Mourdock: 2+2=5

[AlpsStranger]

So what will happen to your philosophical construct if when it turns out that Love is chemistry?

He'll say that can't possibly be the case and cite his philosophical construct as the reason.

Is this your first rodeo on topics like these? Hint: Few will change their minds. Not singling out Christians on this one, either. It's hard, grueling mental and emotional work to change your worldview. Most people won't do it unless their existing worldview becomes completely untenable AND circumstances force a confrontation with this reality.

 

[Borachio]

Few will change their minds.

That's true of both sides.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'd be careful with here, if I were you. Are you willing to revise your views on the primacy and importance of "love" if it can be shown that it is simply a result of chemistry?

This is the problem that people face when they use religion / spirituality to explain stuff. Science inevitably comes along and say "Hey - it turns out that there's nothing magical or miraculous about xxx. God can't be residing there." and religion is forced to retreat their gods into ever smaller gaps.

Neuroscience is coming close to closing the gaps in the human mind that formerly were occupied by demons, angels, spirits, souls, whatever you want to call them.

So what will happen to your philosophical construct if when it turns out that Love is chemistry? All that talk about unconditional love will read as special pleading.

I think it's probably smarter for the religions to hedge a bit; or better yet, stop making claims about how the world works altogether.

It doesn't matter at all if love is entirely a product of science and the physical universe. If the universe is the language of creation then it's the language of God. If anything, creation becomes cooler and cooler the more we know about it.

 

[LightSpectra]

Every aspect of every understanding of the word "love" can be explained through evolutionary biology and the like.

Unconditional love taken to its fullest extent is actually quite anti-evolutionary, since its implications can contradict the general principles of self-perpetuation and survival.

Would there be any evil without God?

Yes. Evil can be considered to be the absence of good. Without a self-diffusively good being, i.e. God, nothing good would (or even could) exist.

So free will is a tool in this analogy? You'll have to forgive me if I don't follow because it seems to me you'd need some capability to use free will as a tool to begin with. That is to say: free will is what permits us to use tools with judgement, so what permits us to use free will with judgement? I mean where is the origination?

"Free will", to strictly define it, is a rational power (will) that is qualitated (free). So I think God creating human beings with the power of free will can correctly be analogized to the inventor of gunpowder creating a power capable of destruction/murder.

It is original in itself, of course, and it is precisely this abstraction that separates it from gunpowder or pipes. Giving someone a gun is one thing; giving someone the capability to use the gun for evil is quite another. A popular quip is "guns don't kill people, people kill people." I think you can see where I'm going with this.

So if my wife gives birth to a child that we raise together, and the child eventually becomes a serial murderer, then we should be prosecuted for his crimes because we didn't remove his capability for evil at some point in his development?

Without him, there'd be no evil. As stated, it seems that if there was no God to give us free will, there'd be no evil, which should be morally superior to having any evil.

Unless God is tolerant of evil, which he certainly seems to be from what you've said. I propose that no such entity can be described as moral.

I propose that "moral" is a meaningless term if evil cannot exist.

Why should I love god?

Why should I love my neighbor?

Why should I love myself?

How does it "better" me?

Because that's what you were made for. Fulfilling your reason for existing is the only possible thing that could allow you to be described as a "good" being. Otherwise we're nothing but aberrations of nature, and nothing we do while living will have any meaning upon our death.

You have quite freely told me that my worldview thus necessitates that God is an evil being because he tolerates evil. I will now tell you my opinion of a nihilistic atheist worldview: it is worse because it acknowledges no meaning in any events. A Christian can tell a rape survivor that his/her torments will ultimately have some significance, at least after his/her life is over: in Heaven there will be no more suffering, and the sins of those in life will be avenged in some way. A nihilist can say nothing of the sort. The ultimate conclusion in that worldview is that pain is just something that happens, and it is entirely possible that a rape survivor will die without justice or happiness; utterly meaningless except what they make of it, but even that will fade upon death.

Am I wrong?

At best, this makes him a sycophant. I don't see it as meriting reciprocation in and of itself, especially when he's essentially a tyrant in every other upwards-facing aspect of his diktat.

Perhaps. It's commonly accepted that a true Christian will have his trust betrayed by those willing to take advantage of it. Nevertheless I firmly believe it is better to be betrayed while unconditionally loving than it is to be a judge of persons, something that all human beings are woefully incapable of in the fullest extent.

Why does that matter? Why not simply love people who choose to be good?

What if it's out of their control due to psychological disorder? What if it's because they know no other way to live because of a malformed upbringing?

 

[LightSpectra]

Hey, Mr LightSpectra, that last post of yours mostly makes sense to me. Ooer!

I'm glad

I'd be careful with here, if I were you. Are you willing to revise your views on the primacy and importance of "love" if it can be shown that it is simply a result of chemistry?

This is the problem that people face when they use religion / spirituality to explain stuff. Science inevitably comes along and say "Hey - it turns out that there's nothing magical or miraculous about xxx. God can't be residing there." and religion is forced to retreat their gods into ever smaller gaps.

you're speaking as if "love" is a phenomenon whose objective qualities I'm struggling to define. "Love" has already been defined, and if any particulars do not fit its criteria, then it's not the definition of love that is wrong but the classification of it as being love.

I don't think anybody except Cartesians have opined under the assumption that the mind always works perfectly from beginning to end, and then are shocked to discover that there's biological and experiential factors involved. You're speaking as if faithful people are stupid and are constantly shocked by the implications of scientific discoveries. I bet you yourself would be shocked at how clever some ancient and medieval people were when they wrote the opinions that you're eager to dismiss as "superstition." They didn't attribute everything to magic, I'll tell you that much.

I think it's probably smarter for the religions to hedge a bit; or better yet, stop making claims about how the world works altogether.

There's no such thing as "religion".

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The original quote is mostly about the idea that life is sacred regardless of how it is created, and that all things work together for good for those who love the lord. There is nothing wrong with these sentiments.

There is a bit of an implication of Calvinistic predestination that I don't like so much though.

Your compulsive need to spread misinformation about Christianity is getting old.

"Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2356)



If you're referring to the Decalogue, then it falls under "coveting thy neighbor's wife". If you're referring to the Deadly Sins, it falls under luxuria. Not that either of those refer to the worst sins. Both the Decalogue and the Deadly Sins reference the fundamental sins, i.e. what all other sins spring from. They do not reference the worst of all sins, which as said before, are rape and blasphemy.

Wouldn't rape count under "coveting thy neighbor's wife" only if the victim is married?

I think that there is a much stronger argument that Rape falls under the commandment "Thou shalt not steal."

Orthodox Judaism contends that this commandments refers (at least primarily, perhaps even exclusively) to kidnapping rather than taking a person's property. Abducting a person is a much more serious crime, warranting death by decapitation rather than merely repaying the victim more tan was taken.

The word rape originally meant steal or abduct. It comes from the Latin rapere, meaning to seize. It came to be associated with forced sex because that was a common purpose for which women were abducted.


Stealing a person's possessions is considered to instead fall under "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's" rather than "Thou shalt not steal."

 

[AlpsStranger]

There's no such thing as "religion".

So there's no collective term for Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity? How inconvenient.

 

[LightSpectra]

Wouldn't rape count under "coveting thy neighbor's wife" only if the victim is married?

I have addressed this at least three times already.

I think that there is a much stronger argument that Rape falls under the commandment "Thou shalt not steal." Orthodox Judaism contends that this commandments refers (at least primarily, perhaps even exclusively) to kidnapping rather than taking a person's property. Abducting a person is a much more serious crime, warranting death by decapitation rather than merely repaying the victim more tan was taken.

The word rape originally meant steal or abduct. It comes from the Latin rapere, meaning to seize. It came to be associated with forced sex because that was a common purpose for which women were abducted.

Does that not assume that the Torah and Rabbinical commentaries on it were written in Latin rather than Hebrew?

So there's no collective term for Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity? How inconvenient.

Yep. It is inconvenient. We are indeed forced to recognize how particularly unique each of these entities are rather than generalizing them into oblivion.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Yep. It is inconvenient. We are indeed forced to recognize how particularly unique each of these entities are rather than generalizing them into oblivion.

I'd say this is not quite right. They can be very different but still have a collective term. There is definitely such a thing as religion.

 

[LightSpectra]

I'd say this is not quite right. They can be very different but still have a collective term. There is definitely such a thing as religion.

The word "religion" originally meant something, but 19th century polemicists corrupted it beyond its original recognition. Now it's meaningless. There are no qualities that can be said to be innate to a "religion" where at least one particular is not an exception.

I ask you to name me one professional sociologist of spirituality, who if they do not say the word "religion" is utterly ridiculous, at least does not recognize how nebulous and useless the word is without self-defining it.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Well, maybe. Certainly I agree that something like Buddhism is, in some sense, fundamentally different from something like Christianity.

 

[Crezth]

Why rehabilitate criminals instead of executing them? Why stop to help injured motorists? Why do any number of things that could be considered helpful or nice to people who are not perfect? Because we are all imperfect. We all screw up. This is pretty much the same topic that was loosely discussed in the "criminal hugger" trainwreck of a thread.

I can dig it, sure. I just don't think I have any particular obligation to do so outside of my natural sympathy for my fellow persons.

Unconditional love taken to its fullest extent is actually quite anti-evolutionary, since its implications can contradict the general principles of self-perpetuation and survival.

How do you figure? Humans are social creatures and being effective in social constructions allows us to survive more effectively.

Yes. Evil can be considered to be the absence of good. Without a self-diffusively good being, i.e. God, nothing good would (or even could) exist.

How so?

"Free will", to strictly define it, is a rational power (will) that is qualitated (free). So I think God creating human beings with the power of free will can correctly be analogized to the inventor of gunpowder creating a power capable of destruction/murder.

You have completely ignored the thrust of my argument. Free will is the defining quality of a being with agency, and it is how we are capable of according responsibility. If a being does not have free will, it is not responsible for any of its actions - responsibility being a consequence of free will. QED.

So you can be responsible for choosing to use a tool (gunpowder) for wicked purposes if you have free agency. But you are not responsible for whether or not you have free agency to begin with, if I may reiterate: we have free will because we have no choice. It is what allows us to be responsible.

So if my wife gives birth to a child that we raise together, and the child eventually becomes a serial murderer, then we should be prosecuted for his crimes because we didn't remove his capability for evil at some point in his development?

Perhaps, but you'll note that I'm not condemning God for creating evil so much as denying that I have any obligation to consider him a so-called "moral" being for it.

This argument also defends on how much importance you assign to nature vs. nurture and other psychological qualifications, but I understand the point you are trying to make.

I propose that "moral" is a meaningless term if evil cannot exist.

But evil cannot exist without free will. I thought morality originated in God. So evil must also originate in God?

Because that's what you were made for. Fulfilling your reason for existing is the only possible thing that could allow you to be described as a "good" being. Otherwise we're nothing but aberrations of nature, and nothing we do while living will have any meaning upon our death.

I'm OK with no "meaning" given to me by God, as I can create my own meaning. I reject being told that I have been created for no other purpose than to serve God's will. It is slavery and tyranny and it is wrong.

You have quite freely told me that my worldview thus necessitates that God is an evil being because he tolerates evil. I will now tell you my opinion of a nihilistic atheist worldview: it is worse because it acknowledges no meaning in any events. A Christian can tell a rape survivor that his/her torments will ultimately have some significance, at least after his/her life is over: in Heaven there will be no more suffering, and the sins of those in life will be avenged in some way. A nihilist can say nothing of the sort. The ultimate conclusion in that worldview is that pain is just something that happens, and it is entirely possible that a rape survivor will die without justice or happiness; utterly meaningless except what they make of it, but even that will fade upon death.

So the Christian argument is that it is OK that she was raped because it will be made "better" down the road. Wouldn't it be better if she wasn't raped at all? What a truly wicked argument that is. At least my sky has no particular cares one way or the other and cannot be said to be capricious because of it.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I have addressed this at least three times already.

Yeah, but not very convincingly.

The commandment not to covet your neighbors wife cannot simply be generalized like that.

The much more universal commandment to love your neighbor as yourself certainly would forbid rape. The commandment not to covet your neighbor's wife can be derived from this too, but so can almost every other commandment. It makes much more sense for rape to fall under the subcategory "Thou shalt not steal" rather than "Thou shalt not covet."

Does that not assume that the Torah and Rabbinical commentaries on it were written in Latin rather than Hebrew?

Not really.

Rabbinical tradition is quite explicit that the commandment forbids abduction.

The etymology of the word rape merely shows that historically the defining factor of rape has not been considered to be the sex act itself, but the fact that the victim is abducted and forced to stay there to suffer the act against her will. A rape that does not meet that criteria (such as statutory rape that is completely voluntary sex where one party is below an arbitrarily defined age of consent) shouldn't really be considered the same crime or be forbidden by the same reasoning.

 

[Farm Boy]

So the Christian argument is that it is OK that she was raped because it will be made "better" down the road. Wouldn't it be better if she wasn't raped at all? What a truly wicked argument that is. At least my sky has no particular cares one way or the other and cannot be said to be capricious because of it.

That's really way too simple. You still aren't drawing a difference between "this is fine" and "this isn't fine but we can make something decent out of it anyways." It's not fine when a worker is killed on the job. Nothing makes that fine. But if we can look at how the accident happened and learn something from it so that future persons are not injured at least we have made something of it. It's not fine that people were killed in the Korean conflict. Nothing makes that fine. But at least we learned to create MASH hospitals and extrapolated the knowledge into a more robust and effective ambulance system domestically, at least we made something good from it.

I really don't know how to explain this better.

 

[AlpsStranger]

That's really way too simple. You still aren't drawing a difference between "this is fine" and "this isn't fine but we can make something decent out of it anyways." It's not fine when a worker is killed on the job. Nothing makes that fine. But if we can look at how the accident happened and learn something from it so that future persons are not injured at least we have made something of it. It's not fine that people were killed in the Korean conflict. Nothing makes that fine. But at least we learned to create MASH hospitals and extrapolated the knowledge into a more robust and effective ambulance system domestically, at least we made something good from it.

I really don't know how to explain this better.

The problem is that omniscience and omnipotence are involved, and, with apologies to LightSpecra, I don't think it's possible for God to "allow without condoning."

 

[Crezth]

You'll have to forgive me if i don't see the externalities of God's efforts to reduce rape in the future, or if I think inflicting a woman with an unwanted pregnancy isn't "fine."

 

[AlpsStranger]

You'll have to forgive me if i don't see the externalities of God's efforts to reduce rape in the future, or if I think inflicting a woman with an unwanted pregnancy isn't "fine."

I don't know who said this, but I think it's very likely true:

If Men Could Get Pregnant, Abortion Would be a Sacrament

 

[GhostWriter16]

You'll have to forgive me if i don't see the externalities of God's efforts to reduce rape in the future, or if I think inflicting a woman with an unwanted pregnancy isn't "fine."

I agree with you on that second part (That it isn't OK.) Its just the lesser of two horrible evils.

I don't know who said this, but I think it's very likely true:

If Men Could Get Pregnant, Abortion Would be a Sacrament

This isn't even funny because its so untrue.

If almost all men were pro-life and almost all women were pro-choice, I'd see what you were saying.

However, the reality is that the pro-life movement is close to even between the two, with a slight leaning, believe it or not, towards women. In other words, there are a (slightly) higher percentage of prolife women as prolife men. At least in the US, that is.

 

[LightSpectra]

Yeah, but not very convincingly.

The commandment not to covet your neighbors wife cannot simply be generalized like that.

Why not?

Not really.

Rabbinical tradition is quite explicit that the commandment forbids abduction.

The etymology of the word rape merely shows that historically the defining factor of rape has not been considered to be the sex act itself, but the fact that the victim is abducted and forced to stay there to suffer the act against her will. A rape that does not meet that criteria (such as statutory rape that is completely voluntary sex where one party is below an arbitrarily defined age of consent) shouldn't really be considered the same crime or be forbidden by the same reasoning.

We're not talking about statutory rape, we're talking about forcible rape. And I don't think showing the Latin etymology is relevant to the Hebrew Bible considering the vast cultural and linguistic differences between the two.

How do you figure? Humans are social creatures and being effective in social constructions allows us to survive more effectively.

But unconditional love is frequently against the norm. If the norm was that rape was acceptable because it gives pleasure to many at the expense of one, an unconditional lover would step forth to defend the oppressed minority. And together they would be persecuted by the majority, as has been the case at many points in history.

How so?

Something has to exist for it to be good. Nothing would exist without a First Mover, whom we call God.

You have completely ignored the thrust of my argument. Free will is the defining quality of a being with agency, and it is how we are capable of according responsibility. If a being does not have free will, it is not responsible for any of its actions - responsibility being a consequence of free will. QED.

So you can be responsible for choosing to use a tool (gunpowder) for wicked purposes if you have free agency. But you are not responsible for whether or not you have free agency to begin with, if I may reiterate: we have free will because we have no choice. It is what allows us to be responsible.

My mistake. You are correct. Considered with this depth of complexity, there really is no proper analogy for what free will is. I retract the gunpowder point.

Perhaps, but you'll note that I'm not condemning God for creating evil so much as denying that I have any obligation to consider him a so-called "moral" being for it.

This argument also defends on how much importance you assign to nature vs. nurture and other psychological qualifications, but I understand the point you are trying to make.

Your only grounds for saying that God, all-good, is not a moral being is because He created evil. My argument is that He is not culpable for the evil that His creations have freely chosen to do; He didn't create evil, He only created an environment for which evil can be created by others. Thus I can correctly call Him all-good on those grounds.

But evil cannot exist without free will. I thought morality originated in God. So evil must also originate in God?

Only in an extremely indirect and irrelevant application of the word "originate".

I'm OK with no "meaning" given to me by God, as I can create my own meaning. I reject being told that I have been created for no other purpose than to serve God's will. It is slavery and tyranny and it is wrong.

It's not slavery or tyranny precisely because you have free will. You were created by God to unconditionally love Him and others. You can reject that if you wish, but you have to also accept the implications of that rejection, which is never fulfilling your reason for existing and thus never being complete, perfect.

So the Christian argument is that it is OK that she was raped because it will be made "better" down the road. Wouldn't it be better if she wasn't raped at all? What a truly wicked argument that is. At least my sky has no particular cares one way or the other and cannot be said to be capricious because of it.

How is that a wicked argument? It would have been better either way if the person were never sexually abused, I agree. But I believe it within God's power to make the suffering of it as if it never were at all. In contrast, a nihilistic worldview implies that if a rape survivor does not eventually find happiness, that all the pain would have been meaningless; and happy or not, at death, all of it was a grave injustice that can never be mended.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't know who said this, but I think it's very likely true:

If Men Could Get Pregnant, Abortion Would be a Sacrament

Yea, I think this is seriously in error. It's a weak willed and mean spirited jab. A little funny, sure, but ultimately tripe.

You'll have to forgive me if i don't see the externalities of God's efforts to reduce rape in the future, or if I think inflicting a woman with an unwanted pregnancy isn't "fine."

I don't think it is up to divine externalities to reduce rape in the future. It's something we cause(do you disagree there?) and it's something we need to work to prevent(or there?). I also don't think forcing an unwanted pregnancy is fine, or anything leading up to it. I don't actually see a fundamental source of disagreement here other than a breezy hope on my part that we are strong enough to make good from bad.