists.
Ordinal numbers, superlatives, good..better..best, 1st, 2nd, 3rd. etc.
Surely if we can even have the notion of a 'thing' (set of things) then we aren't violating any logic by saying that thing 'A' is better - in some way or another - than another thing in the same set.

...The Maximally Great Being is no more real than the Maximally Deadly Disease. After all a disease that kills every life form is worse than one that only kills most. And a Maximally Deadly Disease that actually exists and has already killed every life form everywhere is much more deadly than one which does not exist.

YES! ������. (Emoji thumbs up)
Great example.
And the fact that beings still live suggests that whilst there may well be a 'maximally great' disease somewhere in space/time, that maximal disease apparently isn't fatal - or HASNT found you yet.
I certainly agree that the ontological existence of a maximally great pathogen doesnt necessarily tell us that such a being always kills its host.

... Therefore we're all dead because the Maximally Deadly Disease is an irrefutable philosophical certainty. Woo.

No. Even if you define the maximally great disease as 100% fatal it still might be that you haven't yet encountered it in real life.

Remember, even if you are talking about maximally great chocolate cakes, or MG beer, or an MG football team, (pick your own criteria for judging good/better/best,) there must be one somewhere in the universe.

If none of the cakes or beers anywhere in space/time meet the (subjective) criteria you have chosen - IOW they all came 2nd place or 3rd place or 4th place - that WOULDNT mean no superlative cake/beer exists.

All it would mean is that all the 2nd place getters were now the contenders for First Place and you would have to judge again to see which of them was the best-in-class.

 

[Lion IRC]

Even if you presumed, or believed in, the non-existence of the One True God, the ontological argument can still be used to argue that a (lesser) being was in fact the best alternative contender for MGB.

You could argue that humans are the MGB's but that's just repositioning the ontological framework such that now you will still have good/better/best categories of terrestrial beings rather than considering ALL possible beings.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Even if you presumed, or believed in, the non-existence of the One True God, the ontological argument can still be used to argue that a (lesser) being was in fact the best alternative contender for MGB.

You could argue that humans are the MGB's but that's just repositioning the ontological framework such that now you will still have good/better/best categories of terrestrial beings rather than considering ALL possible beings.

What does that have to do with God, though?

If we accept the premise that, by some non-arbitrary classification of "greatness", there is someone out there who is greater than all other beings, why would one assume that this being approaches godhood?

Say that you have a Greatness Scale from 0 to 100, with God ranking as 100 on that scale. Why would you assume that any actual being which exists in the universe necessarily ranks higher than, say, a twelve?

 

[Lion IRC]

...in that case #12 replaces #100 as the upper limit of maximal greatness.

But the best-in-class remains a REAL being - not an imaginary being - because real maximal beings are greater than maximal beings that don't exist.